Search

During January 1-October 1, 2019, a total of 1,249 measles cases and 22 measles outbreaks were reported in the United States. This represents the most U.S. cases reported in a single year since 1992 (1), and the second highest number of reported outbreaks annually since measles was declared eliminated* in the United States in 2000 (2). Measles is an acute febrile rash illness with an attack rate of approximately 90% in susceptible household contacts (3). Domestic outbreaks can occur when travelers contract measles outside the United States and subsequently transmit infection to unvaccinated persons they expose in the United States. Among the 1,249 measles cases reported in 2019, 1,163 (93%) were associated with the 22 outbreaks, 1,107 (89%) were in patients who were unvaccinated or had an unknown vaccination status, and 119 (10%) measles patients were hospitalized. Closely related outbreaks in New York City (NYC) and New York State (NYS; excluding NYC), with ongoing transmission for nearly 1 year in large and close-knit Orthodox Jewish communities, accounted for 934 (75%) cases during 2019 and threatened the elimination status of measles in the United States. Robust responses in NYC and NYS were effective in controlling transmission before the 1-year mark; however, continued vigilance for additional cases within these communities is essential to determine whether elimination has been sustained. Collaboration between public health authorities and undervaccinated communities is important for preventing outbreaks and limiting transmission. The combination of maintenance of high national vaccination coverage with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine (MMR) and rapid implementation of measles control measures remains the cornerstone for preventing widespread measles transmission (4). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The evidence quality that healthcare personnel vaccination reduces patient mortality and influenza cases is moderate and low, respectively. The evidence quality for the finding that there is no effect on patient hospitalization is low. Overall evidence quality is moderate.Background. Influenza vaccination of healthcare personnel (HCP) is recommended in >40 countries. However, there is controversy surrounding the evidence that HCP vaccination reduces morbidity and mortality among patients. Key factors for developing evidence-based recommendations include quality of evidence, balance of benefits and harms, and values and preferences.Methods. We conducted a systematic review of randomized trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies published through June 2012 to evaluate the effect of HCP influenza vaccination on mortality, hospitalization, and influenza cases in patients of healthcare facilities. We pooled trial results using meta-analysis and assessed evidence quality using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.Results. We identified 4 cluster randomized trials and 4 observational studies conducted in long-term care or hospital settings. Pooled risk ratios across trials for all-cause mortality and influenza-like illness were 0.71 (95% confidence interval [CI], .59–.85) and 0.58 (95% CI, .46–.73), respectively; pooled estimates for all-cause hospitalization and laboratory-confirmed influenza were not statistically significant. The cohort and case-control studies indicated significant protective associations for influenza-like illness and laboratory-confirmed influenza. No studies reported harms to patients. Using GRADE, the quality of the evidence for the effect of HCP vaccination on mortality and influenza cases in patients was moderate and low, respectively. The evidence quality for the effect of HCP vaccination on patient hospitalization was low. The overall evidence quality was moderate.Conclusions. The quality of evidence is higher for mortality than for other outcomes. HCP influenza vaccination can enhance patient safety. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Objectives. We evaluated an intervention designed to identify patients at risk for hepatitis C virus (HCV) through a risk screener used by primary care providers. Methods. A clinical reminder sticker prompted physicians at 3 urban clinics to screen patients for 12 risk factors and order HCV testing if any risks were present. Risk factor data were collected from the sticker; demographic and testing data were extracted from electronic medical records. We used the t test, v2 test, and rank-sum test to compare patients who had and had not been screened and developed an analytic model to identify the incremental value of each element of the screener. Results. Among screened patients, 27.8% (n = 902) were identified as having at least 1 risk factor. Of screened patients with risk factors, 55.4% (n = 500) were tested for HCV. Our analysis showed that 7 elements (injection drug use, intranasal drug use, elevated alanine aminotransferase, transfusions before 1992, ‡ 20 lifetime sex partners, maternal HCV, existing liver disease) accounted for all HCV infections identified. Conclusions. A brief risk screener with a paper-based clinical reminder was effective in increasing HCV testing in a primary care setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the United States, hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is most prevalent among adults born from 1945 through 1965, and approximately 50% to 75% of infected adults are unaware of their infection. Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of birth-cohort screening. Design: Cost-effectiveness simulation. Data Sources: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, U.S. Census, Medicare reimbursement schedule, and published sources. Target Population: Adults born from 1945 through 1965 with 1 or more visits to a primary care provider annually. Time Horizon: Lifetime. Perspective: Societal, health care. Intervention: One-time antibody test of 1945-1965 birth cohort. Outcome Measures: Numbers of cases that were identified and treated and that achieved a sustained viral response; liver disease and death from HCV; medical and productivity costs; qualityadjusted life-years (QALYs); incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Results of Base-Case Analysis: Compared with the status quo, birth-cohort screening identified 808 580 additional cases of chronic HCV infection at a screening cost of $2874 per case identified. Assuming that birth-cohort screening was followed by pegylated interferon and ribavirin (PEG-IFNR) for treated patients, screening increased QALYs by 348 800 and costs by $5.5 billion, for an ICER of $15 700 per QALY gained. Assuming that birth-cohort screening was followed by direct-acting antiviral plus PEG-IFNR treatment for treated patients, screening increased QALYs by 532 200 and costs by $19.0 billion, for an ICER of $35 700 per QALY saved. Results of Sensitivity Analysis: The ICER of birth-cohort screening was most sensitive to sustained viral response of antiviral therapy, the cost of therapy, the discount rate, and the QALY losses assigned to disease states. Limitation: Empirical data on screening and direct-acting antiviral treatment in real-world clinical settings are scarce. Conclusion: Birth-cohort screening for HCV in primary care settings was cost-effective. Primary Funding Source: Division of Viral Hepatitis, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that 4.1 million Americans have been infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) and 75%-80% of them are living with chronic HCV infection, many unaware of their infection. Persons who inject drugs (PWID) account for 57.5% of all persons with HCV antibody (anti-HCV) in the United States. Currently no point-of-care tests for HCV infection are approved for use in the United States. Methods. Surveys and testing for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and anti-HCV were conducted among persons who reported injection drug use in the past 12 months as part of the National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System in 2009. The sensitivity and specificity of point-of-care tests (finger-stick and 2 oral fluid rapid assays) from 3 manufacturers (Chembio, MedMira, and OraSure) were evaluated in field settings in 4 US cities. Results. Sensitivity (78.9%-97.4%) and specificity (80.0%-100.0%) were variable across assays and sites. The highest assay-specific sensitivities achieved for the Chembio, MedMira, and OraSure tests were 94.0%, 78.9% and 97.4%, respectively; the highest specificities were 97.7%, 83.3%, and 100%, respectively. In multivariate analysis, false-negative anti-HCV results were associated with HIV positivity for the Chembio oral assay (adjusted odds ratio, 8.4-9.1; P < .01) in 1 site (New York City). Conclusions. Sensitive rapid anti-HCV assays are appropriate and feasible for high-prevalence, high-risk populations such as PWID, who can be reached through social service settings such as syringe exchange programs and methadone maintenance treatment programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that 3.2 million Americans are living with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and 50%-70% are unaware of their status. Although therapies are available that can suppress or eliminate infection, identifying persons infected with HCV is challenging. Rapid tests could help identify many of these persons more expeditiously. Methods. Three manufacturers, Chembio, OraSure, and MedMira, submitted HCV antibody (anti-HCV) rapid screening assays to the CDC for evaluation and comparison with established anti-HCV screening assays. The panel consisted of 1100 specimens drawn during 1997-1999 from persons reporting injection drug use. Sensitivity and specificity were assessed using 2 reference approaches, one based on the reactivity of samples in an anti-HCV screening assay and the other based on CDC HCV testing algorithm. Results. The sensitivities of the Chembio, MedMira, and OraSure assays across the 2 approaches were 96.2%-98.0%, 86.8%-88.3%, and 97.8%-99.3%, respectively. The 3 assays had specificity of 99.5% or higher with no differences between assays. False rapid assay results were associated with human immunodeficiency virus positivity for both approaches for Chembio and MedMira. Conclusions. Rapid anti-HCV tests can provide sensitive and specific anti-HCV results for high-risk patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives. Information on the process and method of service delivery ¡s sparse for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) testing, and no systematic study has evaluated the relative effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of different HBsAg screening models. To address this need, we compered five specific community- based screening programs. Methods. We funded five HBsAg screening programs to collect information on their design, costs, and outcomes of participants during a six-month observation period. We categorized programs into four types of models. For each model, we calculated the number screened, the number screened as per Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations, and the cost per screening. Results. The models varied by cost per person screened and total number of people screened, but they did not differ meaningfully in the proportion of people screened following CDC recommendations, the proportion of those . screened who tested positive, or the proportion of those who newly tested positive. Conclusions. Integrating screening into outpatient service settings is the most cost-effective method but may not reach all people; needing to be screened. Future research should examine cost-effective methods that expand the reach of screening into communities in outpatient settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses aspects of the racial disparities in the influenza vaccination coverage among children in the U.S. according to the analysis of U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Topics include the estimation of the proportion of the combined seasonal and seasonal only vaccination, the comparison of the proportion of the coverage between Hispanic white and blacks, and the persistence of the disparities in the coverage among adults.

Hepatitis B vaccination and targeted testing for hepatitis C virus (HCV) are recommended for jails with medical services available. This study estimates hepatitis B virus (HBV) and HCV infection prevalence among jail inmates, since most previous studies have been conducted among prison inmates. Prison and jail populations differ: jails hold a wide spectrum of persons for an average of 10–20 days, including persons awaiting arraignment, trial, conviction, or sentencing, while prisons typically hold convicted criminals for at least 1 year. A stratified random sample of sera obtained during routine syphilis testing of inmates entering jails in Chicago (March–April 2000), Detroit (March–August 1999), and San Francisco (June 1999–December 2000) was tested for serologic markers of HBV and HCV infection. All sera had been previously tested for antibody to HIV (anti-HIV). A total of 1,292 serum samples (12% of new inmates) was tested. Antibody to HCV (anti-HCV) prevalence was 13%. Antibody to hepatitis B core antigen (anti-HBc) prevalence was 19%, and hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) prevalence was 0.9%; 12% had serologic evidence of hepatitis B vaccination. Hispanics had high rates of chronic HBV infection (3.6% HBsAg positive) along with Asians (4.7% HBsAg positive). Among HIV-infected persons, 38% were anti-HCV positive and 8.2% were HBsAg positive. Anti-HBc positivity was associated with anti-HCV positivity (aOR = 4.58), anti-HIV positivity (aOR = 2.94), syphilis infection (aOR = 2.10), and previous incarceration (aOR = 1.78). Anti-HCV-positivity was associated with anti-HBc positivity (aOR = 4.44), anti-HIV-positivity (aOR = 2.51), and previous incarceration (aOR = 2.90). Jail entrants had high levels of HCV and HBV infection and HIV co-infection; HBV prevalence was comparable to previous prison studies, and HCV prevalence was lower than prison studies. Hispanics had an unexpectedly high rate of chronic hepatitis B infection and had the lowest rate of hepatitis B vaccination. The finding that hepatitis B vaccination coverage among jail entrants is lower than the general population, despite this population’s increased risk for infection, highlights the need to support vaccination in jail settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives. We measured the prevalence of hepatitis B virus (HBV) immunization and HBV infection among men aged 23 to 29 years who have sex with men. Methods. We analyzed data from 2834 men who have sex with men in 6 US metropolitan areas. Participants were interviewed and tested for serologic markers of immunization and HBV infection in 1998 through 2000. Results. Immunization prevalence was 17.2%; coverage was 21.0% among participants with private physicians or health maintenance organizations and 12.6% among those with no source of health care. Overall, 20.6% had markers of HBV infection, ranging from 13.7% among the youngest to 31.0% among the oldest participants. Among those susceptible to HBV, 93.5% had regular sources of health care, had been tested for HIV, or had been treated for a sexually transmitted disease. Conclusions. Although many young men who have sex with men have access to health care, most are not immunized against HBV. To reduce morbidity from HBV in this population, providers of health care, including sexually transmitted disease and HIV prevention services, should provide vaccinations or referrals for vaccination. (Am J Public Health. 2008;98:839-845. doi:10.21050/AJPH.2006.101915) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The prevalence of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in prisons ranges from 12% to 31%. There are generally accepted-albeit still evolving-guidelines for identification and treatment of hepatitis C in the community. However, there is less agreement among health professionals caring for prisoners about best practices for identification, medical management, and treatment of hepatitis C. Inmates often lack health care before incarceration. In prisons, infected persons could be identified and the management of infection initiated; however, the high prevalence of HCV infection among prisoners would impose a disproportionate cost for hepatitis C care on the correctional system. The optimal solution is for prison and public health systems in the United States to jointly provide targeted HCV testing and standard-of-care hepatitis C medical management, treatment, and prevention programs to prison inmate populations. The authors report on a January 2003 meeting of experts in prison health, public health, hepatology, and infectious diseases and explore the clinical care, prevention, and collaboration needed to provide hepatitis C management in prisoners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]