Infectious Diseases Society of America.

Food allergy is an important public health problem that affects children and adults and may be increasing in prevalence. Despite the risk of severe allergic reactions and even death, there is no current treatment for food allergy: the disease can only be managed by allergen avoidance or treatment of symptoms. The diagnosis and management of food allergy also may vary from one clinical practice setting to another. Finally, because patients frequently confuse nonallergic food reactions, such as food intolerance, with food allergies, there is an unfounded belief among the public that food allergy prevalence is higher than it truly is. In response to these concerns, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, working with 34 professional organizations, federal agencies, and patient advocacy groups, led the development of clinical guidelines for the diagnosis and management of food allergy. These Guidelines are intended for use by a wide variety of health care professionals, including family practice physicians, clinical specialists, and nurse practitioners. The Guidelines include a consensus definition for food allergy, discuss comorbid conditions often associated with food allergy, and focus on both IgE-mediated and non-IgE-mediated reactions to food. Topics addressed include the epidemiology, natural history, diagnosis, and management of food allergy, as well as the management of severe symptoms and anaphylaxis. These Guidelines provide 43 concise clinical recommendations and additional guidance on points of current controversy in patient management. They also identify gaps in the current scientific knowledge to be addressed through future research.

/pdf/guidelines-for-the-diagnosis-and-management-of-food-allergy-3ktbybxq5o.pdf

Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Food Allergy in the United States: Summary of the NIAID-Sponsored Expert Panel Report

Since the 2006 update of the American Heart Association (AHA)/American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) guidelines on secondary prevention,1 important evidence from clinical trials has emerged that further supports and broadens the merits of intensive risk-reduction therapies for patients with established coronary and other atherosclerotic vascular disease, including peripheral artery disease, atherosclerotic aortic disease, and carotid artery disease. In reviewing this evidence and its clinical impact, the writing group believed it would be more appropriate to expand the title of this guideline to “Secondary Prevention and Risk Reduction Therapy for Patients With Coronary and Other Atherosclerotic Vascular Disease.” Indeed, the growing body of evidence confirms that in patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease, comprehensive risk factor management reduces risk as assessed by a variety of outcomes, including improved survival, reduced recurrent events, the need for revascularization procedures, and improved quality of life. It is important not only that the healthcare provider implement these recommendations in appropriate patients but also that healthcare systems support this implementation to maximize the benefit to the patient.

Compelling evidence-based results from recent clinical trials and revised practice guidelines provide the impetus for this update of the 2006 recommendations with evidence-based results2–165 (Table 1). Classification of recommendations and level of evidence are expressed in ACCF/AHA format, as detailed in Table 2. Recommendations made herein are largely based on major practice guidelines from the National Institutes of Health and updated ACCF/AHA practice guidelines, as well as on results from recent clinical trials. Thus, the development of the present guideline involved a process of partial adaptation of other guideline statements and reports and supplemental literature searches. The recommendations listed in this document are, whenever possible, evidence based. Writing group members performed these relevant supplemental literature searches with key search phrases including but not limited …

https://cdr.lib.unc.edu/downloads/nk322g582

AHA/ACCF Secondary Prevention and Risk Reduction Therapy for Patients With Coronary and Other Atherosclerotic Vascular Disease: 2011 Update A Guideline From the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology Foundation

This report updates the 2009 recommendations by CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) regarding the use of influenza vaccine for the prevention and control of influenza (CDC. Prevention and control of influenza: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP]. MMWR 2009;58[No. RR-8] and CDC. Use of influenza A (H1N1) 2009 monovalent vaccine---recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP], 2009. MMWR 2009;58:[No. RR-10]). The 2010 influenza recommendations include new and updated information. Highlights of the 2010 recommendations include 1) a recommendation that annual vaccination be administered to all persons aged >or=6 months for the 2010-11 influenza season; 2) a recommendation that children aged 6 months--8 years whose vaccination status is unknown or who have never received seasonal influenza vaccine before (or who received seasonal vaccine for the first time in 2009-10 but received only 1 dose in their first year of vaccination) as well as children who did not receive at least 1 dose of an influenza A (H1N1) 2009 monovalent vaccine regardless of previous influenza vaccine history should receive 2 doses of a 2010-11 seasonal influenza vaccine (minimum interval: 4 weeks) during the 2010--11 season; 3) a recommendation that vaccines containing the 2010-11 trivalent vaccine virus strains A/California/7/2009 (H1N1)-like (the same strain as was used for 2009 H1N1 monovalent vaccines), A/Perth/16/2009 (H3N2)-like, and B/Brisbane/60/2008-like antigens be used; 4) information about Fluzone High-Dose, a newly approved vaccine for persons aged >or=65 years; and 5) information about other standard-dose newly approved influenza vaccines and previously approved vaccines with expanded age indications. Vaccination efforts should begin as soon as the 2010-11 seasonal influenza vaccine is available and continue through the influenza season. These recommendations also include a summary of safety data for U.S.-licensed influenza vaccines. These recommendations and other information are available at CDC's influenza website (http://www.cdc.gov/flu); any updates or supplements that might be required during the 2010-11 influenza season also will be available at this website. Recommendations for influenza diagnosis and antiviral use will be published before the start of the 2010-11 influenza season. Vaccination and health-care providers should be alert to announcements of recommendation updates and should check the CDC influenza website periodically for additional information.

/pdf/prevention-and-control-of-seasonal-influenza-with-vaccines-4j4sn7f6zr.pdf

Prevention and control of seasonal influenza with vaccines: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), 2009.

Summary Background No published meta-analyses have assessed efficacy and effectiveness of licensed influenza vaccines in the USA with sensitive and highly specific diagnostic tests to confirm influenza. Methods We searched Medline for randomised controlled trials assessing a relative reduction in influenza risk of all circulating influenza viruses during individual seasons after vaccination (efficacy) and observational studies meeting inclusion criteria (effectiveness). Eligible articles were published between Jan 1, 1967, and Feb 15, 2011, and used RT-PCR or culture for confirmation of influenza. We excluded some studies on the basis of study design and vaccine characteristics. We estimated random-effects pooled efficacy for trivalent inactivated vaccine (TIV) and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) when data were available for statistical analysis (eg, at least three studies that assessed comparable age groups). Findings We screened 5707 articles and identified 31 eligible studies (17 randomised controlled trials and 14 observational studies). Efficacy of TIV was shown in eight (67%) of the 12 seasons analysed in ten randomised controlled trials (pooled efficacy 59% [95% CI 51–67] in adults aged 18–65 years). No such trials met inclusion criteria for children aged 2–17 years or adults aged 65 years or older. Efficacy of LAIV was shown in nine (75%) of the 12 seasons analysed in ten randomised controlled trials (pooled efficacy 83% [69–91]) in children aged 6 months to 7 years. No such trials met inclusion criteria for children aged 8–17 years. Vaccine effectiveness was variable for seasonal influenza: six (35%) of 17 analyses in nine studies showed significant protection against medically attended influenza in the outpatient or inpatient setting. Median monovalent pandemic H1N1 vaccine effectiveness in five observational studies was 69% (range 60–93). Interpretation Influenza vaccines can provide moderate protection against virologically confirmed influenza, but such protection is greatly reduced or absent in some seasons. Evidence for protection in adults aged 65 years or older is lacking. LAIVs consistently show highest efficacy in young children (aged 6 months to 7 years). New vaccines with improved clinical efficacy and effectiveness are needed to further reduce influenza-related morbidity and mortality. Funding Alfred P Sloan Foundation.

/pdf/efficacy-and-effectiveness-of-influenza-vaccines-a-1oy0nz0810.pdf

Efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Influenza Vaccination Among Adults with Asthma: Findings from the 2007 BRFSS Survey

In 2005, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended that the newly licensed tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine replace a single decennial dose of tetanus diphtheria (Td) vaccine for persons aged 10-64 years. According to these recommendations, Tdap may be used to protect against pertussis even when <10 years have passed since the most recent tetanus vaccination. For adults with infant contact and health-care personnel (HCP) with direct patient contact (two groups at increased risk for transmitting pertussis to those who are most susceptible), the single recommended Tdap dose is suggested to be administered as soon as 2 years after the last tetanus vaccination. To assess changes in tetanus vaccination coverage and the use of Tdap among U.S. adults, CDC analyzed data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) for 1999 and 2008. This report summarizes the results of that analysis, which indicated that self-reported tetanus vaccination coverage (vaccination within the preceding 10 years) was 60.4% in 1999 and 61.6% in 2008. Among adults aged 18-64 years, Tdap coverage was estimated to be 5.9% in 2008. Of those who reported receiving a tetanus vaccination during 2005-2008, 52.0% reported receiving Tdap. Tdap vaccination coverage among adults with infant contact was 5.0% and among HCP was 15.9%. Of those adults with infant contact and HCP who had received a tetanus vaccination during 2005-2008, 60.0% and 60.3% reported receiving Tdap, respectively. Health-care providers should recommend Tdap vaccination to adults aged 18-64 years whose most recent tetanus vaccination was ≥10 years prior; the interval for HCP and persons with infant contact can be as short as 2 years.

Tetanus and pertussis vaccination coverage among adults aged ≥18 years - United States, 1999 and 2008.

Influenza vaccination coverage among health-care personnel - 2011-12 influenza season, United States.

Workplace efforts to promote influenza vaccination among healthcare personnel and their association with uptake during the 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1).

Background and Objectives: Although an effective vaccine against hepatitis B has been licensed in the United States since 1981, and successful childhood vaccination programs have been implemented, hepatitis B virus transmission continues to occur among high-risk adults. In this study, we identified factors associated with receipt of one or more doses of hepatitis B vaccine among adults at high risk for hepatitis B infection. Methods: We analyzed data from the 2000 National Health Interview Survey of selected adults ages 18‐49 years who were at high risk for hepatitis B infection (n=1,036). Multivariable regression analysis was conducted to determine factors independently associated with vaccination. Results: Although more than 80% (n=841) of high-risk adults reported previous visits to a clinician during the past year, only 30% (n=498) of men and 31% (n=538) of women reported having received a single dose of hepatitis B vaccine. Young age (18‐29 years), never being married, past blood donation, and past human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing were independently associated with receiving vaccination for men. For women, young age (18‐29 years) and previous vaccinations were significant factors associated with vaccination receipt. Additionally, having a primary care source (men) and seeing an obstetrician-gynecologist provider in the past year (women) were significantly associated with vaccination. Conclusions: Hepatitis B vaccination rates for high-risk adults are low, and missed opportunities are frequent. Additional strategies are needed to increase immunization rates of adults at high risk for hepatitis B.

Factors associated with receiving hepatitis B vaccination among high-risk adults in the United States: an analysis of the National Health Interview Survey, 2000.

Gary L. Euler

Papers

Influenza Vaccination Among Adults with Asthma: Findings from the 2007 BRFSS Survey

Tetanus and pertussis vaccination coverage among adults aged ≥18 years - United States, 1999 and 2008.

Influenza vaccination coverage among health-care personnel - 2011-12 influenza season, United States.

Workplace efforts to promote influenza vaccination among healthcare personnel and their association with uptake during the 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1).

Factors associated with receiving hepatitis B vaccination among high-risk adults in the United States: an analysis of the National Health Interview Survey, 2000.