This report updates the 2002 recommendations by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) on the use of influenza vaccine and antiviral agents (CDC. Prevention and Control of Influenza: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP]. MMWR 2002;51 [No. RR-3]:1-31). The 2003 recommendations include new or updated information regarding 1) the timing of influenza vaccination by age and risk group; 2) influenza vaccine for children aged 6-23 months; 3) the 2003-2004 trivalent inactivated vaccine virus strains: A/Moscow/10/99 (H3N2)-like, A/New Caledonia/20/99 (H1N1)-like, and B/Hong Kong/330/2001-like antigens (for the A/Moscow/10/99 [H3N2]-like antigen, manufacturers will use the antigenically equivalent A/Panama/2007/99 [H3N2] virus, and for the B/Hong Kong/330/2001-like antigen, manufacturers will use either B/Hong Kong/330/2001 or the antigenically equivalent B/Hong Kong/1434/2002); 4) availability of certain influenza vaccine doses with reduced thimerosal content, including single 0.25 mL-dose syringes; and 5) manufacturers of influenza vaccine for the U.S. market. Although the optimal time to vaccinate against influenza is October and November, vaccination in December and later continues to be strongly recommended A link to this report and other information regarding influenza can be accessed at http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/flu/fluvirus.htm.

https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/6625/cdc_6625_DS1.pdf

Prevention and control of influenza : recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) : Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) : Quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine : recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)

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

https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(06)68175-0.pdf

Guillain-Barré syndrome

Addressing health disparities in early childhood

Vaccine Preventable Diseases: Part 2: Public Health Surveillance for Vaccine Adverse Events

Moral Injury Among US Public Health Service First Responders During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Zu den jungeren Beispielen der wichtigsten Leistungen von Impfungen im Bereich der offentlichen Gesundheit zahlen der weltweite Ruckgang der Masernmortalitat sowie ein Rekordtief bei den durch Impfung vermeidbaren Erkrankungen in den USA. Dennoch konnen sich tatsachliche oder wahrgenommene Probleme im Bereich der Impfstoffsicherheit nachteilig auf Impfprogramme auswirken. Eine solide Uberwachung der Impfstoffsicherheit nach der Impfstoffzulassung in Form einer Kombination aus aktiver und passiver Uberwachung mit einheitlichen Falldefinitionen fur unerwunschte Arzneimittelwirkungen bildet die wissenschaftliche Grundlage fur die Bewertung von Bedenken zur Impfstoffsicherheit. Zu den neu in Erscheinung tretenden wissenschaftlichen Aspekten der Impfstoffsicherheit zahlen klinische Forschungsnetzwerke und Untersuchungen zur Risikokommunikation im Zusammenhang mit Impfstoffen. Die Fragen im Bereich der Impfstoffsicherheit, die derzeit die meiste Beachtung finden, betreffen die Einfuhrung zweier Rotavirus-Impfstoffe der zweiten Generation, die streng auf eventuelle Invaginationen nach der Impfung uberwacht werden mussen. Bisher liegen aus den USA keine Daten vor, die ein erhohtes Risiko im Zusammenhang mit dem zugelassenen Impfstoff der Firma Merck (Rotateq®) vermuten lassen. Ein Problem von weltweitem Interesse ist die Verwendung des Konservierungsstoffes Thiomersal bei Impfstoffen in Mehrfachdosen. Umfassende unabhangige Untersuchungen sowie jungst veroffentlichte Studien haben erneut bestatigt, dass kein Zu- sammenhang zwischen Thiomersal und neurologischen Entwicklungsstorungen, u.a. Autismus, besteht. Eine Uberwachung der Impfstoffsicherheit sollte auch im Rahmen des vermehrten Einsatzes der jahrlich neu zusammengesetzten Grippeimpfstoffe sowie bei der Pandemieplanung in Industrie- und Entwicklungslandern berucksichtigt werden. Mit der steigenden Zahl von neu zugelassenen Impfstoffen zeichnet sich eine Zunahme der moglicherweise vermeidbaren Fehler bei der Impfstoffverabreichung und der unerwunschten Ereignisse nach Impfung, z.B. Synkopen, ab. Die in der Erstversorgung tatigen Arzte und sonstige an der Verabreichung von Impfstoffen beteiligte Mitarbeiter des Gesundheitswesens sollten auf die ordnungsgemasse Lagerung, Handhabung und Verabreichung der Impfstoffe achten und sich an Meldesystemen fur unerwunschte Ereignisse nach Immunisierung (Adverse Events Following Immunization, AEFI) beteiligen. Die Brighton Collaboration, an der sich interessierte Arzte und Forscher beteiligen konnen, ist eine weitere Moglichkeit, die weltweite Wissensbasis zur Impfstoffsicherheit auszubauen. Mit besserer Kenntnis der Systeme zur Erhohung der Impfstoffsicherheit und vermehrter Beteiligung an diesen Systemen auf allen Ebenen des Gesundheitssystems, sowohl in Industrie- als auch in Entwicklungslandern, wird es gelingen, auch kunftig fur eine hervorragende Impfstoffsicherheit zu sorgen, da die Daten zur Impfstoffsicherheit zur standigen Verbesserung der Impfpraxis eingesetzt werden.

Kernfragen der Impfstoffsicherheit

Abstract During 2001–2002, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), at the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, collaborated with the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) at the United States Department of Labor to conduct a voluntary survey of U.S. employers regarding the use of respiratory protective devices. In 2003, the survey results were jointly published by NIOSH and BLS. This study highlights and evaluates the scientific impact of the 2001–2002 survey by using the Science Impact Framework which provides a historical tracking method with five domains of influence. The authors conducted interviews with original project management as well as a thorough document review and qualitative content analysis of published papers, books, presentations, and other relevant print media. A semi-structured and cross-vetted coding was applied across the five domains: Disseminating Science, Creating Awareness, Catalyzing Action, Effecting Change, and Shaping the Future. The 2001–2002 survey findings greatly enhanced understanding and awareness of respirator use in occupational settings within the United States. It also led to similar surveys in other countries, regulatory initiatives by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and Mine Safety and Health Administration, and ultimately to a renewed partnership between NIOSH and BLS to collect contemporary estimates of respirator use in the workplace within the United States.

/pdf/applying-the-cdc-science-impact-framework-to-the-results-of-f9o60k3c.pdf

Applying the CDC Science Impact Framework to the results of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and the Bureau of Labor Statistics 2001 survey of respirator use and practices

John K. Iskander

Papers

Addressing health disparities in early childhood

Vaccine Preventable Diseases: Part 2: Public Health Surveillance for Vaccine Adverse Events

Moral Injury Among US Public Health Service First Responders During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Kernfragen der Impfstoffsicherheit

Applying the CDC Science Impact Framework to the results of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and the Bureau of Labor Statistics 2001 survey of respirator use and practices