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).

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

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.

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.

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.

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.