Background: The success of vaccination programs depends on a complex interplay of logistical, social, and structural factors. The objective of this study was to analyze the different approaches to vaccine administration implemented by several Italian regions since the onset of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Methods: After careful qualitative review of information gathered from scientific articles, official reports (grey literature), contact with regional health authorities, and local health departments, five vaccination strategies across several Italian regions focusing on alternative vaccine providers and/or settings were identified. The innovative practices implemented by different actors covered specific topics and were then examined and described in detail. Results: In Veneto, where prevention departments were the main actor, herpes zoster vaccination coverage for the 65-year-old cohort increased from 44.4% to 54.9%; in Tuscany, family pediatricians administered 64% of all childhood vaccines; in Liguria, pharmacies delivered 70.1% of COVID-19 vaccines, while vaccinating in schools in Taranto led to higher human papilloma virus vaccination rates compared to regional and national averages. Finally, in all the regions, hospitals focused on vaccinating healthcare workers and vulnerable populations. Conclusions: The positive outcomes of these five experiences may, in a context of limited resources, encourage other national and international entities to adopt innovative practices, which offer new perspectives beyond the traditional delivery methods (i.e., local health authority vaccination centers for childhood and adolescent immunizations, and family doctors for adults and the elderly). These strategies suggest the efficacy of specific local approaches favored by regional autonomy in optimizing vaccine distribution and coverage.

Background/Objectives: Adult vaccination remains suboptimal, particularly among older adults and individuals with chronic conditions. Hospitals represent a strategic setting for improving vaccination coverage among these high-risk populations. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated hospital-based interventions aimed at enhancing vaccine uptake in adults aged ≥60 years or 18–64 years with at-risk medical conditions. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. Searches in PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus identified studies published in the last 10 years evaluating hospital-based interventions reporting vaccination uptake. The risk of bias was assessed using validated tools (NOS, RoB 2, ROBINS-I, QI-MQCS). A meta-analysis was conducted for categories with ≥3 eligible studies reporting pre- and post-intervention vaccination coverage in the same population. Results: We included 44 studies. Multi-component strategies (n = 21) showed the most consistent results (e.g., pneumococcal uptake from 2.2% to 43.4%, p < 0.001). Reminder-based interventions (n = 4) achieved influenza coverage increases from 31.0% to 68.0% and a COVID-19 booster uptake boost of +38% after SMS reminders. Educational strategies (n = 11) varied in effectiveness, with one study reporting influenza coverage rising from 1.6% to 12.2% (+662.5%, OR 8.86, p < 0.01). Standing order protocols increased pneumococcal vaccination from 10% to 60% in high-risk adults. Hospital-based catch-up programs improved DTaP-IPV uptake from 56.2% to 80.8% (p < 0.001). For patient education, the pooled OR was 2.11 (95% CI: 1.96–2.27; p < 0.001, I² = 97.2%) under a fixed-effects model, and 2.47 (95% CI: 1.53–3.98; p < 0.001) under a random-effects model. For multi-component strategies, the OR was 2.39 (95% CI: 2.33–2.44; p < 0.001, I² = 98.0%) with fixed effects, and 3.12 (95% CI: 2.49–3.92; p < 0.001) with random effects. No publication bias was detected. Conclusions: Hospital-based interventions, particularly those using multi-component approaches, effectively improve vaccine coverage in older and high-risk adults. Embedding vaccination into routine hospital care offers a scalable opportunity to reduce disparities and enhance population-level protection. Future policies should prioritize the institutional integration of such strategies to support healthy aging and vaccine equity.

Background/Objectives: Maintaining high childhood vaccination coverage is essential to prevent outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases. In Italy, Law No. 119/2017 introduced mandatory childhood immunizations, leading to significant improvements. However, the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted routine services, potentially jeopardizing these gains. This study aimed to evaluate national and regional trends in vaccine coverage across three phases: post-mandate (2015–2016 vs. 2017–2019), pandemic (2017–2019 vs. 2020–2021), and post-pandemic recovery (2020–2021 vs. 2022–2023). Methods: National and regional administrative data on vaccination coverage at 24 months of age were obtained from the Italian Ministry of Health. Temporal trends were analyzed using Joinpoint regression to estimate annual percent changes (APCs), and absolute changes in coverage (Δ) were calculated across defined periods. Pearson correlation coefficients were used to assess associations between baseline coverage and subsequent changes. Results: After the 2017 mandate, coverage increased significantly for varicella (APC = +28.6%), MenB (+22.6%), and measles (+3.4%). Regionally, varicella coverage rose by up to +58.4% in Emilia-Romagna and measles by +11.1% in Campania. During the pandemic, coverage declined for polio (−2.4% in the South) and measles (−6.2% in Abruzzo), while MenB increased in regions with lower initial uptake (r = −0.918, p < 0.001). Post-pandemic, coverage rebounded, with varicella improving by +20.1% in central regions and measles by +13.9% in Abruzzo. A strong inverse correlation between baseline coverage and improvement was observed for varicella across all periods (r from −0.877 to −0.915). Conclusions: Mandatory vaccination policies led to substantial coverage improvements, and despite the disruption caused by the pandemic, recovery trends were observed for most vaccines. The consistent association between low baseline coverage and stronger gains highlights the resilience of the system, but also the ongoing need for regionally tailored strategies to reduce geographic disparities and ensure equitable immunization across Italy.

Background/Objectives: Vaccines have been recognized as one of the most effective public health interventions. However, vaccine-associated anaphylaxis, although rare, is a serious adverse reaction. The incidence of anaphylaxis related to non-COVID-19 vaccines in adults remains underreported. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to estimate the incidence of post-vaccination anaphylaxis across various vaccines in adults. Methods: A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science identified studies on anaphylaxis following vaccination in adults (≥18 years), excluding COVID-19 vaccines. PRISMA 2020 guidelines were followed. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO in advance (ID CRD42024566928). Random-effects and fixed-effects models were used to pool data and estimate the logit proportion, with the logit-transformed proportion serving as the effect size, thereby allowing for the calculation of event rates. Results: A total of 37 studies were included in the systematic review, with 22 studies contributing to the meta-analysis, representing a combined population of 206,855,261 participants. Most studies focused on influenza vaccines (n = 15). Across all studies, 262 anaphylactic cases were reported, with 153 cases related to influenza vaccines, followed by herpes zoster virus vaccines (38 cases) and yellow fever vaccines (29 cases). Td/Tdap vaccine had the lowest rate (0.0001 per 100,000 participants). The overall random-effects model yielded a logit proportion of −10.45 (95% CI: −12.09 to −8.82, p < 0.001), corresponding to an event rate of 2.91 events per 100,000 subjects (95% CI: 0.56 to 14.73). Sensitivity analysis showed a higher incidence for influenza, hepatitis vaccines, and in vulnerable populations. Conclusions: Anaphylaxis following vaccination in adults is rare but varies by vaccine type. Strengthened monitoring and preparedness are essential, especially in non-medical settings, to ensure a rapid response to anaphylaxis and maintain public confidence in vaccination programs.