This article summarizes what is currently known about the 2019 novel coronavirus and offers interim guidance.

BACKGROUND: Seasonal influenza causes substantial morbidity and mortality among older U.S. adults and those with comorbid health conditions. OBJECTIVE: To describe seasonal influenza vaccine uptake and identify factors associated with missed opportunities for influenza vaccination. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Medicare fee-for-service claims. PARTICIPANTS: 31.6 million U.S. adults continuously enrolled under Medicare Parts A and B during the 2018 to 2019 influenza season. MEASUREMENTS: Influenza vaccine uptake and missed opportunities by patient demographic characteristics, high-risk status (that is, ≥1 condition increasing influenza complication risk), Medicare-Medicaid dual-eligibility status, and health care provider visits (that is, vaccination opportunities). RESULTS: Overall, 50.5% of beneficiaries aged 19 years or older had Medicare claims for influenza vaccination: 31.6% among people aged 19 to 64 years and 54% among people aged 65 years or older. More White beneficiaries were vaccinated (52.9%) than Black (34.9%) or Hispanic (30.4%) beneficiaries. Uptake was higher (56.1%) for beneficiaries with high-risk conditions than for those without (27.6%). Among unvaccinated beneficiaries overall, 77.4% visited a provider during influenza season; among unvaccinated beneficiaries with and without high-risk conditions, 91% and 43%, respectively, had seen a provider at least once. The proportion of beneficiaries with missed opportunities for influenza vaccination was 44.2% and was higher for beneficiaries in the non-high-risk group (59.1%) than those in the high-risk group (42.2%). Uptake was lower and proportions of missed opportunities were higher among beneficiaries in younger age groups, of Black and Hispanic race/ethnicity, without high-risk conditions, or with Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility. LIMITATIONS: Influenza vaccinations without claims could not be captured. Data on reasons for nonvaccination were unavailable. CONCLUSION: Influenza vaccination coverage for Medicare beneficiaries continues to be suboptimal, with missed opportunities despite availability of influenza vaccination with no copayment. Disparities persist in vaccination uptake by race/ethnicity. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

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).

OBJECTIVE: To quantify vaccinations administered outside minimum and maximum recommended ages and to determine attendant costs of revaccination by analyzing immunization information system (IIS) records. STUDY DESIGN: We analyzed deidentified records of doses administered during 2014 to persons aged <18 years within 6 IIS sentinel sites (10% of the US population). We quantified doses administered outside of recommended ages according to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices childhood immunization schedule and prescribing information in package inserts, and calculated revaccination costs. To minimize misreporting bias, we analyzed publicly funded doses for which reported lot numbers and vaccine types were consistent. RESULTS: Among 3 394 047 doses with maximum age recommendations, 9755 (0.3%) were given after the maximum age. One type of maximum age violation required revaccination: 1344 (0.7%) of 194 934 doses of the 0.25-mL prefilled syringe formulation of quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (Fluzone Quadrivalent, Sanofi Pasteur, Swiftwater, PA) were administered at age >/=36 months (revaccination cost, $111 964). We identified a total of 7 529 165 childhood, adolescent, and lifespan doses with minimum age recommendations, 9542 of which (0.1%) were administered before the minimum age. The most common among these violations were quadrivalent injectable influenza vaccines (3835, or 0.7% of 526 110 doses administered before age 36 months) and Kinrix (GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals, Rixensart, Belgium; DTaP-IPV) (2509, or 1.2% of 208 218 doses administered before age 48 months). The cost of revaccination for minimum age violations (where recommended) was $179 179. CONCLUSION: Administration of vaccines outside recommended minimum and maximum ages is rare, reflecting a general adherence to recommendations. Error rates were higher for several vaccines, some requiring revaccination. Vaccine schedule complexity and confusion among similar products might contribute to errors. Minimization of errors reduces wastage, excess cost, and inconvenience for parents and patients.

Macartney et al1 report in this issue of JAMA Pediatrics on the safety of using combination measles-mumps-rubella-varicella (MMRV) vaccine as the second dose of measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine and sole dose of varicella vaccine in Australia, and the effect of this policy on national vaccine coverage. They found that there was no increase in febrile seizures when MMRV is administered in the second year of life approximately 6 months after a first dose of MMR and that on-time vaccination increased with use of MMRV. Are these findings an indication that the timing and use of combination MMRV vaccine should be reconsidered for the United States? | In the United States, since measles vaccine was first recommended in 1963, the measles vaccination schedule changed as knowledge of measles immunity increased and the epidemiology of measles evolved. An analysis of measles outbreaks occurring from 1985 to 1986 showed that outbreaks in which preschoolers predominated were largely related to failure to receive any doses of vaccine. In contrast, in outbreaks that affected primarily school-aged children, the major problem was 1-dose vaccine failure.2,3 In 1989, because of measles outbreaks among school-aged children, the US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended 2 doses, with the first dose at age 15 months and the second dose at age 4 through 6 years, before school entry. Because of the success of the measles vaccination program in achieving and maintaining high1-dose MMR vaccine coverage in preschool-aged children and high 2-dose MMR vaccine coverage in school-aged children, measles was verified as eliminated from the United States in 2000.4

Quadrivalent human papillomavirus (4vHPV) vaccine was licensed for use in the United States in 2006 and through 2015 was the predominate HPV vaccine used. With the exception of syncope, a known preventable adverse event after any injected vaccination, both pre-licensure and post-licensure 4vHPV safety data have been reassuring with no confirmed safety signals identified. Nine-valent HPV vaccine (9vHPV) was licensed in 2014. This review includes post-licensure 4vHPV safety findings published to date that have informed the US vaccination program; these data will inform US safety monitoring and evaluation for 9vHPV.

Many studies have documented the reduction of HPV vaccine type prevalence, cervical lesions, and genital warts in adolescent girls in the years since the introduction of the first HPV vaccine in 2006 (Markowitz et al., 2014, Hariri et al., 2015, Smith et al., 2015). In addition, HPV vaccines have been found to be quite safe: clinical trials and numerous post-licensure safety studies have found no consistent evidence of causal association of HPV vaccination with prespecified health conditions including Guillain–Barré syndrome, stroke, venous thromboembolism, appendicitis, seizures, allergic reactions, anaphylaxis, autoimmune disorders, or a variety of neurologic conditions (Markowitz et al., 2014). However, a number of countries have received, and continue to receive, reports alleging the association of HPV vaccination with a variety of adverse health events, many of which have been systematically investigated and no causal relationships found (Wilson et al., 2015). Reports have engendered a spectrum of immunization program responses (Wilson et al., 2015). In 2013, subsequent to a concern about Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) after receipt of HPV 16/18 vaccine, Japan temporarily suspended the national HPV vaccination recommendation. In this issue of EBioMedicine, the risk of CRPS after receipt of HPV 16/18 vaccine is explored in a study by Huygen et al. (2015).

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.

BACKGROUND: Testing for patients at risk for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is recommended, but it is unclear whether providers adhere to testing guidelines. We aimed to measure adherence to an HCV screening protocol during a multifaceted continuous intervention. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Prospective cohort design to examine the associations between patient-level, physician-level, and visit-level characteristics and adherence to an HCV screening protocol. Study participants included all patients with a visit to 1 of the 3 study clinics and the physicians who cared for them. Adherence to the HCV screening protocol and patient-level, physician-level, and visit-level predictors of adherence were measured. RESULTS: A total of 8981 patients and 154 physicians were examined. Overall protocol adherence rate was 36.1%. In multivariate analysis, patient male sex (odds ratio [OR] = 1.18), new patient (OR = 1.23), morning visit (OR = 1.32), and patients' preferred language being non-English (OR = 0.87) were significantly associated with screening adherence. There was a wide variation in overall adherence among physicians (range, 0%-92.4%). Screening adherence continuously declined from 59.1% in week 1 of the study to 13.7% in week 15 (final week). When implementing complex clinical practice guidelines, planners should address physician attitudinal barriers as well as gaps in knowledge to maximize adherence.

Children aged <9 years may require two doses of influenza vaccine to achieve an adequate immune response to protect against the disease. We analyzed data for >2 million children in each influenza season from 2007 to 2012 from eight Immunization Information System Sentinel Sites to assess trends in two-dose compliance. Compliance was calculated by influenza season, age group, and influenza vaccination history. Two-dose compliance increased from 49% to 60% among 6-23 month olds from 2007 to 2012; no increase was observed for 2-4 or 5-8 year olds. In each season, compliance was 3-12 times higher among 6-23 month olds compared to older children and was two times higher among influenza vaccine naive children compared to previously vaccinated children. Improved messaging for providers and parents about the importance of the two-dose recommendation, about which children are eligible for two doses, and provider access to complete influenza vaccination histories for all children are needed.

In the United States recording accurate vaccine lot numbers in immunization records is required by the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and is necessary for public health surveillance and implementation of vaccine product recalls. However, this information is often missing or inaccurate in records. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires a linear barcode of the National Drug Code (NDC) on vaccine product labels as a medication verification measure, but lot number and expiration date must still be recorded by hand. Beginning in 2011, FDA permitted manufacturers to replace linear barcodes with two-dimensional (2D) barcodes on unit-of-use product labels. A 2D barcode can contain the NDC, expiration date, and lot number in a symbol small enough to fit on a unit-of-use label. All three data elements could be scanned into a patient record. To assess 2D barcodes' potential impacts, a mixed-methods approach of time-motion data analysis, interview and survey data collection, and cost-benefit analysis was employed. Analysis of a time-motion study conducted at 33 practices suggests scanning 2D-barcoded vaccines could reduce immunization documentation time by 36-39s per dose. Data from an internet survey of primary care providers and local health officials indicate that 60% of pediatric practices, 54% of family medicine practices, and 39% of health departments would use the 2D barcode, with more indicating they would do so if they used electronic health records. Inclusive of manufacturer and immunization provider costs and benefits, we forecast lower-bound net benefits to be $310-334 million between 2011 and 2023 with a benefit-to-cost ratio of 3.1:1-3.2:1. Although we were unable to monetize benefits for expected improved immunization coverage, surveillance, or reduced medication errors, based on our findings, we expect that using 2D barcodes will lower vaccine documentation costs, facilitate data capture, and enhance immunization data quality.

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, chi(2) 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. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print September 20, 2012: e1-e7. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2012.300659).

BACKGROUND: Approximately 4.1 million Americans are estimated to have been infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV), 45-85% of whom are unaware of their infection. Persons who inject drugs (PWID) account for 55.8% of all persons with HCV antibody (anti-HCV) in the U.S. PWID have limited access to healthcare and are infrequently tested for anti-HCV using conventional laboratory assays. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate performance characteristics (sensitivity and specificity) of three, pre-market rapid point-of-care tests (one oral fluid and two finger-stick assays) from two manufacturers (Chembio and MedMira) in settings providing services to young adult PWID in San Diego, CA. STUDY DESIGN: Behavioral risk assessment surveys and testing for HCV were conducted among persons who reported injection drug use (IDU) within the past 6 months as part of the Study to Assess Hepatitis C Risk (STAHR) among PWID aged 18-40 years in 2009-2010. Sensitivity and specificity of the rapid anti-HCV assays were evaluated among STAHR participants, using two commonly used testing algorithms. RESULTS: Variability in sensitivity (76.6-97.1%) and specificity (99.0-100.0%) was found across assays. The highest sensitivity achieved for the Chembio finger-stick blood, Chembio oral fluid and MedMira finger-stick blood tests was 97.1%, 85.4% and 80.0% respectively; the highest specificity was 99.0%, 100.0% and 100.0%, respectively. In multivariate analysis false negative anti-HCV results were associated with female sex for the MedMira blood assay. CONCLUSIONS: Sensitive anti-HCV rapid assays are appropriate and feasible for high-prevalence, high-risk populations such as young PWID.

BACKGROUND: An estimated 3.2 million persons are chronically infected with the hepatitis C virus (HCV) in the U.S. Effective treatment is available, but approximately 50% of patients are not aware that they are infected. Optimal testing strategies have not been described. METHODS: The Hepatitis C Assessment and Testing Project (HepCAT) was a serial cross-sectional evaluation of two community-based interventions designed to increase HCV testing in urban primary care clinics in comparison with a baseline period. The first intervention (risk-based screener) prompted physicians to order HCV tests based on the presence of HCV-related risks. The second intervention (birth cohort) prompted physicians to order HCV tests on all patients born within a high-prevalence birth cohort (1945-1964). The study was conducted at three primary care clinics in the Bronx, New York. RESULTS: Both interventions were associated with an increased proportion of patients tested for HCV from 6.0% at baseline to 13.1% during the risk-based screener period (P<0.001) and 9.9% during the birth cohort period (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Two simple clinical reminder interventions were associated with significantly increased HCV testing rates. Our findings suggest that HCV screening programs, using either a risk-based or birth cohort strategy, should be adopted in primary care settings so that HCV-infected patients may benefit from antiviral treatment.

Vaccines are among the greatest public health achievements of the 20th century (1). The majority of Healthy People 2010 (HP2010) objectives for early childhood vaccination coverage were met by the end of 2010 (2), and progress has been made toward eliminating disparities in vaccination coverage among children (3,4). Remarkable progress also has been made in improving coverage and reducing disparities in coverage for adolescent vaccinations recommended since 2005 (5). Although childhood vaccination programs in the United States have been successful, adolescent programs remain relatively new and adult vaccination programs, although well established, have not achieved acceptable levels of success. Among adults, substantial disparities in vaccination coverage have persisted (6--10). A particular challenge for prevention of influenza is the need for annual vaccination. During 1989--1999, national influenza vaccination coverage among persons aged ≥65 years increased each year for all racial/ethnic groups; however, the rate of increase slowed during 1997--2001, and vaccination coverage among non-Hispanic blacks and Hispanics remained lower compared with non-Hispanic whites throughout the entire period (1989--2001) (11). | | To examine racial/ethnic disparities in influenza vaccination coverage among all persons aged ≥6 months for the 2009--10 influenza season as well as trends in racial/ethnic disparities in influenza vaccination coverage for the 2000--01 through 2009--10 influenza seasons among adults aged ≥65 years, CDC analyzed data from the 2002--2010 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) questionnaire and the National 2009 H1N1 Flu Survey (NHFS). Racial/ethnic disparities were focused on because these disparities in vaccination coverage have been documented (11--13) more extensively compared with other disparity domains (e.g., sex, income, education, and disability status). State-level estimates have been published previously (14,15) and are not included in this report.

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 infections. 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, 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. INTERVENTIONS: 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; quality-adjusted 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 (pegIFN+R) and ribavirin 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 a direct-acting antiviral, pegIFN+R 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 rate 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.

SUMMARY: Performance characteristics of rapid assays for hepatitis C virus antibody were evaluated in 4 National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System injection drug use 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. 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.

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.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends routine screening for the hepatitis C virus antibody (anti- HCV) among persons most likely to be infected. Little is known about anti-HCV screening and prevalence in routine practice settings. We studied anti-HCV screening rates, anti-HCV positivity, and demographic and risk factors associated with increased likelihood of anti-HCV screening or positivity in a managed care organization (MCO). METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study of 17-to-74-year-old MCO enrollees from 2000 to 2007 (N = 557,056; 1,949,499 enrollee years). The primary outcome measures were likelihood of anti-HCV screening and HCV positivity (both in the total population and among those screened). Independent variables were: birth cohort, gender, HCV risk factors, and socioeconomic status (SES) and race of residents' neighborhoods. Likelihood of each outcome as a function of the independent variables was estimated using logistic regression. RESULTS: Over the 8-year period, 4.31% of the total population received anti-HCV screening; 0.22% had a positive HCV result. Among those screened, HCV positivity was 5.15%. HCV screening and positivity rates increased over time. Both likelihood of HCV screening and HCV positivity were highest (P <0.05) among persons born during 1945-1964, males, those with HCV risk factors, and residents of neighborhoods of lower SES or with higher percentages of African Americans. CONCLUSIONS: Although HCV screening and detection improved in this MCO over an 8-year period, anti-HCV screening was lower than expected. Many persons at risk for HCV remained unscreened. Strategies for improving anti-HCV screening in routine practice are recommended for patients at increased risk.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 43,000 new hepatitis B virus (HBV) infections occurred in 2007. Although hepB vaccination has been recommended for adults at high-risk for incident HBV infection for many years, coverage remains low. METHODS: We used the 2009 National Health Interview Survey to assess self-reported HepB vaccine uptake (≥1 dose), series completion (≥3 dose), and independent predictors of vaccination among high-risk adults aged 18-49 years. High-risk adults were defined as those reporting male sex with men; injection drug use; hemophilia with receipt of clotting factors; sexually transmitted disease in prior five years; sex for money or drugs; HIV positive; sex with persons having any above risk factors; or who "felt they were at high risk for HIV". Persons with none of the aforementioned risk factors were considered non-high risk. Bivariate analysis was conducted to assess vaccination coverage. Independent predictors of vaccine uptake and series completion were determined using a logistic regression. RESULTS: Overall, 7.0% adults aged 18-49 years had high-risk behaviors. Unadjusted coverage with ≥1 dose was 50.5% among high-risk compared to 40.5% among non-high-risk adults (p-values <0.001) while series completion (≥3 doses) was 41.8% and 34.2%, respectively (p-values <0.001). On multivariable analysis, ≥1 dose coverage, but not series completion, was higher (Risk Ratio 1.1, 95% CI=1.0-1.2, p-value=0.021) among high-risk compared to non-high risk adults. Other characteristics independently associated with a higher likelihood of HepB vaccination among persons 18-49 years included younger age groups, females, higher education, ≥2 physician contacts in the past year, ever tested for HIV, health care personnel, received influenza vaccination in the previous year, and ever received hepatitis A vaccination. Vaccine uptake with ≥1 dose increased by 5.1% (p=0.047) among high-risk adults between 2004 and 2009. CONCLUSIONS: A small increase in ≥1 dose HepB vaccination coverage among high-risk adults compared with non-high risk adults was documented for the first time in 2009. Higher coverage among persons 18-30 years may reflect aging of persons vaccinated when they were children and adolescents. To improve protection against hepatitis B among high-risk adults, healthcare providers should offer hepatitis B vaccination to persons at high risk and those who seek vaccination to protect themselves and facilitate timely completion of the three (3) dose HepB series.

SUMMARY: Approximately 3.2 million persons are chronically infected with the hepatitis C virus (HCV) in the U.S.; most are not aware of their infection. Our objectives were to examine HCV testing practices to determine which patient characteristics are associated with HCV testing and positivity, and to estimate the prevalence of HCV infection in a high-risk urban population. The study subjects were all patients included in the baseline phase of the Hepatitis C Assessment and Testing Project (HepCAT), a serial cross-sectional study of HCV screening strategies. We examined all patients with a clinic visit to Montefiore Medical Center from 1/1/08 to 2/29/08. Demographic information, laboratory data and ICD-9 diagnostic codes from 3/1/97-2/29/08 were extracted from the electronic medical record. Risk factors for HCV were defined based on birth date, ICD-9 codes and laboratory data. The prevalence of HCV infection was estimated assuming that untested subjects would test positive at the same rate as tested subjects, based on risk-factors. Of 9579 subjects examined, 3803 (39.7%) had been tested for HCV and 438 (11.5%) were positive. The overall prevalence of HCV infection was estimated to be 7.7%. Risk factors associated with being tested and anti-HCV positivity included: born in the high-prevalence birth-cohort (1945-64), substance abuse, HIV infection, alcohol abuse, diagnosis of cirrhosis, end-stage renal disease, and alanine transaminase elevation. In a high-risk urban population, a significant proportion of patients were tested for HCV and the prevalence of HCV infection was high. Physicians appear to use a risk-based screening strategy to identify HCV infection.

We sought to describe vaccination with influenza A (H1N1) 2009 monovalent (2009 H1N1) and trivalent seasonal (seasonal) vaccines among pregnant women during the 2009 through 2010 influenza season. A national H1N1 flu survey was conducted April through June 2010. The 2009 H1N1 and seasonal vaccination coverage estimates were 45.7% and 32.1%, respectively, among pregnant women aged 18-49 years. Receipt of a health care provider's recommendation for vaccination, perceived effectiveness of influenza vaccinations, and perceived high chance of influenza infection were independently associated with higher 2009 H1N1 and seasonal vaccination coverage. Pregnancy during October 2009 through January 2010 was independently associated with higher 2009 H1N1 vaccination coverage. The 2009 H1N1 vaccination level among pregnant women was higher than the seasonal vaccination level during the 2009 through 2010 season; it was also higher than vaccination among nonpregnant women with and without high-risk conditions. Health care providers and public health messaging played important roles in influencing vaccination behavior.

So much has changed since May 4, 2009, when the second documented death from 2009 pandemic influenza A (2009 H1N1) virus infection in the United States occurred in a previously healthy pregnant woman.1 Since that time, our knowledge about influenza in pregnancy has expanded dramatically, and much more attention has been focused on pregnancy issues. Before the emergence of the 2009 H1N1 virus, much of what we knew about influenza in pregnancy was based on indirect evidence, such as studies that used acute respiratory hospitalizations during influenza season as a proxy for influenza illness2, 3 and observations from previous pandemics of case series of pregnant women with uncertain representativeness.4, 5, 6 In a very short time, our knowledge of 2009 H1N1 in pregnancy has expanded greatly; with better diagnostic and treatment information, the increased severity of 2009 H1N1 among pregnant women compared with the general population has been documented carefully and consistently in a wide variety of clinical settings. We are pleased to bring you this special issue in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology entitled “Emerging Issues in the Prevention, Detection, and Treatment of Influenza among Pregnant Women in the United States,” which contains a wide variety of articles that summarize some of what we have learned about influenza in pregnancy from the recent pandemic. This special issue begins with personal reflections on past and present pandemics written by Rear Admiral Anne Schuchat, MD,7 who, as the Chief Health Officer during the pandemic and the Director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, valiantly led the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) 2009 H1N1 response with calm, grace, and scientific rigor.

BACKGROUND: Without diagnosis and antiviral therapy, many patients with chronic hepatitis C infections will develop end-stage liver disease and die from complications. AIMS: To evaluate the future impacts of preventive interventions and treatment advances, this paper forecasts a baseline estimate of the future morbidity and mortality of prevalent hepatitis C when left untreated. METHODS: We simulated the future disease progression and death for all Americans with prevalent hepatitis C in 2005. To validate the model, we used past seroprevalence to forecast contemporary outcomes. We used the validated model to forecast future cases of end-stage liver disease, transplants, and deaths from 2010 to 2060, and we estimated credible intervals using Monte Carlo simulation. RESULTS: When programmed with past data, our model predicted current levels of hepatitis C outcomes with accuracy between +/-1% and 13%. Morbidity and mortality from hepatitis C will rise from 2010 to a peak between the years 2030 and 2035. We forecasted a peak of 38,600 incident cases of end-stage liver disease; 3200 referrals for transplant; and 36,100 deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Because current rates of screening and treatment are low, future morbidity and mortality from hepatitis C are likely to increase substantially without public health interventions to increase treatment.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) testing to identify chronic hepatitis B virus infection for foreign-born persons from countries or regions with HBsAg prevalence of >or=2%. However, limited data exist to indicate which countries meet this definition. To address this data gap, we estimated the HBsAg prevalence among refugees entering the United States between 2006 and 2008. We contacted state refugee health coordinators and asked them to report the number of refugees, country of origin, and HBsAg prevalence among refugees screened in their jurisdiction during the most recently available 12-month period prior to August 2008. We pooled data across jurisdictions and calculated the prevalence for any country with more than 30 refugees entering the United States, and where this level of data was not available by country, continents were considered. Of the 47 jurisdictions contacted, we received basic information from 31, with nine jurisdictions reporting HBsAg prevalence by country of origin applicable to 31,980 refugees (approximately 42% of refugees entering the United States during the observation period). We estimated an HBsAg prevalence of 2.8% (95% confidence interval 2.6%-3.0%) for refugees overall. Of the 37 countries with 30 or more refugees entering the United States, 25 had a prevalence of >or=2%. Prevalence was highest among refugees from Africa and Southeast Asia, and lowest among refugees from the Middle East and South/Central America. In the eight countries for which we had comparison data, six had lower HBsAg prevalence than in 1991.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) testing to identify hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection for foreign-born persons from areas with HBsAg prevalence of > or = 2%. Currently, most HBsAg screening in the United States is performed by independent community organizations. For these HBsAg screening programs, we collected information about the location, number of people screened, other services beyond screening provided, the population/ethnicity groups targeted for screening, and the prevalence of HBsAg among those screened. We identified programs offering screening by contacting programs known to us, from interviews with identified programs, and from structured Internet searches, and collected information using a simple e-mail survey with follow-up phone calls. We identified 55 possible community HBsAg screening programs, of which we successfully contacted 31 programs. In the past year, contacted programs screened an estimated 21 817 patients with an 8.1% average HBsAg prevalence. The majority of programs screened persons born in Asia and their children, and a small number of programs screened persons from Africa or Eastern Europe; very few programs screened U.S.-born persons at risk of HBV infection due to behavioural factors. We identified few or no programs in the American Southeast, the Midwest, and the Southwest outside of California and the Houston area. The HBsAg screening programs that we contacted were effective in identifying and screening patients at risk of HBV as evidenced by the high prevalence observed among those screened. However, their efforts alone are likely insufficient to meet the need for screening recommended by CDC.

OBJECTIVES: Homeless adults have an increased risk of infectious diseases due to sexual and drug-related behaviors and substandard living conditions. We investigated the prevalence and risk factors for presence of hepatitis A virus (HAV) antibodies among homeless and marginally housed adults. METHODS: We analyzed serologic and questionnaire data from a study of marginally housed and homeless adults in San Francisco from April 1999 to March 2000. We tested seroprevalance for total antibodies to HAV (anti-HAV) and analyzed data using Chi-square tests and logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the 1,138 adults in the study, 52% were anti-HAV positive. The anti-HAV prevalence in this study population was 58% higher than the expected prevalence based on age-specific prevalence rates from the general population. Number of years of homelessness (< or =1, 2-4, and > or =5 years) was associated with anti-HAV prevalence (46%, 50%, and 61%, respectively, p < 0.001). We found other differences in anti-HAV prevalence (p < 0.05) for ever having injected drugs (63% vs. 42% for non-injectors), being foreign-born (75% vs. 51% among U.S.-born), race/ethnicity (72%, 53%, and 45% for Hispanic, white, and black people, respectively), and increasing age (38%, 49%, and 62% among those aged <35, 35-45, and >45 years, respectively). These variables all remained significant in a multivariate model. CONCLUSIONS: We found overall anti-HAV prevalence elevated in this San Francisco homeless population compared with the general U.S. population. These data show that anti-HAV was associated with homelessness independent of other known risk factors, such as being foreign-born, race/ethnicity, and injection drug use. This increase indicates an excess risk of HAV infection and the potential need to offer hepatitis A vaccination as part of homeless services.