Doug Campos-Outcalt, MD, MPA

The past 12 months have been busy ones for the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), which issued 34 new recommendations since our last Practice Alert on the group’s activity a year ago. Some recommendations address controversial topics, such as cholesterol screening, and several others—on topics such as prostate cancer screening and acceptable tests for detecting colorectal cancer—differ from those of such prominent groups as the American Cancer Society (ACS).

TABLE 1 provides a breakdown of the 5 categories of USPSTF recommendations (A, B, C, D, I). We’ll start with recent D recommendations (TABLE 2), services the Task Force recommends against, to emphasize that some preventive measures—even if they are widely touted—either provide no benefit or cause more harms than benefits.

TABLE 1
USPSTF recommendation categories

TABLE 2
The USPSTF recommends AGAINST

What not to do

The most notable new D recommendations advise against screening men ≥75 years of age for prostate cancer and against screening for colorectal cancer after age 85. The Task Force also recommends against routine screening for colorectal cancer after age 75, although individual patient considerations may influence your decision about this screen for patients between ages 76 and 85. Bear in mind that the benefits of early detection of colon cancer decline after age 75 because of the time lag between early intervention and benefit and because of competing causes of morbidity and mortality.¹

Cancer screening controversies. The recommendations for an age cutoff for prostate and colon cancer screening differ from those of the ACS, which lists no age cutoff for screening for either condition.² In fact, the Task Force does not recommend screening for prostate cancer at all. Its rationale is that before age 75, the evidence is insufficient to evaluate benefits and harms, and after 75 there is good evidence that screening does more harm than good. The ACS no longer recommends routine prostate cancer screening, but does say that when a patient leaves the decision to the physician, screening should be performed.

Thumbs down on these, too. The Task Force now recommends against using spirometry to screen for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and against using aspirin for preventing stroke in women <55 years and myocardial infarction (MI) in men <45 years. (See below for a fuller discussion of aspirin as a preventive measure.) The Task Force also recommends against screening for asymptomatic bacteriuria in men and nonpregnant women.

Recommended interventions

Now for the preventive interventions the USPSTF advises you to perform. They include:

Prescribing low-dose aspirin. The most complicated positive recommendations are those for low-dose aspirin to prevent MI in men and stroke in women. Aspirin is effective in preventing these conditions, but carries the risk of major gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and cerebral hemorrhage. For younger patients, as we’ve seen in the previous section, the Task Force finds the risks of prophylactic low-dose aspirin therapy outweigh the benefits. But for older patients (men between the ages of 45 and 79 years and women ages 55-79), aspirin is recommended when the potential benefit of reducing the incidence of MI in men and stroke in women outweigh the harms. To assist clinicians in weighing the potential benefits and harms, the USPSTF provides a link to a coronary heart disease risk calculator, as well as several tables comparing numbers of prevented heart attacks for men and strokes for women by age and risk category, as well as risks of bleeding complications.³

Screening for hypercholesterolemia. The Task Force’s recommendations for dyslipidemia screening differ markedly from those of the American Heart Association and the Final Report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel, which recommend routine screening for all adults starting at age 20 with no age cutoff.⁴ The USPSTF recommends deferring screening until patients are older, except for those at increased risk of coronary heart disease. This controversy was described in a 2008 Practice Alert.⁵

Screening for diabetes. The only asymptomatic patients the Task Force recommends screening for diabetes are those with a sustained blood pressure of more than 135/80 mm Hg, treated or untreated. The American Diabetes Association (ADA) would cast a wider net, recommending that you consider screening for prediabetes or diabetes in those ≥45 years of age, particularly in those with a body mass index of ≥25 kg/m², and in overweight patients <45 years of age who have another risk factor for diabetes.⁶

Screening for colorectal cancer. The Task Force recommends screening adults starting at age 50 until age 75, using fecal occult blood testing, sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy. The ACS also recommends these screening modalities, but adds CT colonography and fecal DNA testing to the list of acceptable methods. The USPSTF found insufficient evidence to evaluate the benefits and harms of these newer tests and expressed concern over the high rate of incidental findings and the unknown long-term effects of radiation from CT colonography.

Screening adolescents. The Task Force is in favor of screening teenagers for major depressive disorder (MDD), as long as systems are in place to provide accurate diagnosis, therapy, and follow-up. High-intensity behavioral counseling for sexually active teens and adults at risk is also endorsed for the prevention of sexually transmitted infections. In both areas, however, the Task Force recognizes that adequately addressing these issues will require more than brief office- or clinic-based interventions.

Caring for pregnant women and newborns. According to the USPSTF, pregnant women should be screened for asymptomatic bacteriuria, advised to take a daily folic acid supplement, counseled about tobacco use, and encouraged to breastfeed. Newborns should be screened for congenital hypothyroidism, phenylketonuria, and hearing loss. These most recent A and B recommendations from the USPSTF are summarized in TABLE 3.

TABLE 3
The USPSTF recommends FOR

Not proven

When evidence is not available, some organizations are willing to issue guidelines based on expert opinion or consensus. Not so the USPSTF. When the Task Force members find current evidence is not sufficient to make a judgment, they put the intervention into Category I, for Insufficient. The new I recommendations range from aspirin to prevent MI and stroke in those ≥80 years to screening children for MDD and performing whole body skin examinations to detect early manifestations of skin cancer. The new I recommendations are listed in TABLE 4.

TABLE 4
Evidence is INSUFFICIENT to recommend for or against

What’s the take-home message?

All of these recent Task Force decisions add substantially to the full set of Task Force recommendations, which can be found at www.ahrq.gov/CLINIC/uspstfix.htm. Given the large number of level A and B recommendations from the Task Force, clinicians are faced with the dilemma of limited time to accomplish all the recommendations. It is reasonable to concentrate on the positive recommendations and avoid performing the interventions recommended against. The interventions in the “I” category are not as clear-cut and clinicians will continue to struggle with them, particularly when other professional organizations recommend them.

CORRESPONDENCE
Doug Campos-Outcalt, MD, MPA, 550 E. Van Buren, Phoenix, AZ 85004; dougco@u.arizona.edu.

The past 12 months have been busy ones for the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), which issued 34 new recommendations since our last Practice Alert on the group’s activity a year ago. Some recommendations address controversial topics, such as cholesterol screening, and several others—on topics such as prostate cancer screening and acceptable tests for detecting colorectal cancer—differ from those of such prominent groups as the American Cancer Society (ACS).

TABLE 1 provides a breakdown of the 5 categories of USPSTF recommendations (A, B, C, D, I). We’ll start with recent D recommendations (TABLE 2), services the Task Force recommends against, to emphasize that some preventive measures—even if they are widely touted—either provide no benefit or cause more harms than benefits.

TABLE 1
USPSTF recommendation categories

TABLE 2
The USPSTF recommends AGAINST

What not to do

The most notable new D recommendations advise against screening men ≥75 years of age for prostate cancer and against screening for colorectal cancer after age 85. The Task Force also recommends against routine screening for colorectal cancer after age 75, although individual patient considerations may influence your decision about this screen for patients between ages 76 and 85. Bear in mind that the benefits of early detection of colon cancer decline after age 75 because of the time lag between early intervention and benefit and because of competing causes of morbidity and mortality.¹

Cancer screening controversies. The recommendations for an age cutoff for prostate and colon cancer screening differ from those of the ACS, which lists no age cutoff for screening for either condition.² In fact, the Task Force does not recommend screening for prostate cancer at all. Its rationale is that before age 75, the evidence is insufficient to evaluate benefits and harms, and after 75 there is good evidence that screening does more harm than good. The ACS no longer recommends routine prostate cancer screening, but does say that when a patient leaves the decision to the physician, screening should be performed.

Thumbs down on these, too. The Task Force now recommends against using spirometry to screen for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and against using aspirin for preventing stroke in women <55 years and myocardial infarction (MI) in men <45 years. (See below for a fuller discussion of aspirin as a preventive measure.) The Task Force also recommends against screening for asymptomatic bacteriuria in men and nonpregnant women.

Recommended interventions

Now for the preventive interventions the USPSTF advises you to perform. They include:

Prescribing low-dose aspirin. The most complicated positive recommendations are those for low-dose aspirin to prevent MI in men and stroke in women. Aspirin is effective in preventing these conditions, but carries the risk of major gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and cerebral hemorrhage. For younger patients, as we’ve seen in the previous section, the Task Force finds the risks of prophylactic low-dose aspirin therapy outweigh the benefits. But for older patients (men between the ages of 45 and 79 years and women ages 55-79), aspirin is recommended when the potential benefit of reducing the incidence of MI in men and stroke in women outweigh the harms. To assist clinicians in weighing the potential benefits and harms, the USPSTF provides a link to a coronary heart disease risk calculator, as well as several tables comparing numbers of prevented heart attacks for men and strokes for women by age and risk category, as well as risks of bleeding complications.³

Screening for hypercholesterolemia. The Task Force’s recommendations for dyslipidemia screening differ markedly from those of the American Heart Association and the Final Report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel, which recommend routine screening for all adults starting at age 20 with no age cutoff.⁴ The USPSTF recommends deferring screening until patients are older, except for those at increased risk of coronary heart disease. This controversy was described in a 2008 Practice Alert.⁵

Screening for diabetes. The only asymptomatic patients the Task Force recommends screening for diabetes are those with a sustained blood pressure of more than 135/80 mm Hg, treated or untreated. The American Diabetes Association (ADA) would cast a wider net, recommending that you consider screening for prediabetes or diabetes in those ≥45 years of age, particularly in those with a body mass index of ≥25 kg/m², and in overweight patients <45 years of age who have another risk factor for diabetes.⁶

Screening for colorectal cancer. The Task Force recommends screening adults starting at age 50 until age 75, using fecal occult blood testing, sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy. The ACS also recommends these screening modalities, but adds CT colonography and fecal DNA testing to the list of acceptable methods. The USPSTF found insufficient evidence to evaluate the benefits and harms of these newer tests and expressed concern over the high rate of incidental findings and the unknown long-term effects of radiation from CT colonography.

Screening adolescents. The Task Force is in favor of screening teenagers for major depressive disorder (MDD), as long as systems are in place to provide accurate diagnosis, therapy, and follow-up. High-intensity behavioral counseling for sexually active teens and adults at risk is also endorsed for the prevention of sexually transmitted infections. In both areas, however, the Task Force recognizes that adequately addressing these issues will require more than brief office- or clinic-based interventions.

Caring for pregnant women and newborns. According to the USPSTF, pregnant women should be screened for asymptomatic bacteriuria, advised to take a daily folic acid supplement, counseled about tobacco use, and encouraged to breastfeed. Newborns should be screened for congenital hypothyroidism, phenylketonuria, and hearing loss. These most recent A and B recommendations from the USPSTF are summarized in TABLE 3.

TABLE 3
The USPSTF recommends FOR

Not proven

When evidence is not available, some organizations are willing to issue guidelines based on expert opinion or consensus. Not so the USPSTF. When the Task Force members find current evidence is not sufficient to make a judgment, they put the intervention into Category I, for Insufficient. The new I recommendations range from aspirin to prevent MI and stroke in those ≥80 years to screening children for MDD and performing whole body skin examinations to detect early manifestations of skin cancer. The new I recommendations are listed in TABLE 4.

TABLE 4
Evidence is INSUFFICIENT to recommend for or against

What’s the take-home message?

All of these recent Task Force decisions add substantially to the full set of Task Force recommendations, which can be found at www.ahrq.gov/CLINIC/uspstfix.htm. Given the large number of level A and B recommendations from the Task Force, clinicians are faced with the dilemma of limited time to accomplish all the recommendations. It is reasonable to concentrate on the positive recommendations and avoid performing the interventions recommended against. The interventions in the “I” category are not as clear-cut and clinicians will continue to struggle with them, particularly when other professional organizations recommend them.

CORRESPONDENCE
Doug Campos-Outcalt, MD, MPA, 550 E. Van Buren, Phoenix, AZ 85004; dougco@u.arizona.edu.

The past 12 months have been busy ones for the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), which issued 34 new recommendations since our last Practice Alert on the group’s activity a year ago. Some recommendations address controversial topics, such as cholesterol screening, and several others—on topics such as prostate cancer screening and acceptable tests for detecting colorectal cancer—differ from those of such prominent groups as the American Cancer Society (ACS).

TABLE 1 provides a breakdown of the 5 categories of USPSTF recommendations (A, B, C, D, I). We’ll start with recent D recommendations (TABLE 2), services the Task Force recommends against, to emphasize that some preventive measures—even if they are widely touted—either provide no benefit or cause more harms than benefits.

TABLE 1
USPSTF recommendation categories

TABLE 2
The USPSTF recommends AGAINST

What not to do

The most notable new D recommendations advise against screening men ≥75 years of age for prostate cancer and against screening for colorectal cancer after age 85. The Task Force also recommends against routine screening for colorectal cancer after age 75, although individual patient considerations may influence your decision about this screen for patients between ages 76 and 85. Bear in mind that the benefits of early detection of colon cancer decline after age 75 because of the time lag between early intervention and benefit and because of competing causes of morbidity and mortality.¹

Cancer screening controversies. The recommendations for an age cutoff for prostate and colon cancer screening differ from those of the ACS, which lists no age cutoff for screening for either condition.² In fact, the Task Force does not recommend screening for prostate cancer at all. Its rationale is that before age 75, the evidence is insufficient to evaluate benefits and harms, and after 75 there is good evidence that screening does more harm than good. The ACS no longer recommends routine prostate cancer screening, but does say that when a patient leaves the decision to the physician, screening should be performed.

Thumbs down on these, too. The Task Force now recommends against using spirometry to screen for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and against using aspirin for preventing stroke in women <55 years and myocardial infarction (MI) in men <45 years. (See below for a fuller discussion of aspirin as a preventive measure.) The Task Force also recommends against screening for asymptomatic bacteriuria in men and nonpregnant women.

Recommended interventions

Now for the preventive interventions the USPSTF advises you to perform. They include:

Prescribing low-dose aspirin. The most complicated positive recommendations are those for low-dose aspirin to prevent MI in men and stroke in women. Aspirin is effective in preventing these conditions, but carries the risk of major gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and cerebral hemorrhage. For younger patients, as we’ve seen in the previous section, the Task Force finds the risks of prophylactic low-dose aspirin therapy outweigh the benefits. But for older patients (men between the ages of 45 and 79 years and women ages 55-79), aspirin is recommended when the potential benefit of reducing the incidence of MI in men and stroke in women outweigh the harms. To assist clinicians in weighing the potential benefits and harms, the USPSTF provides a link to a coronary heart disease risk calculator, as well as several tables comparing numbers of prevented heart attacks for men and strokes for women by age and risk category, as well as risks of bleeding complications.³

Screening for hypercholesterolemia. The Task Force’s recommendations for dyslipidemia screening differ markedly from those of the American Heart Association and the Final Report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel, which recommend routine screening for all adults starting at age 20 with no age cutoff.⁴ The USPSTF recommends deferring screening until patients are older, except for those at increased risk of coronary heart disease. This controversy was described in a 2008 Practice Alert.⁵

Screening for diabetes. The only asymptomatic patients the Task Force recommends screening for diabetes are those with a sustained blood pressure of more than 135/80 mm Hg, treated or untreated. The American Diabetes Association (ADA) would cast a wider net, recommending that you consider screening for prediabetes or diabetes in those ≥45 years of age, particularly in those with a body mass index of ≥25 kg/m², and in overweight patients <45 years of age who have another risk factor for diabetes.⁶

Screening for colorectal cancer. The Task Force recommends screening adults starting at age 50 until age 75, using fecal occult blood testing, sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy. The ACS also recommends these screening modalities, but adds CT colonography and fecal DNA testing to the list of acceptable methods. The USPSTF found insufficient evidence to evaluate the benefits and harms of these newer tests and expressed concern over the high rate of incidental findings and the unknown long-term effects of radiation from CT colonography.

Screening adolescents. The Task Force is in favor of screening teenagers for major depressive disorder (MDD), as long as systems are in place to provide accurate diagnosis, therapy, and follow-up. High-intensity behavioral counseling for sexually active teens and adults at risk is also endorsed for the prevention of sexually transmitted infections. In both areas, however, the Task Force recognizes that adequately addressing these issues will require more than brief office- or clinic-based interventions.

Caring for pregnant women and newborns. According to the USPSTF, pregnant women should be screened for asymptomatic bacteriuria, advised to take a daily folic acid supplement, counseled about tobacco use, and encouraged to breastfeed. Newborns should be screened for congenital hypothyroidism, phenylketonuria, and hearing loss. These most recent A and B recommendations from the USPSTF are summarized in TABLE 3.

TABLE 3
The USPSTF recommends FOR

Not proven

When evidence is not available, some organizations are willing to issue guidelines based on expert opinion or consensus. Not so the USPSTF. When the Task Force members find current evidence is not sufficient to make a judgment, they put the intervention into Category I, for Insufficient. The new I recommendations range from aspirin to prevent MI and stroke in those ≥80 years to screening children for MDD and performing whole body skin examinations to detect early manifestations of skin cancer. The new I recommendations are listed in TABLE 4.

TABLE 4
Evidence is INSUFFICIENT to recommend for or against

What’s the take-home message?

All of these recent Task Force decisions add substantially to the full set of Task Force recommendations, which can be found at www.ahrq.gov/CLINIC/uspstfix.htm. Given the large number of level A and B recommendations from the Task Force, clinicians are faced with the dilemma of limited time to accomplish all the recommendations. It is reasonable to concentrate on the positive recommendations and avoid performing the interventions recommended against. The interventions in the “I” category are not as clear-cut and clinicians will continue to struggle with them, particularly when other professional organizations recommend them.

CORRESPONDENCE
Doug Campos-Outcalt, MD, MPA, 550 E. Van Buren, Phoenix, AZ 85004; dougco@u.arizona.edu.

Highlights of the 2008 recommendations of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), detailed in the child and adult immunization schedules in the MMWR in January,^1,2 include:

• an expansion of the age groups for whom an annual influenza vaccine is recommended;
• expanded indications for the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine;
• 2 new combination vaccines for children; and
• a second rotavirus vaccine, with revised recommendations to accommodate both vaccine products.

School-age children should get flu vaccine

Children and adolescents ages 5 through 18 years are now among those who should receive an annual flu vaccine. Previously, routine vaccination was recommended only for adults and children ages 6 months through 59 months.³

Because of the timing of vaccine purchase, ACIP recognizes that routine vaccination of 5- to 18-year-olds may not be possible in some settings until next year. Family physicians who are unable to fully incorporate this new recommendation in the 2008-2009 flu season should immunize children and adolescents who are at high risk for complications of the flu. Included in that group are 5- to 18-year-olds who are on long-term aspirin therapy; have a chronic pulmonary disease, including asthma, or a cardiovascular, renal, hepatic, hematologic, or metabolic disorder; are immunosuppressed; or have a neurological or musculoskeletal disorder that alters respiratory function or the clearance of respiratory secretions. Children and adolescents who live with others at elevated risk—kids younger than 5 years, adults older than 50 years, or individuals with medical conditions that place them at high risk for severe influenza complications—should also be vaccinated.

Pneumococcal vaccine: New indications, clarifications

Two new groups have been added to the list of people for whom the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV23) is recommended: asthma patients and smokers. Smoking poses as great a risk for pneumococcal pneumonia as diabetes and other chronic illnesses that had already been noted as indications for the vaccine. The number needed to vaccinate to prevent 1 case of pneumonia in smokers is 10,000 for those between the ages of 18 to 44 years, and 4000 for those ages 45 to 64 years.

A second dose. Also in 2008, ACIP clarified its dosing recommendations for PPV23: A second dose, given 5 years after the first, is recommended for those with immune suppression, sickle cell disease, or asplenia. Individuals who are 65 years of age or older should receive a second dose if they were vaccinated 5 or more years ago and were younger than 65 at the time of primary vaccination.

Not for all Native Americans. The recommendation for the use of PPV23 among the Native American population has changed, too.

Research showing high rates of invasive pneumococcal disease in Native American communities has been performed in only a few locations and cannot be generalized to all Native Americans. Therefore, ACIP has gone from recommending routine use of the vaccine among all Native Americans to a recommendation based on the same risks and age recommendations as the general population and, in communities with high rates of disease, on public health recommendations based on the incidence and epidemiology of disease.

Combination products may mean fewer injections

Two new combination vaccine products—Pentacel⁴ and Kinrix⁵—were approved last year. Both can reduce the number of injections required to complete the child immunization recommendations.

Pentacel combines 5 vaccines—diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis (DTaP), inactivated poliovirus (IPV), and Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib)—and is licensed for children 6 weeks through 4 years of age. Pentacel has a 4-dose schedule, with vaccine administration at 2, 4, 6, and 15 to 18 months of age. Technically, this 4-dose schedule would fulfill requirements for 4 doses of IPV. However, this could conflict with a state school immunization schedule that requires the last dose of IPV vaccine to be administered when the child is between the ages of 4 and 6 years.⁶

TABLE
Rotavirus vaccines: An administration guide

Kinrix contains DTaP and IPV. The vaccine is indicated for use as the fifth dose of DTaP and the fourth dose of IPV in children 4 through 6 years of age, following a primary series using Infanrix (DTaP) and Pediarix (DTaP, hepatitis B, and IPV).

Rotavirus vaccines: Now there are 2

There are now 2 licensed rotavirus vaccines: RotaTeq was approved in 2006,⁷ and Rotarix in 2008.⁸ ACIP does not express a preference for either product, but has revised its recommendations for rotavirus vaccination to accommodate the new release. Both RotaTeq and Rotarix are live oral vaccines, but they differ in composition and schedule of administration. Rotarix should not be given to infants who are allergic to latex, as its oral applicator contains latex rubber.

Dosing requirements. RotaTeq is administered in a 3-dose series at ages 2, 4, and 6 months; Rotarix is given in a 2-dose series at 2 and 4 months of age (TABLE). The first dose of either vaccine should be administered to children between the ages of 6 weeks and 14 weeks, 6 days. (Previously, 12 weeks was the maximum age for the first dose of rotavirus vaccine.) Neither vaccine series should be initiated in infants who are 15 weeks of age or older. The minimum interval between doses is 4 weeks, and the final dose should be administered by the age of 8 months.

It is best to complete the vaccine series with the same product. If the vaccine used initially is not available, the series can be completed with the other product, but the different number of doses required must be considered. If any dose in the series was RotaTeq or you are unable to determine which rotavirus vaccine was administered previously, a total of 3 doses should be given.

HPV and meningococcal vaccine clarification

Human papilloma virus vaccine. The HPV vaccine is recommended for all females ages 11 through 26 years, but ACIP has indicated that girls as young as 9 years may be vaccinated.¹

Three doses are required, with the second and third doses administered 2 and 6 months after the first. Because some providers had been administering the third dose at month 4, ACIP issued a clarification in 2008, noting that there should be a minimum of 24 weeks between the first and third dose.

MCV and MPSV. Meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MCV) is preferred over meningococcal polysaccharide vaccine (MPSV) for those 55 years of age or younger, although MPSV is an acceptable alternative. ACIP clarified recommendations for revaccination, as follows:

Individuals ages 11 to 55 years who were vaccinated with MPSV should consider revaccination with MCV after 5 years, if the risk of meningococcal meningitis persists. Children ages 2 to 10 years should be revaccinated with MCV 3 years after receiving MPSV.

Highlights of the 2008 recommendations of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), detailed in the child and adult immunization schedules in the MMWR in January,^1,2 include:

• an expansion of the age groups for whom an annual influenza vaccine is recommended;
• expanded indications for the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine;
• 2 new combination vaccines for children; and
• a second rotavirus vaccine, with revised recommendations to accommodate both vaccine products.

School-age children should get flu vaccine

Children and adolescents ages 5 through 18 years are now among those who should receive an annual flu vaccine. Previously, routine vaccination was recommended only for adults and children ages 6 months through 59 months.³

Because of the timing of vaccine purchase, ACIP recognizes that routine vaccination of 5- to 18-year-olds may not be possible in some settings until next year. Family physicians who are unable to fully incorporate this new recommendation in the 2008-2009 flu season should immunize children and adolescents who are at high risk for complications of the flu. Included in that group are 5- to 18-year-olds who are on long-term aspirin therapy; have a chronic pulmonary disease, including asthma, or a cardiovascular, renal, hepatic, hematologic, or metabolic disorder; are immunosuppressed; or have a neurological or musculoskeletal disorder that alters respiratory function or the clearance of respiratory secretions. Children and adolescents who live with others at elevated risk—kids younger than 5 years, adults older than 50 years, or individuals with medical conditions that place them at high risk for severe influenza complications—should also be vaccinated.

Pneumococcal vaccine: New indications, clarifications

Two new groups have been added to the list of people for whom the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV23) is recommended: asthma patients and smokers. Smoking poses as great a risk for pneumococcal pneumonia as diabetes and other chronic illnesses that had already been noted as indications for the vaccine. The number needed to vaccinate to prevent 1 case of pneumonia in smokers is 10,000 for those between the ages of 18 to 44 years, and 4000 for those ages 45 to 64 years.

A second dose. Also in 2008, ACIP clarified its dosing recommendations for PPV23: A second dose, given 5 years after the first, is recommended for those with immune suppression, sickle cell disease, or asplenia. Individuals who are 65 years of age or older should receive a second dose if they were vaccinated 5 or more years ago and were younger than 65 at the time of primary vaccination.

Not for all Native Americans. The recommendation for the use of PPV23 among the Native American population has changed, too.

Research showing high rates of invasive pneumococcal disease in Native American communities has been performed in only a few locations and cannot be generalized to all Native Americans. Therefore, ACIP has gone from recommending routine use of the vaccine among all Native Americans to a recommendation based on the same risks and age recommendations as the general population and, in communities with high rates of disease, on public health recommendations based on the incidence and epidemiology of disease.

Combination products may mean fewer injections

Two new combination vaccine products—Pentacel⁴ and Kinrix⁵—were approved last year. Both can reduce the number of injections required to complete the child immunization recommendations.

Pentacel combines 5 vaccines—diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis (DTaP), inactivated poliovirus (IPV), and Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib)—and is licensed for children 6 weeks through 4 years of age. Pentacel has a 4-dose schedule, with vaccine administration at 2, 4, 6, and 15 to 18 months of age. Technically, this 4-dose schedule would fulfill requirements for 4 doses of IPV. However, this could conflict with a state school immunization schedule that requires the last dose of IPV vaccine to be administered when the child is between the ages of 4 and 6 years.⁶

TABLE
Rotavirus vaccines: An administration guide

Kinrix contains DTaP and IPV. The vaccine is indicated for use as the fifth dose of DTaP and the fourth dose of IPV in children 4 through 6 years of age, following a primary series using Infanrix (DTaP) and Pediarix (DTaP, hepatitis B, and IPV).

Rotavirus vaccines: Now there are 2

There are now 2 licensed rotavirus vaccines: RotaTeq was approved in 2006,⁷ and Rotarix in 2008.⁸ ACIP does not express a preference for either product, but has revised its recommendations for rotavirus vaccination to accommodate the new release. Both RotaTeq and Rotarix are live oral vaccines, but they differ in composition and schedule of administration. Rotarix should not be given to infants who are allergic to latex, as its oral applicator contains latex rubber.

Dosing requirements. RotaTeq is administered in a 3-dose series at ages 2, 4, and 6 months; Rotarix is given in a 2-dose series at 2 and 4 months of age (TABLE). The first dose of either vaccine should be administered to children between the ages of 6 weeks and 14 weeks, 6 days. (Previously, 12 weeks was the maximum age for the first dose of rotavirus vaccine.) Neither vaccine series should be initiated in infants who are 15 weeks of age or older. The minimum interval between doses is 4 weeks, and the final dose should be administered by the age of 8 months.

It is best to complete the vaccine series with the same product. If the vaccine used initially is not available, the series can be completed with the other product, but the different number of doses required must be considered. If any dose in the series was RotaTeq or you are unable to determine which rotavirus vaccine was administered previously, a total of 3 doses should be given.

HPV and meningococcal vaccine clarification

Human papilloma virus vaccine. The HPV vaccine is recommended for all females ages 11 through 26 years, but ACIP has indicated that girls as young as 9 years may be vaccinated.¹

Three doses are required, with the second and third doses administered 2 and 6 months after the first. Because some providers had been administering the third dose at month 4, ACIP issued a clarification in 2008, noting that there should be a minimum of 24 weeks between the first and third dose.

MCV and MPSV. Meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MCV) is preferred over meningococcal polysaccharide vaccine (MPSV) for those 55 years of age or younger, although MPSV is an acceptable alternative. ACIP clarified recommendations for revaccination, as follows:

Individuals ages 11 to 55 years who were vaccinated with MPSV should consider revaccination with MCV after 5 years, if the risk of meningococcal meningitis persists. Children ages 2 to 10 years should be revaccinated with MCV 3 years after receiving MPSV.

Highlights of the 2008 recommendations of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), detailed in the child and adult immunization schedules in the MMWR in January,^1,2 include:

• an expansion of the age groups for whom an annual influenza vaccine is recommended;
• expanded indications for the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine;
• 2 new combination vaccines for children; and
• a second rotavirus vaccine, with revised recommendations to accommodate both vaccine products.

School-age children should get flu vaccine

Children and adolescents ages 5 through 18 years are now among those who should receive an annual flu vaccine. Previously, routine vaccination was recommended only for adults and children ages 6 months through 59 months.³

Because of the timing of vaccine purchase, ACIP recognizes that routine vaccination of 5- to 18-year-olds may not be possible in some settings until next year. Family physicians who are unable to fully incorporate this new recommendation in the 2008-2009 flu season should immunize children and adolescents who are at high risk for complications of the flu. Included in that group are 5- to 18-year-olds who are on long-term aspirin therapy; have a chronic pulmonary disease, including asthma, or a cardiovascular, renal, hepatic, hematologic, or metabolic disorder; are immunosuppressed; or have a neurological or musculoskeletal disorder that alters respiratory function or the clearance of respiratory secretions. Children and adolescents who live with others at elevated risk—kids younger than 5 years, adults older than 50 years, or individuals with medical conditions that place them at high risk for severe influenza complications—should also be vaccinated.

Pneumococcal vaccine: New indications, clarifications

Two new groups have been added to the list of people for whom the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV23) is recommended: asthma patients and smokers. Smoking poses as great a risk for pneumococcal pneumonia as diabetes and other chronic illnesses that had already been noted as indications for the vaccine. The number needed to vaccinate to prevent 1 case of pneumonia in smokers is 10,000 for those between the ages of 18 to 44 years, and 4000 for those ages 45 to 64 years.

A second dose. Also in 2008, ACIP clarified its dosing recommendations for PPV23: A second dose, given 5 years after the first, is recommended for those with immune suppression, sickle cell disease, or asplenia. Individuals who are 65 years of age or older should receive a second dose if they were vaccinated 5 or more years ago and were younger than 65 at the time of primary vaccination.

Not for all Native Americans. The recommendation for the use of PPV23 among the Native American population has changed, too.

Research showing high rates of invasive pneumococcal disease in Native American communities has been performed in only a few locations and cannot be generalized to all Native Americans. Therefore, ACIP has gone from recommending routine use of the vaccine among all Native Americans to a recommendation based on the same risks and age recommendations as the general population and, in communities with high rates of disease, on public health recommendations based on the incidence and epidemiology of disease.

Combination products may mean fewer injections

Two new combination vaccine products—Pentacel⁴ and Kinrix⁵—were approved last year. Both can reduce the number of injections required to complete the child immunization recommendations.

Pentacel combines 5 vaccines—diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis (DTaP), inactivated poliovirus (IPV), and Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib)—and is licensed for children 6 weeks through 4 years of age. Pentacel has a 4-dose schedule, with vaccine administration at 2, 4, 6, and 15 to 18 months of age. Technically, this 4-dose schedule would fulfill requirements for 4 doses of IPV. However, this could conflict with a state school immunization schedule that requires the last dose of IPV vaccine to be administered when the child is between the ages of 4 and 6 years.⁶

TABLE
Rotavirus vaccines: An administration guide

Kinrix contains DTaP and IPV. The vaccine is indicated for use as the fifth dose of DTaP and the fourth dose of IPV in children 4 through 6 years of age, following a primary series using Infanrix (DTaP) and Pediarix (DTaP, hepatitis B, and IPV).

Rotavirus vaccines: Now there are 2

There are now 2 licensed rotavirus vaccines: RotaTeq was approved in 2006,⁷ and Rotarix in 2008.⁸ ACIP does not express a preference for either product, but has revised its recommendations for rotavirus vaccination to accommodate the new release. Both RotaTeq and Rotarix are live oral vaccines, but they differ in composition and schedule of administration. Rotarix should not be given to infants who are allergic to latex, as its oral applicator contains latex rubber.

Dosing requirements. RotaTeq is administered in a 3-dose series at ages 2, 4, and 6 months; Rotarix is given in a 2-dose series at 2 and 4 months of age (TABLE). The first dose of either vaccine should be administered to children between the ages of 6 weeks and 14 weeks, 6 days. (Previously, 12 weeks was the maximum age for the first dose of rotavirus vaccine.) Neither vaccine series should be initiated in infants who are 15 weeks of age or older. The minimum interval between doses is 4 weeks, and the final dose should be administered by the age of 8 months.

It is best to complete the vaccine series with the same product. If the vaccine used initially is not available, the series can be completed with the other product, but the different number of doses required must be considered. If any dose in the series was RotaTeq or you are unable to determine which rotavirus vaccine was administered previously, a total of 3 doses should be given.

HPV and meningococcal vaccine clarification

Human papilloma virus vaccine. The HPV vaccine is recommended for all females ages 11 through 26 years, but ACIP has indicated that girls as young as 9 years may be vaccinated.¹

Three doses are required, with the second and third doses administered 2 and 6 months after the first. Because some providers had been administering the third dose at month 4, ACIP issued a clarification in 2008, noting that there should be a minimum of 24 weeks between the first and third dose.

MCV and MPSV. Meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MCV) is preferred over meningococcal polysaccharide vaccine (MPSV) for those 55 years of age or younger, although MPSV is an acceptable alternative. ACIP clarified recommendations for revaccination, as follows:

Individuals ages 11 to 55 years who were vaccinated with MPSV should consider revaccination with MCV after 5 years, if the risk of meningococcal meningitis persists. Children ages 2 to 10 years should be revaccinated with MCV 3 years after receiving MPSV.

When patients reached a certain age (36 for men, 46 for women), it used to mean that it was time, in the eyes of the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), to screen for lipid disorders. But that’s changed for female patients.

The USPSTF’s latest recommendations (TABLE 1) on screening for lipid disorders in adults¹ call for screening women only when coronary heart disease (CHD) risk factors are present, regardless of their age. (See TABLE 2 for a list of CHD risk factors.) That’s a major shift from the 2001 recommendation, which stated that all women over age 45 should be screened and women ages 20 to 45 should be screened if they were at elevated risk.

The recommendations for men remain the same: All men older than 35 should be screened, as should men who are between the ages of 20 and 35 who have other CHD risks.

TABLE 1
USPSTF lipid disorder screening recommendations at a glance

TABLE 2
Risk factors for CHD

A different approach from NIH and AHA

The revised updated recommendation for women over age 45 was based on 2 systematic evidence reviews^2,3 that concluded, while treatment clearly benefits women with other risk factors, benefit has not been proven for women who are otherwise CHD risk free.

The recommendation for women conflicts with those of the National Institutes of Health and the American Heart Association; both recommend screening all adults starting at age 20—regardless of risk.

Screening those without risk isn’t ruled out

It is important to note that the task force is not recommending against screening in women (or men between the ages of 20 and 35) who do not have other CHD risks. The task force makes a C recommendation with wording that states, “The USPSTF makes no recommendation for or against routine provision of [the service]. The USPSTF found at least fair evidence that [the service] can improve health outcomes but concludes that the balance of benefits and harms is too close to justify a general recommendation” (TABLE 3).

The task force chose not to use the new wording for a C recommendation, adopted in 2007, which reads, “The USPSTF recommends against routinely providing the service. There may be considerations that support providing the service in an individual patient. There is at least moderate certainty that the net benefit is small.”

It is also important to realize that a large proportion of women have another CHD risk and will not fall into the C category recommendation.

TABLE 3
USPSTF recommendation categories

No need to look at triglycerides initially

The task force recommends screening with a fasting or nonfasting serum sample for total cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. The task force does not recommend including a triglyceride level because there is mixed and inclusive evidence that triglyceride levels are independently associated with CHD risk and scant evidence that treating isolated elevated triglyceride levels reduces the occurrence of CHD events. This approach also conflicts with other organizations that recommend screening with fasting lipid profiles that include a triglyceride level.

The task force states that an abnormal initial screen should be confirmed by a repeat test and, if confirmed, a fasting lipid panel should be obtained. Wide adoption of the task force recommendations would result in considerable savings in cost and patient inconvenience by avoiding complete fasting lipid panels as the initial screen.

The optimal frequency of screening is not established and the task force states that every 5 years is reasonable, although more frequent testing might be considered for those with high normal values, and less frequent intervals for those with optimal cholesterol levels and healthy lifestyles.

Treatment: Look beyond lifestyle

The screening recommendations are accompanied by a discussion of clinical considerations and a description of an approach to treatment for those with lipid disorders. The main point the task force makes is that all CHD risks should be addressed, and that lifestyle changes alone rarely reduce elevated cholesterol to an optimal level. (For more on the treatment of hyperlipidemia, see the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults [Adult Treatment Panel III] at http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/cholesterol/index.htm.)

Time to rethink conventional opinion

The updated task force recommendations are a reminder that many widely used guidelines, including those on the prevention of CHD, are based on a lack of high-level evidence. Thus, it is not surprising that a rigorously evidence-based analysis, as preformed by the USPSTF, will frequently result in recommendations that are at variance with common practice and conventional opinion.

When patients reached a certain age (36 for men, 46 for women), it used to mean that it was time, in the eyes of the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), to screen for lipid disorders. But that’s changed for female patients.

The USPSTF’s latest recommendations (TABLE 1) on screening for lipid disorders in adults¹ call for screening women only when coronary heart disease (CHD) risk factors are present, regardless of their age. (See TABLE 2 for a list of CHD risk factors.) That’s a major shift from the 2001 recommendation, which stated that all women over age 45 should be screened and women ages 20 to 45 should be screened if they were at elevated risk.

The recommendations for men remain the same: All men older than 35 should be screened, as should men who are between the ages of 20 and 35 who have other CHD risks.

TABLE 1
USPSTF lipid disorder screening recommendations at a glance

TABLE 2
Risk factors for CHD

A different approach from NIH and AHA

The revised updated recommendation for women over age 45 was based on 2 systematic evidence reviews^2,3 that concluded, while treatment clearly benefits women with other risk factors, benefit has not been proven for women who are otherwise CHD risk free.

The recommendation for women conflicts with those of the National Institutes of Health and the American Heart Association; both recommend screening all adults starting at age 20—regardless of risk.

Screening those without risk isn’t ruled out

It is important to note that the task force is not recommending against screening in women (or men between the ages of 20 and 35) who do not have other CHD risks. The task force makes a C recommendation with wording that states, “The USPSTF makes no recommendation for or against routine provision of [the service]. The USPSTF found at least fair evidence that [the service] can improve health outcomes but concludes that the balance of benefits and harms is too close to justify a general recommendation” (TABLE 3).

The task force chose not to use the new wording for a C recommendation, adopted in 2007, which reads, “The USPSTF recommends against routinely providing the service. There may be considerations that support providing the service in an individual patient. There is at least moderate certainty that the net benefit is small.”

It is also important to realize that a large proportion of women have another CHD risk and will not fall into the C category recommendation.

TABLE 3
USPSTF recommendation categories

No need to look at triglycerides initially

The task force recommends screening with a fasting or nonfasting serum sample for total cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. The task force does not recommend including a triglyceride level because there is mixed and inclusive evidence that triglyceride levels are independently associated with CHD risk and scant evidence that treating isolated elevated triglyceride levels reduces the occurrence of CHD events. This approach also conflicts with other organizations that recommend screening with fasting lipid profiles that include a triglyceride level.

The task force states that an abnormal initial screen should be confirmed by a repeat test and, if confirmed, a fasting lipid panel should be obtained. Wide adoption of the task force recommendations would result in considerable savings in cost and patient inconvenience by avoiding complete fasting lipid panels as the initial screen.

The optimal frequency of screening is not established and the task force states that every 5 years is reasonable, although more frequent testing might be considered for those with high normal values, and less frequent intervals for those with optimal cholesterol levels and healthy lifestyles.

Treatment: Look beyond lifestyle

The screening recommendations are accompanied by a discussion of clinical considerations and a description of an approach to treatment for those with lipid disorders. The main point the task force makes is that all CHD risks should be addressed, and that lifestyle changes alone rarely reduce elevated cholesterol to an optimal level. (For more on the treatment of hyperlipidemia, see the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults [Adult Treatment Panel III] at http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/cholesterol/index.htm.)

Time to rethink conventional opinion

The updated task force recommendations are a reminder that many widely used guidelines, including those on the prevention of CHD, are based on a lack of high-level evidence. Thus, it is not surprising that a rigorously evidence-based analysis, as preformed by the USPSTF, will frequently result in recommendations that are at variance with common practice and conventional opinion.

When patients reached a certain age (36 for men, 46 for women), it used to mean that it was time, in the eyes of the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), to screen for lipid disorders. But that’s changed for female patients.

The USPSTF’s latest recommendations (TABLE 1) on screening for lipid disorders in adults¹ call for screening women only when coronary heart disease (CHD) risk factors are present, regardless of their age. (See TABLE 2 for a list of CHD risk factors.) That’s a major shift from the 2001 recommendation, which stated that all women over age 45 should be screened and women ages 20 to 45 should be screened if they were at elevated risk.

The recommendations for men remain the same: All men older than 35 should be screened, as should men who are between the ages of 20 and 35 who have other CHD risks.

TABLE 1
USPSTF lipid disorder screening recommendations at a glance

TABLE 2
Risk factors for CHD

A different approach from NIH and AHA

The revised updated recommendation for women over age 45 was based on 2 systematic evidence reviews^2,3 that concluded, while treatment clearly benefits women with other risk factors, benefit has not been proven for women who are otherwise CHD risk free.

The recommendation for women conflicts with those of the National Institutes of Health and the American Heart Association; both recommend screening all adults starting at age 20—regardless of risk.

Screening those without risk isn’t ruled out

It is important to note that the task force is not recommending against screening in women (or men between the ages of 20 and 35) who do not have other CHD risks. The task force makes a C recommendation with wording that states, “The USPSTF makes no recommendation for or against routine provision of [the service]. The USPSTF found at least fair evidence that [the service] can improve health outcomes but concludes that the balance of benefits and harms is too close to justify a general recommendation” (TABLE 3).

The task force chose not to use the new wording for a C recommendation, adopted in 2007, which reads, “The USPSTF recommends against routinely providing the service. There may be considerations that support providing the service in an individual patient. There is at least moderate certainty that the net benefit is small.”

It is also important to realize that a large proportion of women have another CHD risk and will not fall into the C category recommendation.

TABLE 3
USPSTF recommendation categories

No need to look at triglycerides initially

The task force recommends screening with a fasting or nonfasting serum sample for total cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. The task force does not recommend including a triglyceride level because there is mixed and inclusive evidence that triglyceride levels are independently associated with CHD risk and scant evidence that treating isolated elevated triglyceride levels reduces the occurrence of CHD events. This approach also conflicts with other organizations that recommend screening with fasting lipid profiles that include a triglyceride level.

The task force states that an abnormal initial screen should be confirmed by a repeat test and, if confirmed, a fasting lipid panel should be obtained. Wide adoption of the task force recommendations would result in considerable savings in cost and patient inconvenience by avoiding complete fasting lipid panels as the initial screen.

The optimal frequency of screening is not established and the task force states that every 5 years is reasonable, although more frequent testing might be considered for those with high normal values, and less frequent intervals for those with optimal cholesterol levels and healthy lifestyles.

Treatment: Look beyond lifestyle

The screening recommendations are accompanied by a discussion of clinical considerations and a description of an approach to treatment for those with lipid disorders. The main point the task force makes is that all CHD risks should be addressed, and that lifestyle changes alone rarely reduce elevated cholesterol to an optimal level. (For more on the treatment of hyperlipidemia, see the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults [Adult Treatment Panel III] at http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/cholesterol/index.htm.)

Time to rethink conventional opinion

The updated task force recommendations are a reminder that many widely used guidelines, including those on the prevention of CHD, are based on a lack of high-level evidence. Thus, it is not surprising that a rigorously evidence-based analysis, as preformed by the USPSTF, will frequently result in recommendations that are at variance with common practice and conventional opinion.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has made 2 significant changes to its annual recommendations for the prevention of influenza during the 2008-2009 flu season:¹

1. Annual vaccination is now recommended for all children ages 6 months through 18 years. (Last year, universal influenza vaccination was recommended only for children ages 6 months through 4 years.)
2. The live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) can now be used starting at 2 years of age.

Vaccinate older children

The CDC now recommends that 5- to 18-year-olds receive the influenza vaccine annually, and that this routine vaccination start as soon as possible, but no later than the 2009-2010 flu season. In other words, if routine vaccination can be achieved this year it is encouraged, but the CDC recognizes that it may not be possible to achieve in some settings until next year.

If family physicians do not incorporate routine vaccination for those ages 5 to 18 this year, they should still provide it for those in this age group who are at high risk for influenza complications, including those who:

• are on long-term aspirin therapy;
• have chronic pulmonary (including asthma), cardiovascular, renal, hepatic, hematological, or metabolic disorders;
• are immunosuppressed; or
• have disorders that alter respiratory functions or the handling of respiratory secretions.

Children who live in households with others who are at higher risk (children who are <5 years old, adults >50 years, and anyone with a medical condition that places him or her at high risk for severe influenza complications) should also be vaccinated.

LAIV is an option for even younger kids

Last year, the LAIV vaccine was licensed for children starting at age 5. Now, the LAIV can be given to healthy children starting at age 2, as well as to adolescents and adults through age 49. TABLE 1 compares the LAIV with the trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV).

Because LAIV is an attenuated live virus vaccine, some children should not receive it, including those younger than 5 years of age with reactive airway disease (recurrent wheezing or recent wheezing); those with a medical condition that places them at high risk of influenza complications; and those younger than 2 years of age. The TIV can be used in these children, starting at 6 months of age.

Regardless of whether a child receives LAIV or TIV, those younger than 9 years of age who are receiving influenza vaccine for the first time should receive 2 doses 4 weeks apart. If a child received only 1 dose in the first year, the following year he or she should receive 2 doses 4 weeks apart.

TABLE 1
LAIV vs TIV: How the 2 compare

Coverage rates still need to improve

Influenza vaccine and antiviral agents continue to be underutilized. TABLE 2 lists estimated coverage with influenza vaccine for specific groups for whom immunization is recommended. It is particularly important that coverage rates for health care workers—which remain below 50%—be improved. Health care workers are at high risk of exposure to influenza and pose a risk of disease transmission to their families, other staff members, and patients. Family physicians should ensure that they and their staff are vaccinated each year.

Missed opportunities. Many patients for whom influenza vaccine is recommended fail to receive the vaccine because of missed opportunities. Physicians should offer the vaccine starting in October (or as soon as the vaccine supply allows) and continue to offer and encourage it through the entire flu season. Peak influenza activity can occur as late as April and May and occurs after February on average of 1 in every 5 years.

TABLE 2
Immunization is recommended, but what were the coverage rates?*

Autism concerns persist among parents

Despite clear scientific evidence that neither vaccines nor thimerosal preservative cause autism, some parents remain concerned. Some states have passed laws prohibiting the use of any thimerosal-containing vaccines and some parents may request thimerosal-free vaccines. TABLE 3 lists all the influenza vaccines and their thimerosal content.

TABLE 3
Which vaccines contain thimerosal—and how much?

Make use of antivirals

Two antiviral medications are licensed and approved for the treatment and prevention of influenza: oseltamivir (Tamiflu) and zanamivir (Relenza). Two others (amantadine and rimantadine) are licensed but not currently recommended due to the high rates of resistance that influenza has developed against them.

Oseltamivir is approved for the treatment and prophylaxis of influenza starting at 1 year of age.

Zanamivir is approved for the treatment of influenza starting at 7 years of age and for prophylaxis starting at 5 years of age.

Treatment, if started within 48 hours of symptom onset, reduces the severity and length of infection and the length of infectiousness. Antiviral prophylaxis should be considered when there is increased influenza activity for those listed in TABLE 4.

TABLE 4
Increased flu activity in the community? Consider antiviral prophylaxis

Every bit helps

Each year, influenza kills, on average, 36,000 Americans and hospitalizes another 200,000. Much of this morbidity and mortality could be avoided with full utilization of influenza vaccines and antiviral medications. You can contribute to improved public health by assuring that your patients and staff are fully immunized, that office infection control practices are adhered to, and that antiviral prophylaxis is used when indicated.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has made 2 significant changes to its annual recommendations for the prevention of influenza during the 2008-2009 flu season:¹

1. Annual vaccination is now recommended for all children ages 6 months through 18 years. (Last year, universal influenza vaccination was recommended only for children ages 6 months through 4 years.)
2. The live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) can now be used starting at 2 years of age.

Vaccinate older children

The CDC now recommends that 5- to 18-year-olds receive the influenza vaccine annually, and that this routine vaccination start as soon as possible, but no later than the 2009-2010 flu season. In other words, if routine vaccination can be achieved this year it is encouraged, but the CDC recognizes that it may not be possible to achieve in some settings until next year.

If family physicians do not incorporate routine vaccination for those ages 5 to 18 this year, they should still provide it for those in this age group who are at high risk for influenza complications, including those who:

• are on long-term aspirin therapy;
• have chronic pulmonary (including asthma), cardiovascular, renal, hepatic, hematological, or metabolic disorders;
• are immunosuppressed; or
• have disorders that alter respiratory functions or the handling of respiratory secretions.

Children who live in households with others who are at higher risk (children who are <5 years old, adults >50 years, and anyone with a medical condition that places him or her at high risk for severe influenza complications) should also be vaccinated.

LAIV is an option for even younger kids

Last year, the LAIV vaccine was licensed for children starting at age 5. Now, the LAIV can be given to healthy children starting at age 2, as well as to adolescents and adults through age 49. TABLE 1 compares the LAIV with the trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV).

Because LAIV is an attenuated live virus vaccine, some children should not receive it, including those younger than 5 years of age with reactive airway disease (recurrent wheezing or recent wheezing); those with a medical condition that places them at high risk of influenza complications; and those younger than 2 years of age. The TIV can be used in these children, starting at 6 months of age.

Regardless of whether a child receives LAIV or TIV, those younger than 9 years of age who are receiving influenza vaccine for the first time should receive 2 doses 4 weeks apart. If a child received only 1 dose in the first year, the following year he or she should receive 2 doses 4 weeks apart.

TABLE 1
LAIV vs TIV: How the 2 compare

Coverage rates still need to improve

Influenza vaccine and antiviral agents continue to be underutilized. TABLE 2 lists estimated coverage with influenza vaccine for specific groups for whom immunization is recommended. It is particularly important that coverage rates for health care workers—which remain below 50%—be improved. Health care workers are at high risk of exposure to influenza and pose a risk of disease transmission to their families, other staff members, and patients. Family physicians should ensure that they and their staff are vaccinated each year.

Missed opportunities. Many patients for whom influenza vaccine is recommended fail to receive the vaccine because of missed opportunities. Physicians should offer the vaccine starting in October (or as soon as the vaccine supply allows) and continue to offer and encourage it through the entire flu season. Peak influenza activity can occur as late as April and May and occurs after February on average of 1 in every 5 years.

TABLE 2
Immunization is recommended, but what were the coverage rates?*

Autism concerns persist among parents

Despite clear scientific evidence that neither vaccines nor thimerosal preservative cause autism, some parents remain concerned. Some states have passed laws prohibiting the use of any thimerosal-containing vaccines and some parents may request thimerosal-free vaccines. TABLE 3 lists all the influenza vaccines and their thimerosal content.

TABLE 3
Which vaccines contain thimerosal—and how much?

Make use of antivirals

Two antiviral medications are licensed and approved for the treatment and prevention of influenza: oseltamivir (Tamiflu) and zanamivir (Relenza). Two others (amantadine and rimantadine) are licensed but not currently recommended due to the high rates of resistance that influenza has developed against them.

Oseltamivir is approved for the treatment and prophylaxis of influenza starting at 1 year of age.

Zanamivir is approved for the treatment of influenza starting at 7 years of age and for prophylaxis starting at 5 years of age.

Treatment, if started within 48 hours of symptom onset, reduces the severity and length of infection and the length of infectiousness. Antiviral prophylaxis should be considered when there is increased influenza activity for those listed in TABLE 4.

TABLE 4
Increased flu activity in the community? Consider antiviral prophylaxis

Every bit helps

Each year, influenza kills, on average, 36,000 Americans and hospitalizes another 200,000. Much of this morbidity and mortality could be avoided with full utilization of influenza vaccines and antiviral medications. You can contribute to improved public health by assuring that your patients and staff are fully immunized, that office infection control practices are adhered to, and that antiviral prophylaxis is used when indicated.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has made 2 significant changes to its annual recommendations for the prevention of influenza during the 2008-2009 flu season:¹

1. Annual vaccination is now recommended for all children ages 6 months through 18 years. (Last year, universal influenza vaccination was recommended only for children ages 6 months through 4 years.)
2. The live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) can now be used starting at 2 years of age.

Vaccinate older children

The CDC now recommends that 5- to 18-year-olds receive the influenza vaccine annually, and that this routine vaccination start as soon as possible, but no later than the 2009-2010 flu season. In other words, if routine vaccination can be achieved this year it is encouraged, but the CDC recognizes that it may not be possible to achieve in some settings until next year.

If family physicians do not incorporate routine vaccination for those ages 5 to 18 this year, they should still provide it for those in this age group who are at high risk for influenza complications, including those who:

• are on long-term aspirin therapy;
• have chronic pulmonary (including asthma), cardiovascular, renal, hepatic, hematological, or metabolic disorders;
• are immunosuppressed; or
• have disorders that alter respiratory functions or the handling of respiratory secretions.

Children who live in households with others who are at higher risk (children who are <5 years old, adults >50 years, and anyone with a medical condition that places him or her at high risk for severe influenza complications) should also be vaccinated.

LAIV is an option for even younger kids

Last year, the LAIV vaccine was licensed for children starting at age 5. Now, the LAIV can be given to healthy children starting at age 2, as well as to adolescents and adults through age 49. TABLE 1 compares the LAIV with the trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV).

Because LAIV is an attenuated live virus vaccine, some children should not receive it, including those younger than 5 years of age with reactive airway disease (recurrent wheezing or recent wheezing); those with a medical condition that places them at high risk of influenza complications; and those younger than 2 years of age. The TIV can be used in these children, starting at 6 months of age.

Regardless of whether a child receives LAIV or TIV, those younger than 9 years of age who are receiving influenza vaccine for the first time should receive 2 doses 4 weeks apart. If a child received only 1 dose in the first year, the following year he or she should receive 2 doses 4 weeks apart.

TABLE 1
LAIV vs TIV: How the 2 compare

Coverage rates still need to improve

Influenza vaccine and antiviral agents continue to be underutilized. TABLE 2 lists estimated coverage with influenza vaccine for specific groups for whom immunization is recommended. It is particularly important that coverage rates for health care workers—which remain below 50%—be improved. Health care workers are at high risk of exposure to influenza and pose a risk of disease transmission to their families, other staff members, and patients. Family physicians should ensure that they and their staff are vaccinated each year.

Missed opportunities. Many patients for whom influenza vaccine is recommended fail to receive the vaccine because of missed opportunities. Physicians should offer the vaccine starting in October (or as soon as the vaccine supply allows) and continue to offer and encourage it through the entire flu season. Peak influenza activity can occur as late as April and May and occurs after February on average of 1 in every 5 years.

TABLE 2
Immunization is recommended, but what were the coverage rates?*

Autism concerns persist among parents

Despite clear scientific evidence that neither vaccines nor thimerosal preservative cause autism, some parents remain concerned. Some states have passed laws prohibiting the use of any thimerosal-containing vaccines and some parents may request thimerosal-free vaccines. TABLE 3 lists all the influenza vaccines and their thimerosal content.

TABLE 3
Which vaccines contain thimerosal—and how much?

Make use of antivirals

Two antiviral medications are licensed and approved for the treatment and prevention of influenza: oseltamivir (Tamiflu) and zanamivir (Relenza). Two others (amantadine and rimantadine) are licensed but not currently recommended due to the high rates of resistance that influenza has developed against them.

Oseltamivir is approved for the treatment and prophylaxis of influenza starting at 1 year of age.

Zanamivir is approved for the treatment of influenza starting at 7 years of age and for prophylaxis starting at 5 years of age.

Treatment, if started within 48 hours of symptom onset, reduces the severity and length of infection and the length of infectiousness. Antiviral prophylaxis should be considered when there is increased influenza activity for those listed in TABLE 4.

TABLE 4
Increased flu activity in the community? Consider antiviral prophylaxis

Every bit helps

Each year, influenza kills, on average, 36,000 Americans and hospitalizes another 200,000. Much of this morbidity and mortality could be avoided with full utilization of influenza vaccines and antiviral medications. You can contribute to improved public health by assuring that your patients and staff are fully immunized, that office infection control practices are adhered to, and that antiviral prophylaxis is used when indicated.

Not enough time and too many potential tests to do. This is the problem faced daily by family physicians. We want to practice up-to-date preventive medicine, but there’s little time to analyze the latest studies. Thankfully, we can rely on the United States Preventive Services Task Force, the organization with the most rigorous evidence-based approach, to do the legwork for us.¹

Last year, and in the early part of this year, the Task Force issued a number of recommendations on topics ranging from hypertension screening to screening for illicit drug use. (See TABLE 1 for a breakdown of the 5 categories of recommendations.)

While some of these recommendations (TABLE 2) were reaffirmations of past recommendations, others included some changes.

The Task Force has:

• dropped the age for routine screening for Chlamydia in sexually active women from 25 years and younger to 24 and younger.
• added a recommendation against the use of aspirin or other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) to prevent colorectal cancer (CRC).
• changed its recommendation on screening for carotid artery stenosis. In 1996, the Task Force noted that the evidence was insufficient to make a recommendation; in 2007 it recommended against such routine screening.
• added recommendations on counseling patients about drinking and driving, as well as on screening for illicit drug use. In both cases, the Task Force says the evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against.

TABLE 1
USPSTF recommendation categories

TABLE 2
Summary of new USPSTF recommendations

Continue to screen for HTN, sickle cell, Chlamydia

The latest A and B recommendations from the Task Force largely reaffirm previous recommendations. These recommendations cover hypertension, sickle cell disease, and Chlamydia.

Hypertension. Screening and treatment of hypertension in adults leads to lower morbidity and mortality from cardiovascular disease and is still recommended.²

Sickle cell disease. Screening newborns for sickle cell disease and treating those affected with oral prophylactic penicillin prevents serious bacterial infections. It also remains a recommended service.³

Chlamydia. Following a review of the evidence, the Task Force reconfirms the benefits of screening for Chlamydia in sexually active young women, but it has changed the age cutoff. In 2001, the Task Force indicated that sexually active women who were 25 years of age and younger should be screened. In 2007, the Task Force dropped the age to 24 and younger.

The latest recommendation reaffirms the need to screen women (above the cutoff) who are at risk—that is, women who have previously had a sexually transmitted infection (STI), those who have a new or multiple sex partners, and those who exchange sex for money or drugs.⁴ Screening is recommended annually; nucleic acid amplification tests are acceptable, allowing testing of urine or vaginal swabs.

Screening during pregnancy is recommended for the same groups—women who are 24 and younger and older women at risk—at the first prenatal visit and again in the third trimester if risk continues. Chlamydia is the most common bacterial STI, and screening and treatment prevents pelvic inflammatory disease in women and leads to improved pregnancy outcomes.

Interventions that are not recommended

Chemopreventon of colorectal cancer. For the first time, the Task Force issued a recommendation on the use of aspirin or other NSAIDs to prevent CRC. The Task Force does not recommend the routine use of these agents.⁵ The dosage needed to prevent CRC is higher than that which prevents cardiovascular disease and can cause significant harm.

Aspirin use is associated with gastrointestinal bleeding and hemorrhagic stroke; NSAID use is associated with gastrointestinal bleeding and renal impairment. The Task Force concludes that in the general adult population, potential harms exceed potential benefits.

Screening for carotid artery stenosis. In 1996, the Task Force found insufficient evidence to recommend for or against routine screening for carotid artery stenosis. In 2007, the Task Force made a recommendation against routine screening for carotid artery stenosis.⁶ Screening with duplex ultrasonography results in frequent false positives. Confirmatory testing with angiography is associated with a 1% rate of stroke. Endarterectomy itself has a death or stroke rate of about 3%.

In the general population, close to 8700 adults would need to be screened to prevent 1 disabling stroke. The Task Force indicates that primary care physicians would have better outcomes by concentrating on optimal management of risk factors for cerebral artery disease.

Screening for bacterial vaginosis among low-risk pregnant women. The final D recommendation pertains to screening for bacterial vaginosis during pregnancy to prevent preterm delivery.⁷ Pregnant women who have not had a previous preterm delivery are considered at low risk for preterm delivery and there is good evidence that this group does not benefit from screening for, or treatment of, asymptomatic bacterial vaginosis. (A similar recommendation was made in 2001, but it referred to women of “average” risk.)

Insufficient evidence to make a recommendation

Routinely screening men for Chlamydia. While it makes clinical sense to test and treat male partners of women with Chlamydia infection, the Task Force could not find evidence of the effectiveness of routinely screening men as a way to prevent infection in women.⁴ That said, the Task Force points out that screening men is relatively inexpensive and has negligible harms.

Screening for hyperlipidemia in children. While 50% of children with hyperlipidemia continue to have this disorder as adults, the long-term benefits and harms of early detection and treatment with medications and lipid-lowering diets have not been studied.⁸ This echoes the position the Task Force took in 1996, when it commented on children as part of an adult hyperlipidemia recommendation.

Physician counseling on drinking and driving. Motor vehicle crashes result in significant morbidity and mortality—especially among adolescents and young adults. Improved car and road design, as well as public health safety efforts, have led to significant improvements in motor vehicle safety. While avoidance of driving under the influence and proper use of occupant restraints are important public health goals, the Task Force, in this first recommendation on the subject, could find no evidence that physician counseling added benefit above those provided by community-wide efforts.⁹

Screening for bacterial vaginosis in pregnant women at high risk for preterm birth. As mentioned previously, screening low-risk pregnant women for bacterial vaginosis results in no benefit. The issue is less clear cut among women at high risk for a preterm delivery—that is, those who have had one previously.

The evidence regarding screening and treating asymptomatic bacterial vaginosis as a means of preventing preterm delivery in these women is mixed and the Task Force was unable to recommend for or against this practice.⁷ This reaffirms the Task Force’s 2001 recommendation.

Screening for illicit drug use. The Task Force recognizes that illicit drug use is a major cause of illness and social problems. It would appear to have great potential for early detection and intervention. However, the Task Force, in this first-time recommendation, found that screening tools have not been well studied, nor have the long-term effects of different treatment strategies.¹⁰ These are high priority areas for future research.

Correspondence
Doug Campos-Outcalt, MD, MPA, 550 E. Van Buren, Phoenix, AZ 85004; dougco@u.arizona.edu

Not enough time and too many potential tests to do. This is the problem faced daily by family physicians. We want to practice up-to-date preventive medicine, but there’s little time to analyze the latest studies. Thankfully, we can rely on the United States Preventive Services Task Force, the organization with the most rigorous evidence-based approach, to do the legwork for us.¹

Last year, and in the early part of this year, the Task Force issued a number of recommendations on topics ranging from hypertension screening to screening for illicit drug use. (See TABLE 1 for a breakdown of the 5 categories of recommendations.)

While some of these recommendations (TABLE 2) were reaffirmations of past recommendations, others included some changes.

The Task Force has:

• dropped the age for routine screening for Chlamydia in sexually active women from 25 years and younger to 24 and younger.
• added a recommendation against the use of aspirin or other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) to prevent colorectal cancer (CRC).
• changed its recommendation on screening for carotid artery stenosis. In 1996, the Task Force noted that the evidence was insufficient to make a recommendation; in 2007 it recommended against such routine screening.
• added recommendations on counseling patients about drinking and driving, as well as on screening for illicit drug use. In both cases, the Task Force says the evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against.

TABLE 1
USPSTF recommendation categories

TABLE 2
Summary of new USPSTF recommendations

Continue to screen for HTN, sickle cell, Chlamydia

The latest A and B recommendations from the Task Force largely reaffirm previous recommendations. These recommendations cover hypertension, sickle cell disease, and Chlamydia.

Hypertension. Screening and treatment of hypertension in adults leads to lower morbidity and mortality from cardiovascular disease and is still recommended.²

Sickle cell disease. Screening newborns for sickle cell disease and treating those affected with oral prophylactic penicillin prevents serious bacterial infections. It also remains a recommended service.³

Chlamydia. Following a review of the evidence, the Task Force reconfirms the benefits of screening for Chlamydia in sexually active young women, but it has changed the age cutoff. In 2001, the Task Force indicated that sexually active women who were 25 years of age and younger should be screened. In 2007, the Task Force dropped the age to 24 and younger.

The latest recommendation reaffirms the need to screen women (above the cutoff) who are at risk—that is, women who have previously had a sexually transmitted infection (STI), those who have a new or multiple sex partners, and those who exchange sex for money or drugs.⁴ Screening is recommended annually; nucleic acid amplification tests are acceptable, allowing testing of urine or vaginal swabs.

Screening during pregnancy is recommended for the same groups—women who are 24 and younger and older women at risk—at the first prenatal visit and again in the third trimester if risk continues. Chlamydia is the most common bacterial STI, and screening and treatment prevents pelvic inflammatory disease in women and leads to improved pregnancy outcomes.

Interventions that are not recommended

Chemopreventon of colorectal cancer. For the first time, the Task Force issued a recommendation on the use of aspirin or other NSAIDs to prevent CRC. The Task Force does not recommend the routine use of these agents.⁵ The dosage needed to prevent CRC is higher than that which prevents cardiovascular disease and can cause significant harm.

Aspirin use is associated with gastrointestinal bleeding and hemorrhagic stroke; NSAID use is associated with gastrointestinal bleeding and renal impairment. The Task Force concludes that in the general adult population, potential harms exceed potential benefits.

Screening for carotid artery stenosis. In 1996, the Task Force found insufficient evidence to recommend for or against routine screening for carotid artery stenosis. In 2007, the Task Force made a recommendation against routine screening for carotid artery stenosis.⁶ Screening with duplex ultrasonography results in frequent false positives. Confirmatory testing with angiography is associated with a 1% rate of stroke. Endarterectomy itself has a death or stroke rate of about 3%.

In the general population, close to 8700 adults would need to be screened to prevent 1 disabling stroke. The Task Force indicates that primary care physicians would have better outcomes by concentrating on optimal management of risk factors for cerebral artery disease.

Screening for bacterial vaginosis among low-risk pregnant women. The final D recommendation pertains to screening for bacterial vaginosis during pregnancy to prevent preterm delivery.⁷ Pregnant women who have not had a previous preterm delivery are considered at low risk for preterm delivery and there is good evidence that this group does not benefit from screening for, or treatment of, asymptomatic bacterial vaginosis. (A similar recommendation was made in 2001, but it referred to women of “average” risk.)

Insufficient evidence to make a recommendation

Routinely screening men for Chlamydia. While it makes clinical sense to test and treat male partners of women with Chlamydia infection, the Task Force could not find evidence of the effectiveness of routinely screening men as a way to prevent infection in women.⁴ That said, the Task Force points out that screening men is relatively inexpensive and has negligible harms.

Screening for hyperlipidemia in children. While 50% of children with hyperlipidemia continue to have this disorder as adults, the long-term benefits and harms of early detection and treatment with medications and lipid-lowering diets have not been studied.⁸ This echoes the position the Task Force took in 1996, when it commented on children as part of an adult hyperlipidemia recommendation.

Physician counseling on drinking and driving. Motor vehicle crashes result in significant morbidity and mortality—especially among adolescents and young adults. Improved car and road design, as well as public health safety efforts, have led to significant improvements in motor vehicle safety. While avoidance of driving under the influence and proper use of occupant restraints are important public health goals, the Task Force, in this first recommendation on the subject, could find no evidence that physician counseling added benefit above those provided by community-wide efforts.⁹

Screening for bacterial vaginosis in pregnant women at high risk for preterm birth. As mentioned previously, screening low-risk pregnant women for bacterial vaginosis results in no benefit. The issue is less clear cut among women at high risk for a preterm delivery—that is, those who have had one previously.

The evidence regarding screening and treating asymptomatic bacterial vaginosis as a means of preventing preterm delivery in these women is mixed and the Task Force was unable to recommend for or against this practice.⁷ This reaffirms the Task Force’s 2001 recommendation.

Screening for illicit drug use. The Task Force recognizes that illicit drug use is a major cause of illness and social problems. It would appear to have great potential for early detection and intervention. However, the Task Force, in this first-time recommendation, found that screening tools have not been well studied, nor have the long-term effects of different treatment strategies.¹⁰ These are high priority areas for future research.

Correspondence
Doug Campos-Outcalt, MD, MPA, 550 E. Van Buren, Phoenix, AZ 85004; dougco@u.arizona.edu

Not enough time and too many potential tests to do. This is the problem faced daily by family physicians. We want to practice up-to-date preventive medicine, but there’s little time to analyze the latest studies. Thankfully, we can rely on the United States Preventive Services Task Force, the organization with the most rigorous evidence-based approach, to do the legwork for us.¹

Last year, and in the early part of this year, the Task Force issued a number of recommendations on topics ranging from hypertension screening to screening for illicit drug use. (See TABLE 1 for a breakdown of the 5 categories of recommendations.)

While some of these recommendations (TABLE 2) were reaffirmations of past recommendations, others included some changes.

The Task Force has:

• dropped the age for routine screening for Chlamydia in sexually active women from 25 years and younger to 24 and younger.
• added a recommendation against the use of aspirin or other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) to prevent colorectal cancer (CRC).
• changed its recommendation on screening for carotid artery stenosis. In 1996, the Task Force noted that the evidence was insufficient to make a recommendation; in 2007 it recommended against such routine screening.
• added recommendations on counseling patients about drinking and driving, as well as on screening for illicit drug use. In both cases, the Task Force says the evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against.

TABLE 1
USPSTF recommendation categories

TABLE 2
Summary of new USPSTF recommendations

Continue to screen for HTN, sickle cell, Chlamydia

The latest A and B recommendations from the Task Force largely reaffirm previous recommendations. These recommendations cover hypertension, sickle cell disease, and Chlamydia.

Hypertension. Screening and treatment of hypertension in adults leads to lower morbidity and mortality from cardiovascular disease and is still recommended.²

Sickle cell disease. Screening newborns for sickle cell disease and treating those affected with oral prophylactic penicillin prevents serious bacterial infections. It also remains a recommended service.³

Chlamydia. Following a review of the evidence, the Task Force reconfirms the benefits of screening for Chlamydia in sexually active young women, but it has changed the age cutoff. In 2001, the Task Force indicated that sexually active women who were 25 years of age and younger should be screened. In 2007, the Task Force dropped the age to 24 and younger.

The latest recommendation reaffirms the need to screen women (above the cutoff) who are at risk—that is, women who have previously had a sexually transmitted infection (STI), those who have a new or multiple sex partners, and those who exchange sex for money or drugs.⁴ Screening is recommended annually; nucleic acid amplification tests are acceptable, allowing testing of urine or vaginal swabs.

Screening during pregnancy is recommended for the same groups—women who are 24 and younger and older women at risk—at the first prenatal visit and again in the third trimester if risk continues. Chlamydia is the most common bacterial STI, and screening and treatment prevents pelvic inflammatory disease in women and leads to improved pregnancy outcomes.

Interventions that are not recommended

Chemopreventon of colorectal cancer. For the first time, the Task Force issued a recommendation on the use of aspirin or other NSAIDs to prevent CRC. The Task Force does not recommend the routine use of these agents.⁵ The dosage needed to prevent CRC is higher than that which prevents cardiovascular disease and can cause significant harm.

Aspirin use is associated with gastrointestinal bleeding and hemorrhagic stroke; NSAID use is associated with gastrointestinal bleeding and renal impairment. The Task Force concludes that in the general adult population, potential harms exceed potential benefits.

Screening for carotid artery stenosis. In 1996, the Task Force found insufficient evidence to recommend for or against routine screening for carotid artery stenosis. In 2007, the Task Force made a recommendation against routine screening for carotid artery stenosis.⁶ Screening with duplex ultrasonography results in frequent false positives. Confirmatory testing with angiography is associated with a 1% rate of stroke. Endarterectomy itself has a death or stroke rate of about 3%.

In the general population, close to 8700 adults would need to be screened to prevent 1 disabling stroke. The Task Force indicates that primary care physicians would have better outcomes by concentrating on optimal management of risk factors for cerebral artery disease.

Screening for bacterial vaginosis among low-risk pregnant women. The final D recommendation pertains to screening for bacterial vaginosis during pregnancy to prevent preterm delivery.⁷ Pregnant women who have not had a previous preterm delivery are considered at low risk for preterm delivery and there is good evidence that this group does not benefit from screening for, or treatment of, asymptomatic bacterial vaginosis. (A similar recommendation was made in 2001, but it referred to women of “average” risk.)

Insufficient evidence to make a recommendation

Routinely screening men for Chlamydia. While it makes clinical sense to test and treat male partners of women with Chlamydia infection, the Task Force could not find evidence of the effectiveness of routinely screening men as a way to prevent infection in women.⁴ That said, the Task Force points out that screening men is relatively inexpensive and has negligible harms.

Screening for hyperlipidemia in children. While 50% of children with hyperlipidemia continue to have this disorder as adults, the long-term benefits and harms of early detection and treatment with medications and lipid-lowering diets have not been studied.⁸ This echoes the position the Task Force took in 1996, when it commented on children as part of an adult hyperlipidemia recommendation.

Physician counseling on drinking and driving. Motor vehicle crashes result in significant morbidity and mortality—especially among adolescents and young adults. Improved car and road design, as well as public health safety efforts, have led to significant improvements in motor vehicle safety. While avoidance of driving under the influence and proper use of occupant restraints are important public health goals, the Task Force, in this first recommendation on the subject, could find no evidence that physician counseling added benefit above those provided by community-wide efforts.⁹

Screening for bacterial vaginosis in pregnant women at high risk for preterm birth. As mentioned previously, screening low-risk pregnant women for bacterial vaginosis results in no benefit. The issue is less clear cut among women at high risk for a preterm delivery—that is, those who have had one previously.

The evidence regarding screening and treating asymptomatic bacterial vaginosis as a means of preventing preterm delivery in these women is mixed and the Task Force was unable to recommend for or against this practice.⁷ This reaffirms the Task Force’s 2001 recommendation.

Screening for illicit drug use. The Task Force recognizes that illicit drug use is a major cause of illness and social problems. It would appear to have great potential for early detection and intervention. However, the Task Force, in this first-time recommendation, found that screening tools have not been well studied, nor have the long-term effects of different treatment strategies.¹⁰ These are high priority areas for future research.

Correspondence
Doug Campos-Outcalt, MD, MPA, 550 E. Van Buren, Phoenix, AZ 85004; dougco@u.arizona.edu

Measles is still a threat. Endemic transmission of measles no longer occurs in the United States (or any of the Americas), yet this highly infectious disease is still a threat from importation by visitors from other countries and from US residents who have traveled abroad. Two recent outbreaks (described at left) illustrate these risks.

What the CDC discovered

The 2 outbreaks of import-linked measles brought home—literally—the sobering facts about vulnerability among US residents. The CDC report ^1,2 of its investigation observed:

US travelers can be exposed almost anywhere, developed countries included. The California outbreak started with a visit to Switzerland.

Measles spreads rapidly in susceptible subgroups, unless effective control strategies are used. In California, on 2 consecutive days, 5 school children and 4 children in a doctor’s office were infected; all were unvaccinated.

People not considered at risk can contract measles. Although 2 doses of vaccine are 99% effective, vaccinated individuals, such as the college students, can contract measles. Likewise, people born before 1957 may not be immune, in contrast to the general definition of immunity (see Measles Basics. Case in point: the airline passenger, born in 1954.

Disease can be severe. The 40-year-old salesperson (no documented vaccination) was hospitalized with seizure, 105ºF fever, and pneumonia. One of the infants was hospitalized due to dehydration.

People in routine contact with travelers entering the United States can be exposed to measles—like the airline worker.

Take-home lessons for family physicians

Include measles in the differential diagnosis of patients who have fever and rash, especially if they have traveled to another country within the past 3 to 4 weeks. Any patient who meets the definition of measles (fever 101ºF or higher; rash; and at least 1 of the 3 Cs—cough, coryza, conjunctivitis) should be immediately reported to the local health department. The health department will provide instructions for collecting laboratory samples for confirmation; instructions on patient isolation; and assistance with notification and disease control measures for exposed individuals.

Immunize patients and staff. These recurring cases of imported measles underscore the importance of maintaining a high level of immunity. Outbreaks can happen even where immunity is 90% to 95%. When vaccination rates dip below 90%, sustained outbreaks can occur.⁶

Ensure that staff and patients are all immunized against vaccine-preventable diseases, and inform concerned parents about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines. Parents who refuse to have their children vaccinated place their children at risk and contribute to higher community risk. Communities that have higher rates of non-adherence to vaccine recommendations are more likely to have outbreaks.^7,8

Use strict infection control in the office. The recent outbreak in California where 4 children were infected in their physician’s office reinforces the need for strict infection-control practices. Do not allow patients with rash and fever to remain in a common waiting area. Move them to an examination room, preferably an airborne infection isolation room. Keep the door to the examination room closed, and be sure that all health care personnel who come in contact with such patients are immune. Do not use triage rooms for 2 hours after the patient suspected of having measles leaves. Do not send these patients to other health care facilities, such as laboratories, unless infection control measures can be adhered to at those locations. Guidelines on infection control practices in health care settings are available.^9,10

Quick response

Quick control of these outbreaks shows the value of the public health infrastructure. Disease surveillance and outbreak response is vital to the public health system, and its value is frequently under-appreciated by physicians and the public.

Measles is still a threat. Endemic transmission of measles no longer occurs in the United States (or any of the Americas), yet this highly infectious disease is still a threat from importation by visitors from other countries and from US residents who have traveled abroad. Two recent outbreaks (described at left) illustrate these risks.

What the CDC discovered

The 2 outbreaks of import-linked measles brought home—literally—the sobering facts about vulnerability among US residents. The CDC report ^1,2 of its investigation observed:

US travelers can be exposed almost anywhere, developed countries included. The California outbreak started with a visit to Switzerland.

Measles spreads rapidly in susceptible subgroups, unless effective control strategies are used. In California, on 2 consecutive days, 5 school children and 4 children in a doctor’s office were infected; all were unvaccinated.

People not considered at risk can contract measles. Although 2 doses of vaccine are 99% effective, vaccinated individuals, such as the college students, can contract measles. Likewise, people born before 1957 may not be immune, in contrast to the general definition of immunity (see Measles Basics. Case in point: the airline passenger, born in 1954.

Disease can be severe. The 40-year-old salesperson (no documented vaccination) was hospitalized with seizure, 105ºF fever, and pneumonia. One of the infants was hospitalized due to dehydration.

People in routine contact with travelers entering the United States can be exposed to measles—like the airline worker.

Take-home lessons for family physicians

Include measles in the differential diagnosis of patients who have fever and rash, especially if they have traveled to another country within the past 3 to 4 weeks. Any patient who meets the definition of measles (fever 101ºF or higher; rash; and at least 1 of the 3 Cs—cough, coryza, conjunctivitis) should be immediately reported to the local health department. The health department will provide instructions for collecting laboratory samples for confirmation; instructions on patient isolation; and assistance with notification and disease control measures for exposed individuals.

Immunize patients and staff. These recurring cases of imported measles underscore the importance of maintaining a high level of immunity. Outbreaks can happen even where immunity is 90% to 95%. When vaccination rates dip below 90%, sustained outbreaks can occur.⁶

Ensure that staff and patients are all immunized against vaccine-preventable diseases, and inform concerned parents about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines. Parents who refuse to have their children vaccinated place their children at risk and contribute to higher community risk. Communities that have higher rates of non-adherence to vaccine recommendations are more likely to have outbreaks.^7,8

Use strict infection control in the office. The recent outbreak in California where 4 children were infected in their physician’s office reinforces the need for strict infection-control practices. Do not allow patients with rash and fever to remain in a common waiting area. Move them to an examination room, preferably an airborne infection isolation room. Keep the door to the examination room closed, and be sure that all health care personnel who come in contact with such patients are immune. Do not use triage rooms for 2 hours after the patient suspected of having measles leaves. Do not send these patients to other health care facilities, such as laboratories, unless infection control measures can be adhered to at those locations. Guidelines on infection control practices in health care settings are available.^9,10

Quick response

Quick control of these outbreaks shows the value of the public health infrastructure. Disease surveillance and outbreak response is vital to the public health system, and its value is frequently under-appreciated by physicians and the public.

Measles is still a threat. Endemic transmission of measles no longer occurs in the United States (or any of the Americas), yet this highly infectious disease is still a threat from importation by visitors from other countries and from US residents who have traveled abroad. Two recent outbreaks (described at left) illustrate these risks.

What the CDC discovered

The 2 outbreaks of import-linked measles brought home—literally—the sobering facts about vulnerability among US residents. The CDC report ^1,2 of its investigation observed:

US travelers can be exposed almost anywhere, developed countries included. The California outbreak started with a visit to Switzerland.

Measles spreads rapidly in susceptible subgroups, unless effective control strategies are used. In California, on 2 consecutive days, 5 school children and 4 children in a doctor’s office were infected; all were unvaccinated.

People not considered at risk can contract measles. Although 2 doses of vaccine are 99% effective, vaccinated individuals, such as the college students, can contract measles. Likewise, people born before 1957 may not be immune, in contrast to the general definition of immunity (see Measles Basics. Case in point: the airline passenger, born in 1954.

Disease can be severe. The 40-year-old salesperson (no documented vaccination) was hospitalized with seizure, 105ºF fever, and pneumonia. One of the infants was hospitalized due to dehydration.

People in routine contact with travelers entering the United States can be exposed to measles—like the airline worker.

Take-home lessons for family physicians

Include measles in the differential diagnosis of patients who have fever and rash, especially if they have traveled to another country within the past 3 to 4 weeks. Any patient who meets the definition of measles (fever 101ºF or higher; rash; and at least 1 of the 3 Cs—cough, coryza, conjunctivitis) should be immediately reported to the local health department. The health department will provide instructions for collecting laboratory samples for confirmation; instructions on patient isolation; and assistance with notification and disease control measures for exposed individuals.

Immunize patients and staff. These recurring cases of imported measles underscore the importance of maintaining a high level of immunity. Outbreaks can happen even where immunity is 90% to 95%. When vaccination rates dip below 90%, sustained outbreaks can occur.⁶

Ensure that staff and patients are all immunized against vaccine-preventable diseases, and inform concerned parents about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines. Parents who refuse to have their children vaccinated place their children at risk and contribute to higher community risk. Communities that have higher rates of non-adherence to vaccine recommendations are more likely to have outbreaks.^7,8

Use strict infection control in the office. The recent outbreak in California where 4 children were infected in their physician’s office reinforces the need for strict infection-control practices. Do not allow patients with rash and fever to remain in a common waiting area. Move them to an examination room, preferably an airborne infection isolation room. Keep the door to the examination room closed, and be sure that all health care personnel who come in contact with such patients are immune. Do not use triage rooms for 2 hours after the patient suspected of having measles leaves. Do not send these patients to other health care facilities, such as laboratories, unless infection control measures can be adhered to at those locations. Guidelines on infection control practices in health care settings are available.^9,10

Quick response

Quick control of these outbreaks shows the value of the public health infrastructure. Disease surveillance and outbreak response is vital to the public health system, and its value is frequently under-appreciated by physicians and the public.

The year 2007 was rather calm, compared to the 3 previous years in regards to new vaccines and vaccine recommendations. Although no breakthrough vaccine products came onto the market in 2007, there were new recommendations and licensure for new age groups for existing vaccines and a recall of some lots of Hib vaccines.

Meningococcal vaccine

Recommendations on the use of the quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MCV4) have evolved since its licensure in 2005 for use in persons 11 to 55 years of age. The first set of recommendations focused on universal vaccination of preteens, aged 11 to 12, those entering high school who had not received the vaccine previously, and others at risk for meningococcal disease including college freshmen living in dormitories.¹ The MCV4 was preferred to the older polysaccharide vaccine (MPSV4) which was recommended only for children aged 2 to 10 and adults over age 55 at increased risk.

In 2007, the CDC changed 2 of the 2005 recommendations:

• The first, in August, simplified the recommendations for teens, making MCV4 universally recommended for all those aged 11 to 18 at the earliest opportunity.²
• The second, in December, followed FDA approval for use of MCV4 in children aged 2 to 10 years. The CDC now recommends MCV4 as the preferred vaccine in this age group for those at risk (TABLE 1).³

TABLE 1
Populations at increased risk for meningococcal disease who should receive quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine

If someone at ongoing risk for meningococcal disease has been previously vaccinated with MPSV4, they should be revaccinated 3 years later with MCV4. It is not known if repeat doses of MCV4 will be needed, and if so, after what amount of time.

The MCV4 has been linked to Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), and a history of GBS is a precaution for its use. For those with a history of GBS who need protection against meningococcal infection, MPSV4 is an alternative.

Hepatitis A vaccine

Widespread use of inactivated hepatitis A vaccine (HAV), first licensed in 1995, has markedly reduced the incidence of hepatitis A infection (FIGURE). Recommendations for its use have been periodically revised; current recommendations include universal vaccination of all children at age 12 to 23 months, catch-up vaccination in older children in areas of high prevalence, and vaccination of those at increased risk for hepatitis A including travelers to endemic areas, users of illicit drugs and men who have sex with men.⁴

FIGURE
Reduction in incidence of hepatitis A infection

For those unvaccinated who are acutely exposed to hepatitis A virus and those traveling to areas of high prevalence who do not have time to complete the 2 doses of HAV, the only prevention available until recently has been IG. This has now changed and HAV can be used in both groups. The new recommendation for postexposure prophylaxis is that either a single dose of HAV or use of IG is acceptable.⁵ At ages 12 months to 40 years, vaccine is preferred. For those over age 40, IG is preferred but vaccine is acceptable. For children less than 12 months, the immune suppressed, and those with chronic liver disease, IG should be used.

Those traveling or working in countries with high rates of hepatitis A can be protected with either HAV or IG. A single dose of HAV is sufficient for healthy people, with a second dose at the recommended interval to complete the series. Those under age 12 months, those who choose not to receive the vaccine, and those who are allergic to the vaccine should be offered IG. Both IG and HAV should be considered for individuals who plan to travel within 2 weeks of the first HAV dose; those over age 40, the immune compromised, and those with chronic liver disease or other chronic medical conditions.

Live attenuated influenza vaccine

FluMist, the live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV), which is administered as an intranasal spray, is now approved for use among those 2 to 4 years of age.⁶ Previously, the LAIV was approved only for healthy, non pregnant persons, 5 to 49 years of age. The LAIV may actually be the preferred product in children as it has been shown to prevent more influenza illness than the trivalent inactivated vaccine (TIV). The LAIV should not be used in anyone with a condition listed in TABLE 2 and should not be administered to children under age 5 who have recurrent wheezing.

FluMist has also been modified in several advantageous ways:

• The dose in the sprayer is now 0.2 mL (previously 0.5 mL). One half of the dose should be administered in each nostril.
• The product no longer has to be stored frozen; it should be kept at 35° to 46°F.
• When 2 doses are needed in children under age 9 being vaccinated for the first time, the interval between doses is now 4 weeks (previously 6 weeks).

TABLE 2
LAIV (FluMist) should not be used in these groups

Children under age 9 years who receive only 1 dose of vaccine (either TIV or LAIV) the first year they are vaccinated should receive 2 doses the next year.⁶ If they fail to receive 2 doses in the next year, only a single dose is recommended after that. This is a slight modification of the previous recommendation that only 1 dose was recommended in this situation.⁷

Alternative schedule for combined hepatitis A and B vaccine

The FDA approved an alternate, 4-dose schedule for the combined hepatitis A and hepatitis B vaccine (Twinrix): at 0, 7, 21 days, and 12 months.⁸ It was previously approved only for a 3-dose schedule: at 0, 1, and 6 months. The new alternative schedule allows greater protection for travelers who need to depart in less than a month’s time.

Merck recalls some lots of Hib vaccine

On December 11, 2007, Merck announced a voluntary recall of specific lots of Haemophilus influenza type b (Hib) conjugate vaccine products: 10 lots of a monovalent Hib vaccine, PedvaxHIB, and 2 lots of a combined hepatitis B/Hib vaccine, Comvax.

Consult Merck’s Web site for the lots involved and for instructions on returning vaccine (www.merckvaccines. com/PCHRecall.pdf). The recall was prompted by concern about equipment sterility, although no vaccine has been shown to be contaminated. Children vaccinated with Merck products do not need to be revaccinated or obtain any special follow-up.

Shortage expected. It is unknown when Merck will resume production, but it is not anticipated until at least late in 2008. Other Hib-containing products are produced by Sanofi Pasteur but the supply of these products will not make up for the expected shortage.

Interim recommendations. The recall resulted in interim recommendations from the CDC.⁹ These recommendations are complicated because the dosing schedule for Hib vaccine differs by the product and the age of receipt of first vaccine when children are not on schedule. TABLE 3 lists the Hib-containing products, the recommended primary series schedule, and booster dose.

TABLE 3
Hib products

The main points are:

• Defer the booster dose at age 12 to 15 months until the shortage is resolved, except for high-risk children.
• High-risk children, who should continue to receive the booster at ages 12 to 15 months, include those with asplenia, sickle cell disease, HIV infection, and certain other immune deficiencies and cancers, and American Indian/Alaskan Native children.
• Physicians should keep track of children who have the booster deferred so they can be vaccinated when the supply improves.
• Non-recalled lots of PedvaxHIB and Comvax in the CDC stockpile will be prioritized to providers who care for predominantly American Indian/Alaskan Native children, who are at markedly in creased risk of Hib infection.
• If a child has received only 1 dose of PedvaxHIB or Comvax, their primary series can be completed with ActHIB, but 3 total doses are needed.

Children through age 59 months who are behind schedule should complete a primary series according to published recommendations.¹⁰ Physicians should call their local health department if they have any questions about what to do in a specific case.

The year 2007 was rather calm, compared to the 3 previous years in regards to new vaccines and vaccine recommendations. Although no breakthrough vaccine products came onto the market in 2007, there were new recommendations and licensure for new age groups for existing vaccines and a recall of some lots of Hib vaccines.

Meningococcal vaccine

Recommendations on the use of the quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MCV4) have evolved since its licensure in 2005 for use in persons 11 to 55 years of age. The first set of recommendations focused on universal vaccination of preteens, aged 11 to 12, those entering high school who had not received the vaccine previously, and others at risk for meningococcal disease including college freshmen living in dormitories.¹ The MCV4 was preferred to the older polysaccharide vaccine (MPSV4) which was recommended only for children aged 2 to 10 and adults over age 55 at increased risk.

In 2007, the CDC changed 2 of the 2005 recommendations:

• The first, in August, simplified the recommendations for teens, making MCV4 universally recommended for all those aged 11 to 18 at the earliest opportunity.²
• The second, in December, followed FDA approval for use of MCV4 in children aged 2 to 10 years. The CDC now recommends MCV4 as the preferred vaccine in this age group for those at risk (TABLE 1).³

TABLE 1
Populations at increased risk for meningococcal disease who should receive quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine

If someone at ongoing risk for meningococcal disease has been previously vaccinated with MPSV4, they should be revaccinated 3 years later with MCV4. It is not known if repeat doses of MCV4 will be needed, and if so, after what amount of time.

The MCV4 has been linked to Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), and a history of GBS is a precaution for its use. For those with a history of GBS who need protection against meningococcal infection, MPSV4 is an alternative.

Hepatitis A vaccine

Widespread use of inactivated hepatitis A vaccine (HAV), first licensed in 1995, has markedly reduced the incidence of hepatitis A infection (FIGURE). Recommendations for its use have been periodically revised; current recommendations include universal vaccination of all children at age 12 to 23 months, catch-up vaccination in older children in areas of high prevalence, and vaccination of those at increased risk for hepatitis A including travelers to endemic areas, users of illicit drugs and men who have sex with men.⁴

FIGURE
Reduction in incidence of hepatitis A infection

For those unvaccinated who are acutely exposed to hepatitis A virus and those traveling to areas of high prevalence who do not have time to complete the 2 doses of HAV, the only prevention available until recently has been IG. This has now changed and HAV can be used in both groups. The new recommendation for postexposure prophylaxis is that either a single dose of HAV or use of IG is acceptable.⁵ At ages 12 months to 40 years, vaccine is preferred. For those over age 40, IG is preferred but vaccine is acceptable. For children less than 12 months, the immune suppressed, and those with chronic liver disease, IG should be used.

Those traveling or working in countries with high rates of hepatitis A can be protected with either HAV or IG. A single dose of HAV is sufficient for healthy people, with a second dose at the recommended interval to complete the series. Those under age 12 months, those who choose not to receive the vaccine, and those who are allergic to the vaccine should be offered IG. Both IG and HAV should be considered for individuals who plan to travel within 2 weeks of the first HAV dose; those over age 40, the immune compromised, and those with chronic liver disease or other chronic medical conditions.

Live attenuated influenza vaccine

FluMist, the live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV), which is administered as an intranasal spray, is now approved for use among those 2 to 4 years of age.⁶ Previously, the LAIV was approved only for healthy, non pregnant persons, 5 to 49 years of age. The LAIV may actually be the preferred product in children as it has been shown to prevent more influenza illness than the trivalent inactivated vaccine (TIV). The LAIV should not be used in anyone with a condition listed in TABLE 2 and should not be administered to children under age 5 who have recurrent wheezing.

FluMist has also been modified in several advantageous ways:

• The dose in the sprayer is now 0.2 mL (previously 0.5 mL). One half of the dose should be administered in each nostril.
• The product no longer has to be stored frozen; it should be kept at 35° to 46°F.
• When 2 doses are needed in children under age 9 being vaccinated for the first time, the interval between doses is now 4 weeks (previously 6 weeks).

TABLE 2
LAIV (FluMist) should not be used in these groups

Children under age 9 years who receive only 1 dose of vaccine (either TIV or LAIV) the first year they are vaccinated should receive 2 doses the next year.⁶ If they fail to receive 2 doses in the next year, only a single dose is recommended after that. This is a slight modification of the previous recommendation that only 1 dose was recommended in this situation.⁷

Alternative schedule for combined hepatitis A and B vaccine

The FDA approved an alternate, 4-dose schedule for the combined hepatitis A and hepatitis B vaccine (Twinrix): at 0, 7, 21 days, and 12 months.⁸ It was previously approved only for a 3-dose schedule: at 0, 1, and 6 months. The new alternative schedule allows greater protection for travelers who need to depart in less than a month’s time.

Merck recalls some lots of Hib vaccine

On December 11, 2007, Merck announced a voluntary recall of specific lots of Haemophilus influenza type b (Hib) conjugate vaccine products: 10 lots of a monovalent Hib vaccine, PedvaxHIB, and 2 lots of a combined hepatitis B/Hib vaccine, Comvax.

Consult Merck’s Web site for the lots involved and for instructions on returning vaccine (www.merckvaccines. com/PCHRecall.pdf). The recall was prompted by concern about equipment sterility, although no vaccine has been shown to be contaminated. Children vaccinated with Merck products do not need to be revaccinated or obtain any special follow-up.

Shortage expected. It is unknown when Merck will resume production, but it is not anticipated until at least late in 2008. Other Hib-containing products are produced by Sanofi Pasteur but the supply of these products will not make up for the expected shortage.

Interim recommendations. The recall resulted in interim recommendations from the CDC.⁹ These recommendations are complicated because the dosing schedule for Hib vaccine differs by the product and the age of receipt of first vaccine when children are not on schedule. TABLE 3 lists the Hib-containing products, the recommended primary series schedule, and booster dose.

TABLE 3
Hib products

The main points are:

• Defer the booster dose at age 12 to 15 months until the shortage is resolved, except for high-risk children.
• High-risk children, who should continue to receive the booster at ages 12 to 15 months, include those with asplenia, sickle cell disease, HIV infection, and certain other immune deficiencies and cancers, and American Indian/Alaskan Native children.
• Physicians should keep track of children who have the booster deferred so they can be vaccinated when the supply improves.
• Non-recalled lots of PedvaxHIB and Comvax in the CDC stockpile will be prioritized to providers who care for predominantly American Indian/Alaskan Native children, who are at markedly in creased risk of Hib infection.
• If a child has received only 1 dose of PedvaxHIB or Comvax, their primary series can be completed with ActHIB, but 3 total doses are needed.

Children through age 59 months who are behind schedule should complete a primary series according to published recommendations.¹⁰ Physicians should call their local health department if they have any questions about what to do in a specific case.

The year 2007 was rather calm, compared to the 3 previous years in regards to new vaccines and vaccine recommendations. Although no breakthrough vaccine products came onto the market in 2007, there were new recommendations and licensure for new age groups for existing vaccines and a recall of some lots of Hib vaccines.

Meningococcal vaccine

Recommendations on the use of the quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MCV4) have evolved since its licensure in 2005 for use in persons 11 to 55 years of age. The first set of recommendations focused on universal vaccination of preteens, aged 11 to 12, those entering high school who had not received the vaccine previously, and others at risk for meningococcal disease including college freshmen living in dormitories.¹ The MCV4 was preferred to the older polysaccharide vaccine (MPSV4) which was recommended only for children aged 2 to 10 and adults over age 55 at increased risk.

In 2007, the CDC changed 2 of the 2005 recommendations:

• The first, in August, simplified the recommendations for teens, making MCV4 universally recommended for all those aged 11 to 18 at the earliest opportunity.²
• The second, in December, followed FDA approval for use of MCV4 in children aged 2 to 10 years. The CDC now recommends MCV4 as the preferred vaccine in this age group for those at risk (TABLE 1).³

TABLE 1
Populations at increased risk for meningococcal disease who should receive quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine

If someone at ongoing risk for meningococcal disease has been previously vaccinated with MPSV4, they should be revaccinated 3 years later with MCV4. It is not known if repeat doses of MCV4 will be needed, and if so, after what amount of time.

The MCV4 has been linked to Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), and a history of GBS is a precaution for its use. For those with a history of GBS who need protection against meningococcal infection, MPSV4 is an alternative.

Hepatitis A vaccine

Widespread use of inactivated hepatitis A vaccine (HAV), first licensed in 1995, has markedly reduced the incidence of hepatitis A infection (FIGURE). Recommendations for its use have been periodically revised; current recommendations include universal vaccination of all children at age 12 to 23 months, catch-up vaccination in older children in areas of high prevalence, and vaccination of those at increased risk for hepatitis A including travelers to endemic areas, users of illicit drugs and men who have sex with men.⁴

FIGURE
Reduction in incidence of hepatitis A infection

For those unvaccinated who are acutely exposed to hepatitis A virus and those traveling to areas of high prevalence who do not have time to complete the 2 doses of HAV, the only prevention available until recently has been IG. This has now changed and HAV can be used in both groups. The new recommendation for postexposure prophylaxis is that either a single dose of HAV or use of IG is acceptable.⁵ At ages 12 months to 40 years, vaccine is preferred. For those over age 40, IG is preferred but vaccine is acceptable. For children less than 12 months, the immune suppressed, and those with chronic liver disease, IG should be used.

Those traveling or working in countries with high rates of hepatitis A can be protected with either HAV or IG. A single dose of HAV is sufficient for healthy people, with a second dose at the recommended interval to complete the series. Those under age 12 months, those who choose not to receive the vaccine, and those who are allergic to the vaccine should be offered IG. Both IG and HAV should be considered for individuals who plan to travel within 2 weeks of the first HAV dose; those over age 40, the immune compromised, and those with chronic liver disease or other chronic medical conditions.

Live attenuated influenza vaccine

FluMist, the live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV), which is administered as an intranasal spray, is now approved for use among those 2 to 4 years of age.⁶ Previously, the LAIV was approved only for healthy, non pregnant persons, 5 to 49 years of age. The LAIV may actually be the preferred product in children as it has been shown to prevent more influenza illness than the trivalent inactivated vaccine (TIV). The LAIV should not be used in anyone with a condition listed in TABLE 2 and should not be administered to children under age 5 who have recurrent wheezing.

FluMist has also been modified in several advantageous ways:

• The dose in the sprayer is now 0.2 mL (previously 0.5 mL). One half of the dose should be administered in each nostril.
• The product no longer has to be stored frozen; it should be kept at 35° to 46°F.
• When 2 doses are needed in children under age 9 being vaccinated for the first time, the interval between doses is now 4 weeks (previously 6 weeks).

TABLE 2
LAIV (FluMist) should not be used in these groups

Children under age 9 years who receive only 1 dose of vaccine (either TIV or LAIV) the first year they are vaccinated should receive 2 doses the next year.⁶ If they fail to receive 2 doses in the next year, only a single dose is recommended after that. This is a slight modification of the previous recommendation that only 1 dose was recommended in this situation.⁷

Alternative schedule for combined hepatitis A and B vaccine

The FDA approved an alternate, 4-dose schedule for the combined hepatitis A and hepatitis B vaccine (Twinrix): at 0, 7, 21 days, and 12 months.⁸ It was previously approved only for a 3-dose schedule: at 0, 1, and 6 months. The new alternative schedule allows greater protection for travelers who need to depart in less than a month’s time.

Merck recalls some lots of Hib vaccine

On December 11, 2007, Merck announced a voluntary recall of specific lots of Haemophilus influenza type b (Hib) conjugate vaccine products: 10 lots of a monovalent Hib vaccine, PedvaxHIB, and 2 lots of a combined hepatitis B/Hib vaccine, Comvax.

Consult Merck’s Web site for the lots involved and for instructions on returning vaccine (www.merckvaccines. com/PCHRecall.pdf). The recall was prompted by concern about equipment sterility, although no vaccine has been shown to be contaminated. Children vaccinated with Merck products do not need to be revaccinated or obtain any special follow-up.

Shortage expected. It is unknown when Merck will resume production, but it is not anticipated until at least late in 2008. Other Hib-containing products are produced by Sanofi Pasteur but the supply of these products will not make up for the expected shortage.

Interim recommendations. The recall resulted in interim recommendations from the CDC.⁹ These recommendations are complicated because the dosing schedule for Hib vaccine differs by the product and the age of receipt of first vaccine when children are not on schedule. TABLE 3 lists the Hib-containing products, the recommended primary series schedule, and booster dose.

TABLE 3
Hib products

The main points are:

• Defer the booster dose at age 12 to 15 months until the shortage is resolved, except for high-risk children.
• High-risk children, who should continue to receive the booster at ages 12 to 15 months, include those with asplenia, sickle cell disease, HIV infection, and certain other immune deficiencies and cancers, and American Indian/Alaskan Native children.
• Physicians should keep track of children who have the booster deferred so they can be vaccinated when the supply improves.
• Non-recalled lots of PedvaxHIB and Comvax in the CDC stockpile will be prioritized to providers who care for predominantly American Indian/Alaskan Native children, who are at markedly in creased risk of Hib infection.
• If a child has received only 1 dose of PedvaxHIB or Comvax, their primary series can be completed with ActHIB, but 3 total doses are needed.

Children through age 59 months who are behind schedule should complete a primary series according to published recommendations.¹⁰ Physicians should call their local health department if they have any questions about what to do in a specific case.

The varicella vaccine has had tremendous success over the last few years, but its success has stalled.

The widespread use of the varicella vaccine has led to a coverage rate of 88%, and the vaccine has proven to be 85% effective. As a result, between 1995 and 2001 there was an 87% decline in hospitalizations, 66% decline in deaths, and an 87% decline in costs attributed to varicella.

However, the number of varicella cases has remained at a constant level over the past few years and sporadic outbreaks continue to occur in schools—even where high rates of immunization are achieved.^1,2

Varicella outbreaks involve both infections in unvaccinated children and “breakthrough disease” in those who have been vaccinated. If a vaccinated person is exposed to varicella, the risk of suffering a breakthrough infection is about 15%.² A 2-dose series of varicella vaccine reduces the risk by about 75%¹ (Figure).

Breakthrough disease is usually milder than infection in the unvaccinated, with fewer skin lesions, milder symptoms, and fewer complications. Those affected, though, are still infectious to others.

It was this ongoing risk of varicella that prompted the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) to recommend new control measures, reported on in 2007.¹

FIGURE
2 doses of varicella vaccine reduce risk of breakthrough infection by about 75%¹

ACIP now recommends 2 doses of the vaccine

ACIP recommends the following:

• Universal administration of 2 doses of varicella vaccine; the first at ages 12 to 15 months and the second at age 4 to 6 years. (This is the same schedule as immunization against mumps, measles, and rubella.)
• Two doses of varicella vaccine, 4 to 8 weeks apart, for all adolescents and adults without evidence of immunity. (See “New criteria to prove immunity” at right.)
• A catch-up second dose for everyone who received one dose previously.
• Screening for varicella immunity in pregnant women and postpartum vaccination for those who are not immune, with 2 doses 4 to 8 weeks apart. The first dose should be administered before discharge.

Which HIV patients can get the vaccine?

ACIP has also clarified when HIV patients can be vaccinated, noting that single antigen varicella vaccine can be administered to HIV positive children if their CD4+ Tlymphocyte % is ≥15%. HIV positive adolescents and adults can be vaccinated if their CD4+ T-lymphocyte count ≥200/μL and, if 2 doses are indicated, they should be separated by at least 3 months.

2 options: Varivax and ProQuad

Two varicella vaccines contain modified live varicella virus antigen. Varivax, a single antigen vaccine, is approved for use in adults, adolescents, and children ≥12 months of age. The second vaccine, ProQuad, is approved for use in patients who are between 12 months and 12 years of age, and contains 4 viral antigens: mumps, measles, rubella, and varicella.

The quadrivalent MMRV vaccine is currently unavailable, however, and isn’t expected to be available until early 2009.³ Once the supply is stabilized, though, it will facilitate vaccination of children by decreasing the number of injections needed to achieve full immunization status.

29-year-old patient with varicellaThese 2 varicella vaccines should not be confused with the varicella zoster vaccine, Zostavax, which is approved for use in adults who are 60 years of age and older for the prevention of shingles and postherpetic neuralgia.⁴

Pregnancy precludes vaccination

Varicella vaccine is contraindicated during pregnancy and in those who have had a severe allergic reaction to any vaccine component, including gelatin; have a malignancy of the blood, bone marrow, or lymphatic system; have a congenital or hereditary immunodeficiency; or are receiving systemic immunosuppressive therapy including those on the equivalent of 2 mg/kg, or >20 mg/day, of prednisone.

You should delay giving the vaccine to patients with an acute, severe illness. There is a potential for immune globulin containing products to interfere with the effectiveness of live virus vaccines. As a result, if a patient has received blood, plasma, or immune globulin, you should wait 3 to 11 months before giving the varicella vaccine. These products should also be avoided, if possible, for 2 weeks after the vaccine has been administered.

Avoid using quadrivalent MMRV in patients with HIV infection because it contains a higher quantity of varicella antigen than the single antigen product.

One final precaution: Patients should avoid taking salicylates for 6 weeks following vaccination because of the theoretical risk of Reye’s syndrome.

The varicella vaccine has had tremendous success over the last few years, but its success has stalled.

The widespread use of the varicella vaccine has led to a coverage rate of 88%, and the vaccine has proven to be 85% effective. As a result, between 1995 and 2001 there was an 87% decline in hospitalizations, 66% decline in deaths, and an 87% decline in costs attributed to varicella.

However, the number of varicella cases has remained at a constant level over the past few years and sporadic outbreaks continue to occur in schools—even where high rates of immunization are achieved.^1,2

Varicella outbreaks involve both infections in unvaccinated children and “breakthrough disease” in those who have been vaccinated. If a vaccinated person is exposed to varicella, the risk of suffering a breakthrough infection is about 15%.² A 2-dose series of varicella vaccine reduces the risk by about 75%¹ (Figure).

Breakthrough disease is usually milder than infection in the unvaccinated, with fewer skin lesions, milder symptoms, and fewer complications. Those affected, though, are still infectious to others.

It was this ongoing risk of varicella that prompted the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) to recommend new control measures, reported on in 2007.¹

FIGURE
2 doses of varicella vaccine reduce risk of breakthrough infection by about 75%¹

ACIP now recommends 2 doses of the vaccine

ACIP recommends the following:

• Universal administration of 2 doses of varicella vaccine; the first at ages 12 to 15 months and the second at age 4 to 6 years. (This is the same schedule as immunization against mumps, measles, and rubella.)
• Two doses of varicella vaccine, 4 to 8 weeks apart, for all adolescents and adults without evidence of immunity. (See “New criteria to prove immunity” at right.)
• A catch-up second dose for everyone who received one dose previously.
• Screening for varicella immunity in pregnant women and postpartum vaccination for those who are not immune, with 2 doses 4 to 8 weeks apart. The first dose should be administered before discharge.

Which HIV patients can get the vaccine?

ACIP has also clarified when HIV patients can be vaccinated, noting that single antigen varicella vaccine can be administered to HIV positive children if their CD4+ Tlymphocyte % is ≥15%. HIV positive adolescents and adults can be vaccinated if their CD4+ T-lymphocyte count ≥200/μL and, if 2 doses are indicated, they should be separated by at least 3 months.

2 options: Varivax and ProQuad

Two varicella vaccines contain modified live varicella virus antigen. Varivax, a single antigen vaccine, is approved for use in adults, adolescents, and children ≥12 months of age. The second vaccine, ProQuad, is approved for use in patients who are between 12 months and 12 years of age, and contains 4 viral antigens: mumps, measles, rubella, and varicella.

The quadrivalent MMRV vaccine is currently unavailable, however, and isn’t expected to be available until early 2009.³ Once the supply is stabilized, though, it will facilitate vaccination of children by decreasing the number of injections needed to achieve full immunization status.

29-year-old patient with varicellaThese 2 varicella vaccines should not be confused with the varicella zoster vaccine, Zostavax, which is approved for use in adults who are 60 years of age and older for the prevention of shingles and postherpetic neuralgia.⁴

Pregnancy precludes vaccination

Varicella vaccine is contraindicated during pregnancy and in those who have had a severe allergic reaction to any vaccine component, including gelatin; have a malignancy of the blood, bone marrow, or lymphatic system; have a congenital or hereditary immunodeficiency; or are receiving systemic immunosuppressive therapy including those on the equivalent of 2 mg/kg, or >20 mg/day, of prednisone.

You should delay giving the vaccine to patients with an acute, severe illness. There is a potential for immune globulin containing products to interfere with the effectiveness of live virus vaccines. As a result, if a patient has received blood, plasma, or immune globulin, you should wait 3 to 11 months before giving the varicella vaccine. These products should also be avoided, if possible, for 2 weeks after the vaccine has been administered.

Avoid using quadrivalent MMRV in patients with HIV infection because it contains a higher quantity of varicella antigen than the single antigen product.

One final precaution: Patients should avoid taking salicylates for 6 weeks following vaccination because of the theoretical risk of Reye’s syndrome.

The varicella vaccine has had tremendous success over the last few years, but its success has stalled.

The widespread use of the varicella vaccine has led to a coverage rate of 88%, and the vaccine has proven to be 85% effective. As a result, between 1995 and 2001 there was an 87% decline in hospitalizations, 66% decline in deaths, and an 87% decline in costs attributed to varicella.

However, the number of varicella cases has remained at a constant level over the past few years and sporadic outbreaks continue to occur in schools—even where high rates of immunization are achieved.^1,2

Varicella outbreaks involve both infections in unvaccinated children and “breakthrough disease” in those who have been vaccinated. If a vaccinated person is exposed to varicella, the risk of suffering a breakthrough infection is about 15%.² A 2-dose series of varicella vaccine reduces the risk by about 75%¹ (Figure).

Breakthrough disease is usually milder than infection in the unvaccinated, with fewer skin lesions, milder symptoms, and fewer complications. Those affected, though, are still infectious to others.

It was this ongoing risk of varicella that prompted the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) to recommend new control measures, reported on in 2007.¹

FIGURE
2 doses of varicella vaccine reduce risk of breakthrough infection by about 75%¹

ACIP now recommends 2 doses of the vaccine

ACIP recommends the following:

• Universal administration of 2 doses of varicella vaccine; the first at ages 12 to 15 months and the second at age 4 to 6 years. (This is the same schedule as immunization against mumps, measles, and rubella.)
• Two doses of varicella vaccine, 4 to 8 weeks apart, for all adolescents and adults without evidence of immunity. (See “New criteria to prove immunity” at right.)
• A catch-up second dose for everyone who received one dose previously.
• Screening for varicella immunity in pregnant women and postpartum vaccination for those who are not immune, with 2 doses 4 to 8 weeks apart. The first dose should be administered before discharge.

Which HIV patients can get the vaccine?

ACIP has also clarified when HIV patients can be vaccinated, noting that single antigen varicella vaccine can be administered to HIV positive children if their CD4+ Tlymphocyte % is ≥15%. HIV positive adolescents and adults can be vaccinated if their CD4+ T-lymphocyte count ≥200/μL and, if 2 doses are indicated, they should be separated by at least 3 months.

2 options: Varivax and ProQuad

Two varicella vaccines contain modified live varicella virus antigen. Varivax, a single antigen vaccine, is approved for use in adults, adolescents, and children ≥12 months of age. The second vaccine, ProQuad, is approved for use in patients who are between 12 months and 12 years of age, and contains 4 viral antigens: mumps, measles, rubella, and varicella.

The quadrivalent MMRV vaccine is currently unavailable, however, and isn’t expected to be available until early 2009.³ Once the supply is stabilized, though, it will facilitate vaccination of children by decreasing the number of injections needed to achieve full immunization status.

29-year-old patient with varicellaThese 2 varicella vaccines should not be confused with the varicella zoster vaccine, Zostavax, which is approved for use in adults who are 60 years of age and older for the prevention of shingles and postherpetic neuralgia.⁴

Pregnancy precludes vaccination

Varicella vaccine is contraindicated during pregnancy and in those who have had a severe allergic reaction to any vaccine component, including gelatin; have a malignancy of the blood, bone marrow, or lymphatic system; have a congenital or hereditary immunodeficiency; or are receiving systemic immunosuppressive therapy including those on the equivalent of 2 mg/kg, or >20 mg/day, of prednisone.

You should delay giving the vaccine to patients with an acute, severe illness. There is a potential for immune globulin containing products to interfere with the effectiveness of live virus vaccines. As a result, if a patient has received blood, plasma, or immune globulin, you should wait 3 to 11 months before giving the varicella vaccine. These products should also be avoided, if possible, for 2 weeks after the vaccine has been administered.

Avoid using quadrivalent MMRV in patients with HIV infection because it contains a higher quantity of varicella antigen than the single antigen product.

One final precaution: Patients should avoid taking salicylates for 6 weeks following vaccination because of the theoretical risk of Reye’s syndrome.

Each year, the flu causes an average of about 36,000 excess deaths and over 200,000 hospitalizations in the US.^1,2 Much of this morbidity and mortality is preventable, yet each year, a large proportion of those for whom the vaccine is recommended go unvaccinated (TABLE 1).

TABLE 1
High-risk groups who went unvaccinated with influenza vaccine (2005)

Improving rates among health care workers

The recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for the 2007–2008 influenza season include a new recommendation that targets health care worker vaccination rates.³ Because of the low rate of vaccination of health care workers, and the potential impact of higher coverage on both worker and patient safety, the CDC now recommends that the level of vaccination coverage be used as one measure of a facility’s patient safety quality program. The CDC also recommends the implementation of policies to encourage acceptance of the vaccine, such as requiring those caregivers who refuse immunization to sign waivers.

Improving rates among patients

To improve vaccination levels among patients, the CDC recommends:

• using reminder/recall systems
• using standing order programs
• administering the vaccine before and during the influenza season to patients during routine health care visits.

For more on improving vaccination coverage, see “Tips to help improve vaccination rates”.

Offer the vaccine to anyone who wants it

While the groups for whom vaccine is recommended are the same as last year (TABLE 2), this year the CDC is emphasizing the importance of:

• offering the vaccine to anyone who wants to reduce their risk of contracting influenza or transmitting the virus to others.
• continuing to offer vaccine to those susceptible throughout the flu season.

A minor change from last year’s recommendations involves children who are 6 months through 8 years of age who receive only 1 dose of vaccine their first year of vaccination. The CDC now recommends that these children receive 2 doses the next year. If they receive only 1 dose 2 years in a row, the CDC recommends only a single dose annually thereafter.

TABLE 2
Who should receive the influenza vaccine?

The 2 vaccines: How they differ

The same 2 vaccine types are available this year as last: trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV) and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV). The vaccines include the same viral strain antigens and either can be used annually unless contraindicated (TABLE 3).

The major differences between the 2 vaccine types are:

• LAIV is administered as an intranasal spray while TIV requires an intramuscular injection
• LAIV is approved only for healthy people who are 5 to 49 years of age, whereas TIV is approved for anyone over the age of 6 months
• The interval between 2 doses in children under 9 years of age is 4 weeks for TIV and 6 to 10 weeks for LAIV
• LAIV should not be administered to family members or close contacts of those who are immunosuppressed and require a protective environment, while TIV can be used in this situation
• LAIV, being a live virus vaccine, should be administered simultaneously with, or 4 weeks after, the administration of other live virus vaccines. TIV is not a live virus vaccine, and its timing in relation to other live virus vaccines is not an issue.

TABLE 3
Contraindications and precautions for influenza vaccines

Antiviral options remain the same

Once again this year, the CDC does not recommend the use of adamantane antivirals for prophylaxis or treatment of influenza, leaving the 2 neuraminidase inhibitors, oseltamivir (Tamiflu) and zanamivir (Relenza), for these purposes. Treating flu patients with these antivirals shortens the duration of symptoms and may reduce viral shedding.

The earlier the treatment is started, the better the results. There appears to be no—or only minimal—benefit for those with uncomplicated influenza if the treatment is started more than 2 days after the onset of illness.

Consider antiviral prophylaxis for these patients

The CDC recommends that antiviral prophylaxis be considered for those who are susceptible, residing in an area with circulating influenza virus, and who:

• have not been vaccinated or were recently vaccinated (since it takes 2 weeks for immunity to develop after vaccination)
• are unvaccinated and providing care for high-risk individuals
• have a contraindication to the vaccine
• have immune deficiencies and may not respond adequately to the vaccine.

The CDC also recommends prophylaxis for all residents and staff in a long-term care facility where influenza is circulating, without regard to vaccine status. More complete information on indications, dose and duration of antivirals for prophylaxis, and treatment can be found in this year’s CDC recommendations.³

Another flu season approaches

The good news for the coming year is that the government expects that the supply of vaccine will exceed 100 million doses. This should be sufficient, unless unforeseen production problems arise.

Each year millions of doses of influenza vaccine go unused and are discarded. By following the CDC’s recommendations, and those of the Task Force on Community Preventive Services⁴ (top left), each of us can improve vaccination coverage in our area and minimize the number of hospitalizations and deaths from the flu.

Correspondence
Doug Campos-Outcalt, MD, MPA, 550 e. van buren, Phoenix, AZ 85004; dougco@u.arizona.edu.

Each year, the flu causes an average of about 36,000 excess deaths and over 200,000 hospitalizations in the US.^1,2 Much of this morbidity and mortality is preventable, yet each year, a large proportion of those for whom the vaccine is recommended go unvaccinated (TABLE 1).

TABLE 1
High-risk groups who went unvaccinated with influenza vaccine (2005)

Improving rates among health care workers

The recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for the 2007–2008 influenza season include a new recommendation that targets health care worker vaccination rates.³ Because of the low rate of vaccination of health care workers, and the potential impact of higher coverage on both worker and patient safety, the CDC now recommends that the level of vaccination coverage be used as one measure of a facility’s patient safety quality program. The CDC also recommends the implementation of policies to encourage acceptance of the vaccine, such as requiring those caregivers who refuse immunization to sign waivers.

Improving rates among patients

To improve vaccination levels among patients, the CDC recommends:

• using reminder/recall systems
• using standing order programs
• administering the vaccine before and during the influenza season to patients during routine health care visits.

For more on improving vaccination coverage, see “Tips to help improve vaccination rates”.

Offer the vaccine to anyone who wants it

While the groups for whom vaccine is recommended are the same as last year (TABLE 2), this year the CDC is emphasizing the importance of:

• offering the vaccine to anyone who wants to reduce their risk of contracting influenza or transmitting the virus to others.
• continuing to offer vaccine to those susceptible throughout the flu season.

A minor change from last year’s recommendations involves children who are 6 months through 8 years of age who receive only 1 dose of vaccine their first year of vaccination. The CDC now recommends that these children receive 2 doses the next year. If they receive only 1 dose 2 years in a row, the CDC recommends only a single dose annually thereafter.

TABLE 2
Who should receive the influenza vaccine?

The 2 vaccines: How they differ

The same 2 vaccine types are available this year as last: trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV) and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV). The vaccines include the same viral strain antigens and either can be used annually unless contraindicated (TABLE 3).

The major differences between the 2 vaccine types are:

• LAIV is administered as an intranasal spray while TIV requires an intramuscular injection
• LAIV is approved only for healthy people who are 5 to 49 years of age, whereas TIV is approved for anyone over the age of 6 months
• The interval between 2 doses in children under 9 years of age is 4 weeks for TIV and 6 to 10 weeks for LAIV
• LAIV should not be administered to family members or close contacts of those who are immunosuppressed and require a protective environment, while TIV can be used in this situation
• LAIV, being a live virus vaccine, should be administered simultaneously with, or 4 weeks after, the administration of other live virus vaccines. TIV is not a live virus vaccine, and its timing in relation to other live virus vaccines is not an issue.

TABLE 3
Contraindications and precautions for influenza vaccines

Antiviral options remain the same

Once again this year, the CDC does not recommend the use of adamantane antivirals for prophylaxis or treatment of influenza, leaving the 2 neuraminidase inhibitors, oseltamivir (Tamiflu) and zanamivir (Relenza), for these purposes. Treating flu patients with these antivirals shortens the duration of symptoms and may reduce viral shedding.

The earlier the treatment is started, the better the results. There appears to be no—or only minimal—benefit for those with uncomplicated influenza if the treatment is started more than 2 days after the onset of illness.

Consider antiviral prophylaxis for these patients

The CDC recommends that antiviral prophylaxis be considered for those who are susceptible, residing in an area with circulating influenza virus, and who:

• have not been vaccinated or were recently vaccinated (since it takes 2 weeks for immunity to develop after vaccination)
• are unvaccinated and providing care for high-risk individuals
• have a contraindication to the vaccine
• have immune deficiencies and may not respond adequately to the vaccine.

The CDC also recommends prophylaxis for all residents and staff in a long-term care facility where influenza is circulating, without regard to vaccine status. More complete information on indications, dose and duration of antivirals for prophylaxis, and treatment can be found in this year’s CDC recommendations.³

Another flu season approaches

The good news for the coming year is that the government expects that the supply of vaccine will exceed 100 million doses. This should be sufficient, unless unforeseen production problems arise.

Each year millions of doses of influenza vaccine go unused and are discarded. By following the CDC’s recommendations, and those of the Task Force on Community Preventive Services⁴ (top left), each of us can improve vaccination coverage in our area and minimize the number of hospitalizations and deaths from the flu.

Correspondence
Doug Campos-Outcalt, MD, MPA, 550 e. van buren, Phoenix, AZ 85004; dougco@u.arizona.edu.

Each year, the flu causes an average of about 36,000 excess deaths and over 200,000 hospitalizations in the US.^1,2 Much of this morbidity and mortality is preventable, yet each year, a large proportion of those for whom the vaccine is recommended go unvaccinated (TABLE 1).

TABLE 1
High-risk groups who went unvaccinated with influenza vaccine (2005)

Improving rates among health care workers

The recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for the 2007–2008 influenza season include a new recommendation that targets health care worker vaccination rates.³ Because of the low rate of vaccination of health care workers, and the potential impact of higher coverage on both worker and patient safety, the CDC now recommends that the level of vaccination coverage be used as one measure of a facility’s patient safety quality program. The CDC also recommends the implementation of policies to encourage acceptance of the vaccine, such as requiring those caregivers who refuse immunization to sign waivers.

Improving rates among patients

To improve vaccination levels among patients, the CDC recommends:

• using reminder/recall systems
• using standing order programs
• administering the vaccine before and during the influenza season to patients during routine health care visits.

For more on improving vaccination coverage, see “Tips to help improve vaccination rates”.

Offer the vaccine to anyone who wants it

While the groups for whom vaccine is recommended are the same as last year (TABLE 2), this year the CDC is emphasizing the importance of:

• offering the vaccine to anyone who wants to reduce their risk of contracting influenza or transmitting the virus to others.
• continuing to offer vaccine to those susceptible throughout the flu season.

A minor change from last year’s recommendations involves children who are 6 months through 8 years of age who receive only 1 dose of vaccine their first year of vaccination. The CDC now recommends that these children receive 2 doses the next year. If they receive only 1 dose 2 years in a row, the CDC recommends only a single dose annually thereafter.

TABLE 2
Who should receive the influenza vaccine?

The 2 vaccines: How they differ

The same 2 vaccine types are available this year as last: trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV) and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV). The vaccines include the same viral strain antigens and either can be used annually unless contraindicated (TABLE 3).

The major differences between the 2 vaccine types are:

• LAIV is administered as an intranasal spray while TIV requires an intramuscular injection
• LAIV is approved only for healthy people who are 5 to 49 years of age, whereas TIV is approved for anyone over the age of 6 months
• The interval between 2 doses in children under 9 years of age is 4 weeks for TIV and 6 to 10 weeks for LAIV
• LAIV should not be administered to family members or close contacts of those who are immunosuppressed and require a protective environment, while TIV can be used in this situation
• LAIV, being a live virus vaccine, should be administered simultaneously with, or 4 weeks after, the administration of other live virus vaccines. TIV is not a live virus vaccine, and its timing in relation to other live virus vaccines is not an issue.

TABLE 3
Contraindications and precautions for influenza vaccines

Antiviral options remain the same

Once again this year, the CDC does not recommend the use of adamantane antivirals for prophylaxis or treatment of influenza, leaving the 2 neuraminidase inhibitors, oseltamivir (Tamiflu) and zanamivir (Relenza), for these purposes. Treating flu patients with these antivirals shortens the duration of symptoms and may reduce viral shedding.

The earlier the treatment is started, the better the results. There appears to be no—or only minimal—benefit for those with uncomplicated influenza if the treatment is started more than 2 days after the onset of illness.

Consider antiviral prophylaxis for these patients

The CDC recommends that antiviral prophylaxis be considered for those who are susceptible, residing in an area with circulating influenza virus, and who:

• have not been vaccinated or were recently vaccinated (since it takes 2 weeks for immunity to develop after vaccination)
• are unvaccinated and providing care for high-risk individuals
• have a contraindication to the vaccine
• have immune deficiencies and may not respond adequately to the vaccine.

The CDC also recommends prophylaxis for all residents and staff in a long-term care facility where influenza is circulating, without regard to vaccine status. More complete information on indications, dose and duration of antivirals for prophylaxis, and treatment can be found in this year’s CDC recommendations.³

Another flu season approaches

The good news for the coming year is that the government expects that the supply of vaccine will exceed 100 million doses. This should be sufficient, unless unforeseen production problems arise.

Each year millions of doses of influenza vaccine go unused and are discarded. By following the CDC’s recommendations, and those of the Task Force on Community Preventive Services⁴ (top left), each of us can improve vaccination coverage in our area and minimize the number of hospitalizations and deaths from the flu.

Correspondence
Doug Campos-Outcalt, MD, MPA, 550 e. van buren, Phoenix, AZ 85004; dougco@u.arizona.edu.