Doug Campos-Outcalt, MD, MPA

One of our key responsibilities is to provide effective preventive services—and avoid performing tests of no value. Since most of us do not have time to keep up with the literature on what services and tests have and have not been proven effective, we depend on trusted authorities to make these assessments for us.

The entity with the most rigorously evidence-based approach is the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). (TABLE 1 lists the criteria for their recommendations.) Every year, this Practice Alert summarizes the new recommendations from the task force. The new recommendations in the 6 disease categories discussed here were published by the USPSTF in 2006 and the first quarter of 2007 (TABLE 2).

1. Iron deficiency anemia
2. Colon cancer chemoprevention
3. Genetic screening for hemochromatosis
4. Congenital hip dysplasia
5. Elevated lead levels
6. Speech delay

TABLE 1
The rigor behind the recommendations

TABLE 2
Summary of new USPSTF recommendations

“I” means insufficient evidence

As usual, there are many screening tests that lack evidence either for or against their effectiveness. The Task Force places such tests in the “I” (insufficient evidence) category. Physicians should remember that an “I” recommendation is not the equivalent of a “D” (recommend against).

Screening implies routine testing, and no symptoms

We also need to keep in mind the difference between screening and diagnosis. Screening implies routine testing among asymptomatic patients. Screening recommendations do not apply to symptomatic patients in whom diagnostic testing may be indicated.

1. Iron deficiency anemia

The task force recommends

• routine screening for iron deficiency anemia in asymptomatic pregnant women, and
• iron supplementation for asymptomatic children ages 6 to 12 months who are at increased risk for iron deficiency anemia.¹

The task force concludes that the evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against

• routine screening for iron deficiency anemia in asymptomatic children ages 6 to 12 months,
• iron supplementation for asymptomatic children ages 6 to 12 months who are at average risk for iron deficiency anemia,
• iron supplementation for nonanemic pregnant women.¹

Iron deficiency anemia is linked to developmental and cognitive abnormalities in children and poorer birth outcomes in pregnant women. The task force felt that the weight of the evidence supports a set of recommendations that includes screening all pregnant women and using iron preparations for those who have deficiency, and using routine iron supplementation for at-risk infants between the ages of 6 and 12 months.

The lack of a recommendation on screening all children was based on concern about the accuracy of hemoglobin as a screening test for iron deficiency and a scarcity of evidence that universal screening results in improved outcomes. Routine iron supplementation was felt to be of proven benefit only for infants at increased risk: those from low socioeconomic backgrounds and premature and low birth weight infants.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) agrees that screening should be performed in high-risk infants and all pregnant women, but recommends universal iron supplementation during pregnancy.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends screening all infants twice (at age 9 to 12 months, and 6 months later) along with dietary interventions to prevent iron deficiency, such as: breast-feeding or the use of iron-fortified formula, and the introduction of iron-rich foods at age 6 months.

2. Colon cancer

The task force recommends against routine use of aspirin and NSAIDs to prevent colorectal cancer in individuals at average risk for colorectal cancer.²

Colon cancer is common and a common cause of cancer mortality,³ and proven secondary preventions are available. Chemoprevention is a potential method of primary prevention; it has some benefits as well as harms. The task force concluded that the documented harms exceed the potential benefits.

• Aspirin taken at the high-dose regimen (350–700 mg/day) needed to protect from colon cancer increases the risks for gastrointestinal bleeding and hemorrhagic stroke. A lower dose of aspirin (75–350 mg/day) is used for chemoprevention in adults who are at increased risk for coronary heart disease but this does not protect against colon cancer.
• Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may reduce the risk of colorectal cancer, but they also increase the risks of gastrointestinal bleeding and renal injury.
• Cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors have been linked to increases in coronary artery disease.

3. Hemochromatosis

The task force recommends against routine genetic screening for hereditary hemochromatosis in the asymptomatic general population.⁴

Hemochromatosis is rare, and only a small proportion of those with the high-risk genotype actually develop the disease. The effectiveness of early intervention is unproven, and the potential for harm from false positives is significant.

The D recommendation does not apply to those with signs and symptoms consistent with hemochromatosis or a strong family history of the disease. Nor does it pertain to non-genetic laboratory tests to identify iron overload (although these also lack proof that they improve outcomes in the general population).

4. Congenital hip dysplasia

The task force concludes that evidence is insufficient to recommend routine screening for developmental dysplasia of the hip in infants as a means to prevent adverse outcomes.⁵

Physical examination and ultrasonography have limited accuracy in finding hip dysplasia, and there is a high rate of natural resolution (60% to 90%) of hip abnormalities found with these tests. Both surgical and non-surgical treatments lack evidence of effectiveness and are associated with potential for harm from avascular necrosis, high costs, and complications from surgery and anesthesia.

This uncertainty applies only to asymptomatic infants—not to those who have obvious hip dislocations or other hip abnormalities.

5. Elevated lead levels

The task force concludes that evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against routine screening for elevated blood lead levels in asymptomatic children ages 1 to 5 who are at increased risk.⁶

The task force recommends against routine screening for elevated blood lead levels in:

• asymptomatic children ages 1 to 5 years who are at average risk
• asymptomatic pregnant women.⁶

The reduction of lead in the environment, especially the reduction of leadbased gasoline, has resulted in a decline in elevated blood lead levels in the United States. The task force’s uncertainty regarding screening at-risk children centered around a lack of evidence of the effectiveness of interventions in decreasing blood lead levels. Other organizations that continue to recommend screening in high-risk children include the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics. The main risk factor for elevated blood lead levels is living in housing constructed before 1950.

The recommendation against screening in pregnant women was based on the low prevalence, no evidence for effectiveness of interventions to decrease lead levels, and potential harms from screening. This recommendation agrees with those of other organizations.

Speech delay

The task force concludes that evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against routine use of brief, formal screening instruments in primary care to detect speech and language delay in children up to 5 years of age.⁷

While speech delay affects 5% to 8% of children under the age of 5, and interventions can result in short-term improvements, long-term benefits have not been studied. It is also unclear whether the brief screening tools used in primary care accurately identify children who will benefit from interventions, or whether the results of early intervention are better than when difficulties are first identified by parents. Overall, the task force felt that we lack sufficient evidence to evaluate overall benefits and harms of brief formal screening tools in primary care among asymptomatic children.

Correspondence
Doug Campos-Outcalt, MD, MPA, 4001 N Third Street #415, Phoenix, AZ 85012; dougco@u.arizona.edu.

One of our key responsibilities is to provide effective preventive services—and avoid performing tests of no value. Since most of us do not have time to keep up with the literature on what services and tests have and have not been proven effective, we depend on trusted authorities to make these assessments for us.

The entity with the most rigorously evidence-based approach is the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). (TABLE 1 lists the criteria for their recommendations.) Every year, this Practice Alert summarizes the new recommendations from the task force. The new recommendations in the 6 disease categories discussed here were published by the USPSTF in 2006 and the first quarter of 2007 (TABLE 2).

1. Iron deficiency anemia
2. Colon cancer chemoprevention
3. Genetic screening for hemochromatosis
4. Congenital hip dysplasia
5. Elevated lead levels
6. Speech delay

TABLE 1
The rigor behind the recommendations

TABLE 2
Summary of new USPSTF recommendations

“I” means insufficient evidence

As usual, there are many screening tests that lack evidence either for or against their effectiveness. The Task Force places such tests in the “I” (insufficient evidence) category. Physicians should remember that an “I” recommendation is not the equivalent of a “D” (recommend against).

Screening implies routine testing, and no symptoms

We also need to keep in mind the difference between screening and diagnosis. Screening implies routine testing among asymptomatic patients. Screening recommendations do not apply to symptomatic patients in whom diagnostic testing may be indicated.

1. Iron deficiency anemia

The task force recommends

• routine screening for iron deficiency anemia in asymptomatic pregnant women, and
• iron supplementation for asymptomatic children ages 6 to 12 months who are at increased risk for iron deficiency anemia.¹

The task force concludes that the evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against

• routine screening for iron deficiency anemia in asymptomatic children ages 6 to 12 months,
• iron supplementation for asymptomatic children ages 6 to 12 months who are at average risk for iron deficiency anemia,
• iron supplementation for nonanemic pregnant women.¹

Iron deficiency anemia is linked to developmental and cognitive abnormalities in children and poorer birth outcomes in pregnant women. The task force felt that the weight of the evidence supports a set of recommendations that includes screening all pregnant women and using iron preparations for those who have deficiency, and using routine iron supplementation for at-risk infants between the ages of 6 and 12 months.

The lack of a recommendation on screening all children was based on concern about the accuracy of hemoglobin as a screening test for iron deficiency and a scarcity of evidence that universal screening results in improved outcomes. Routine iron supplementation was felt to be of proven benefit only for infants at increased risk: those from low socioeconomic backgrounds and premature and low birth weight infants.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) agrees that screening should be performed in high-risk infants and all pregnant women, but recommends universal iron supplementation during pregnancy.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends screening all infants twice (at age 9 to 12 months, and 6 months later) along with dietary interventions to prevent iron deficiency, such as: breast-feeding or the use of iron-fortified formula, and the introduction of iron-rich foods at age 6 months.

2. Colon cancer

The task force recommends against routine use of aspirin and NSAIDs to prevent colorectal cancer in individuals at average risk for colorectal cancer.²

Colon cancer is common and a common cause of cancer mortality,³ and proven secondary preventions are available. Chemoprevention is a potential method of primary prevention; it has some benefits as well as harms. The task force concluded that the documented harms exceed the potential benefits.

• Aspirin taken at the high-dose regimen (350–700 mg/day) needed to protect from colon cancer increases the risks for gastrointestinal bleeding and hemorrhagic stroke. A lower dose of aspirin (75–350 mg/day) is used for chemoprevention in adults who are at increased risk for coronary heart disease but this does not protect against colon cancer.
• Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may reduce the risk of colorectal cancer, but they also increase the risks of gastrointestinal bleeding and renal injury.
• Cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors have been linked to increases in coronary artery disease.

3. Hemochromatosis

The task force recommends against routine genetic screening for hereditary hemochromatosis in the asymptomatic general population.⁴

Hemochromatosis is rare, and only a small proportion of those with the high-risk genotype actually develop the disease. The effectiveness of early intervention is unproven, and the potential for harm from false positives is significant.

The D recommendation does not apply to those with signs and symptoms consistent with hemochromatosis or a strong family history of the disease. Nor does it pertain to non-genetic laboratory tests to identify iron overload (although these also lack proof that they improve outcomes in the general population).

4. Congenital hip dysplasia

The task force concludes that evidence is insufficient to recommend routine screening for developmental dysplasia of the hip in infants as a means to prevent adverse outcomes.⁵

Physical examination and ultrasonography have limited accuracy in finding hip dysplasia, and there is a high rate of natural resolution (60% to 90%) of hip abnormalities found with these tests. Both surgical and non-surgical treatments lack evidence of effectiveness and are associated with potential for harm from avascular necrosis, high costs, and complications from surgery and anesthesia.

This uncertainty applies only to asymptomatic infants—not to those who have obvious hip dislocations or other hip abnormalities.

5. Elevated lead levels

The task force concludes that evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against routine screening for elevated blood lead levels in asymptomatic children ages 1 to 5 who are at increased risk.⁶

The task force recommends against routine screening for elevated blood lead levels in:

• asymptomatic children ages 1 to 5 years who are at average risk
• asymptomatic pregnant women.⁶

The reduction of lead in the environment, especially the reduction of leadbased gasoline, has resulted in a decline in elevated blood lead levels in the United States. The task force’s uncertainty regarding screening at-risk children centered around a lack of evidence of the effectiveness of interventions in decreasing blood lead levels. Other organizations that continue to recommend screening in high-risk children include the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics. The main risk factor for elevated blood lead levels is living in housing constructed before 1950.

The recommendation against screening in pregnant women was based on the low prevalence, no evidence for effectiveness of interventions to decrease lead levels, and potential harms from screening. This recommendation agrees with those of other organizations.

Speech delay

The task force concludes that evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against routine use of brief, formal screening instruments in primary care to detect speech and language delay in children up to 5 years of age.⁷

While speech delay affects 5% to 8% of children under the age of 5, and interventions can result in short-term improvements, long-term benefits have not been studied. It is also unclear whether the brief screening tools used in primary care accurately identify children who will benefit from interventions, or whether the results of early intervention are better than when difficulties are first identified by parents. Overall, the task force felt that we lack sufficient evidence to evaluate overall benefits and harms of brief formal screening tools in primary care among asymptomatic children.

Correspondence
Doug Campos-Outcalt, MD, MPA, 4001 N Third Street #415, Phoenix, AZ 85012; dougco@u.arizona.edu.

One of our key responsibilities is to provide effective preventive services—and avoid performing tests of no value. Since most of us do not have time to keep up with the literature on what services and tests have and have not been proven effective, we depend on trusted authorities to make these assessments for us.

The entity with the most rigorously evidence-based approach is the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). (TABLE 1 lists the criteria for their recommendations.) Every year, this Practice Alert summarizes the new recommendations from the task force. The new recommendations in the 6 disease categories discussed here were published by the USPSTF in 2006 and the first quarter of 2007 (TABLE 2).

1. Iron deficiency anemia
2. Colon cancer chemoprevention
3. Genetic screening for hemochromatosis
4. Congenital hip dysplasia
5. Elevated lead levels
6. Speech delay

TABLE 1
The rigor behind the recommendations

TABLE 2
Summary of new USPSTF recommendations

“I” means insufficient evidence

As usual, there are many screening tests that lack evidence either for or against their effectiveness. The Task Force places such tests in the “I” (insufficient evidence) category. Physicians should remember that an “I” recommendation is not the equivalent of a “D” (recommend against).

Screening implies routine testing, and no symptoms

We also need to keep in mind the difference between screening and diagnosis. Screening implies routine testing among asymptomatic patients. Screening recommendations do not apply to symptomatic patients in whom diagnostic testing may be indicated.

1. Iron deficiency anemia

The task force recommends

• routine screening for iron deficiency anemia in asymptomatic pregnant women, and
• iron supplementation for asymptomatic children ages 6 to 12 months who are at increased risk for iron deficiency anemia.¹

The task force concludes that the evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against

• routine screening for iron deficiency anemia in asymptomatic children ages 6 to 12 months,
• iron supplementation for asymptomatic children ages 6 to 12 months who are at average risk for iron deficiency anemia,
• iron supplementation for nonanemic pregnant women.¹

Iron deficiency anemia is linked to developmental and cognitive abnormalities in children and poorer birth outcomes in pregnant women. The task force felt that the weight of the evidence supports a set of recommendations that includes screening all pregnant women and using iron preparations for those who have deficiency, and using routine iron supplementation for at-risk infants between the ages of 6 and 12 months.

The lack of a recommendation on screening all children was based on concern about the accuracy of hemoglobin as a screening test for iron deficiency and a scarcity of evidence that universal screening results in improved outcomes. Routine iron supplementation was felt to be of proven benefit only for infants at increased risk: those from low socioeconomic backgrounds and premature and low birth weight infants.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) agrees that screening should be performed in high-risk infants and all pregnant women, but recommends universal iron supplementation during pregnancy.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends screening all infants twice (at age 9 to 12 months, and 6 months later) along with dietary interventions to prevent iron deficiency, such as: breast-feeding or the use of iron-fortified formula, and the introduction of iron-rich foods at age 6 months.

2. Colon cancer

The task force recommends against routine use of aspirin and NSAIDs to prevent colorectal cancer in individuals at average risk for colorectal cancer.²

Colon cancer is common and a common cause of cancer mortality,³ and proven secondary preventions are available. Chemoprevention is a potential method of primary prevention; it has some benefits as well as harms. The task force concluded that the documented harms exceed the potential benefits.

• Aspirin taken at the high-dose regimen (350–700 mg/day) needed to protect from colon cancer increases the risks for gastrointestinal bleeding and hemorrhagic stroke. A lower dose of aspirin (75–350 mg/day) is used for chemoprevention in adults who are at increased risk for coronary heart disease but this does not protect against colon cancer.
• Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may reduce the risk of colorectal cancer, but they also increase the risks of gastrointestinal bleeding and renal injury.
• Cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors have been linked to increases in coronary artery disease.

3. Hemochromatosis

The task force recommends against routine genetic screening for hereditary hemochromatosis in the asymptomatic general population.⁴

Hemochromatosis is rare, and only a small proportion of those with the high-risk genotype actually develop the disease. The effectiveness of early intervention is unproven, and the potential for harm from false positives is significant.

The D recommendation does not apply to those with signs and symptoms consistent with hemochromatosis or a strong family history of the disease. Nor does it pertain to non-genetic laboratory tests to identify iron overload (although these also lack proof that they improve outcomes in the general population).

4. Congenital hip dysplasia

The task force concludes that evidence is insufficient to recommend routine screening for developmental dysplasia of the hip in infants as a means to prevent adverse outcomes.⁵

Physical examination and ultrasonography have limited accuracy in finding hip dysplasia, and there is a high rate of natural resolution (60% to 90%) of hip abnormalities found with these tests. Both surgical and non-surgical treatments lack evidence of effectiveness and are associated with potential for harm from avascular necrosis, high costs, and complications from surgery and anesthesia.

This uncertainty applies only to asymptomatic infants—not to those who have obvious hip dislocations or other hip abnormalities.

5. Elevated lead levels

The task force concludes that evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against routine screening for elevated blood lead levels in asymptomatic children ages 1 to 5 who are at increased risk.⁶

The task force recommends against routine screening for elevated blood lead levels in:

• asymptomatic children ages 1 to 5 years who are at average risk
• asymptomatic pregnant women.⁶

The reduction of lead in the environment, especially the reduction of leadbased gasoline, has resulted in a decline in elevated blood lead levels in the United States. The task force’s uncertainty regarding screening at-risk children centered around a lack of evidence of the effectiveness of interventions in decreasing blood lead levels. Other organizations that continue to recommend screening in high-risk children include the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics. The main risk factor for elevated blood lead levels is living in housing constructed before 1950.

The recommendation against screening in pregnant women was based on the low prevalence, no evidence for effectiveness of interventions to decrease lead levels, and potential harms from screening. This recommendation agrees with those of other organizations.

Speech delay

The task force concludes that evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against routine use of brief, formal screening instruments in primary care to detect speech and language delay in children up to 5 years of age.⁷

While speech delay affects 5% to 8% of children under the age of 5, and interventions can result in short-term improvements, long-term benefits have not been studied. It is also unclear whether the brief screening tools used in primary care accurately identify children who will benefit from interventions, or whether the results of early intervention are better than when difficulties are first identified by parents. Overall, the task force felt that we lack sufficient evidence to evaluate overall benefits and harms of brief formal screening tools in primary care among asymptomatic children.

Correspondence
Doug Campos-Outcalt, MD, MPA, 4001 N Third Street #415, Phoenix, AZ 85012; dougco@u.arizona.edu.

How effective is the new varicella zoster virus vaccine and when should adults receive it?

Who should recieve the new Tdap vaccine?

The answers to these and other immunization-related questions are addressed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in a number of recently-issued immunization recommendations. Here, by vaccine, is a quick review of these recommendations. (Several were reviewed in a previous Practice Alert. March 2007 issue of JFPRotavirus vaccine is 74% effective in preventing all rotavirus gastroenteritis and 98% effective in preventing severe rotavirus gastroenteritis.⁴ It is contraindicated in those who have had a severe allergic reaction to the vaccine and should be used with caution in children with altered immunocompetence, acute gastroenteritis, and moderate-to-severe illness. Even though it’s a modified live virus, it can be used in infants even if someone in the household is pregnant or immune-deficient.

Human papilloma virus

The quadrivalent human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine was licensed by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in June 2006; the CDC released its recommendations for its use in March 2007.⁵ The vaccine should be administered routinely to all girls aged 11 to 12 and can be started as early as age 9. The vaccine should also be given to women ages 13 to 26 who have not previously received the vaccine.

HPV is responsible for over 6 million new infections per year, although only a small proportion of these infections involve types that pose high risk for cervical cancer.^5,6 The virus is associated with cervical cancer, genital warts, anal cancer, and possibly oral and pharyngeal cancer. TABLE 3 shows the number of each type of cancer that occurs in the US each year and the proportion attributed to HPV. There are over 11,000 new cases of cervical cancer and 3700 deaths from the disease each year.^7,8

The HPV vaccine is produced in yeast using recombinant DNA technology and contains virus-like products of 4 HPV subtypes (6, 11, 16, and 18) that are responsible for between 60% and 80% of cervical cancers in the US. It prevents persistent HPV infection, genital warts, and cervical, vaginal and vulvar precancerous lesions due to the 4 subtypes contained. Since the vaccine does not completely protect from cervical cancer, Pap smear testing is still recommended after vaccination.

The vaccine is administered intramuscularly in 3 doses at months 0, 2, and 6. The minimum interval between doses 1 and 2 is 4 weeks and between doses 2 and 3, 12 weeks. It is contraindicated in those with allergies to yeast and other vaccine components. It can be coadministered with other vaccines but should be deferred for moderate to severe illness. The most common side effects are pain, swelling, and redness at the injection site; fever occurs at a rate slightly above placebo. The vaccine has not been tested for safety for use in pregnancy, but inadvertent administration during pregnancy has not led to any documented adverse effects.

TABLE 3
Cancers associated with HPV—US, 2003

Correspondence
Doug Campos-Outcalt, MD, MPA, 55 E. Van Buren, Phoenix, AZ 85004. dougco@u.arizona.edu

How effective is the new varicella zoster virus vaccine and when should adults receive it?

Who should recieve the new Tdap vaccine?

The answers to these and other immunization-related questions are addressed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in a number of recently-issued immunization recommendations. Here, by vaccine, is a quick review of these recommendations. (Several were reviewed in a previous Practice Alert. March 2007 issue of JFPRotavirus vaccine is 74% effective in preventing all rotavirus gastroenteritis and 98% effective in preventing severe rotavirus gastroenteritis.⁴ It is contraindicated in those who have had a severe allergic reaction to the vaccine and should be used with caution in children with altered immunocompetence, acute gastroenteritis, and moderate-to-severe illness. Even though it’s a modified live virus, it can be used in infants even if someone in the household is pregnant or immune-deficient.

Human papilloma virus

The quadrivalent human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine was licensed by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in June 2006; the CDC released its recommendations for its use in March 2007.⁵ The vaccine should be administered routinely to all girls aged 11 to 12 and can be started as early as age 9. The vaccine should also be given to women ages 13 to 26 who have not previously received the vaccine.

HPV is responsible for over 6 million new infections per year, although only a small proportion of these infections involve types that pose high risk for cervical cancer.^5,6 The virus is associated with cervical cancer, genital warts, anal cancer, and possibly oral and pharyngeal cancer. TABLE 3 shows the number of each type of cancer that occurs in the US each year and the proportion attributed to HPV. There are over 11,000 new cases of cervical cancer and 3700 deaths from the disease each year.^7,8

The HPV vaccine is produced in yeast using recombinant DNA technology and contains virus-like products of 4 HPV subtypes (6, 11, 16, and 18) that are responsible for between 60% and 80% of cervical cancers in the US. It prevents persistent HPV infection, genital warts, and cervical, vaginal and vulvar precancerous lesions due to the 4 subtypes contained. Since the vaccine does not completely protect from cervical cancer, Pap smear testing is still recommended after vaccination.

The vaccine is administered intramuscularly in 3 doses at months 0, 2, and 6. The minimum interval between doses 1 and 2 is 4 weeks and between doses 2 and 3, 12 weeks. It is contraindicated in those with allergies to yeast and other vaccine components. It can be coadministered with other vaccines but should be deferred for moderate to severe illness. The most common side effects are pain, swelling, and redness at the injection site; fever occurs at a rate slightly above placebo. The vaccine has not been tested for safety for use in pregnancy, but inadvertent administration during pregnancy has not led to any documented adverse effects.

TABLE 3
Cancers associated with HPV—US, 2003

Correspondence
Doug Campos-Outcalt, MD, MPA, 55 E. Van Buren, Phoenix, AZ 85004. dougco@u.arizona.edu

How effective is the new varicella zoster virus vaccine and when should adults receive it?

Who should recieve the new Tdap vaccine?

The answers to these and other immunization-related questions are addressed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in a number of recently-issued immunization recommendations. Here, by vaccine, is a quick review of these recommendations. (Several were reviewed in a previous Practice Alert. March 2007 issue of JFPRotavirus vaccine is 74% effective in preventing all rotavirus gastroenteritis and 98% effective in preventing severe rotavirus gastroenteritis.⁴ It is contraindicated in those who have had a severe allergic reaction to the vaccine and should be used with caution in children with altered immunocompetence, acute gastroenteritis, and moderate-to-severe illness. Even though it’s a modified live virus, it can be used in infants even if someone in the household is pregnant or immune-deficient.

Human papilloma virus

The quadrivalent human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine was licensed by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in June 2006; the CDC released its recommendations for its use in March 2007.⁵ The vaccine should be administered routinely to all girls aged 11 to 12 and can be started as early as age 9. The vaccine should also be given to women ages 13 to 26 who have not previously received the vaccine.

HPV is responsible for over 6 million new infections per year, although only a small proportion of these infections involve types that pose high risk for cervical cancer.^5,6 The virus is associated with cervical cancer, genital warts, anal cancer, and possibly oral and pharyngeal cancer. TABLE 3 shows the number of each type of cancer that occurs in the US each year and the proportion attributed to HPV. There are over 11,000 new cases of cervical cancer and 3700 deaths from the disease each year.^7,8

The HPV vaccine is produced in yeast using recombinant DNA technology and contains virus-like products of 4 HPV subtypes (6, 11, 16, and 18) that are responsible for between 60% and 80% of cervical cancers in the US. It prevents persistent HPV infection, genital warts, and cervical, vaginal and vulvar precancerous lesions due to the 4 subtypes contained. Since the vaccine does not completely protect from cervical cancer, Pap smear testing is still recommended after vaccination.

The vaccine is administered intramuscularly in 3 doses at months 0, 2, and 6. The minimum interval between doses 1 and 2 is 4 weeks and between doses 2 and 3, 12 weeks. It is contraindicated in those with allergies to yeast and other vaccine components. It can be coadministered with other vaccines but should be deferred for moderate to severe illness. The most common side effects are pain, swelling, and redness at the injection site; fever occurs at a rate slightly above placebo. The vaccine has not been tested for safety for use in pregnancy, but inadvertent administration during pregnancy has not led to any documented adverse effects.

TABLE 3
Cancers associated with HPV—US, 2003

Correspondence
Doug Campos-Outcalt, MD, MPA, 55 E. Van Buren, Phoenix, AZ 85004. dougco@u.arizona.edu

Should all adults and adolescents be screened for HIV? Do all persons at high risk deserve annual screening? The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention thinks so, but the US Preventive Services Task Force takes a less aggressive stance. The 2 agencies looked at the evidence and interpreted it differently—and likewise we must each decide what is best for our own patients and community.

Routine screening is one of several recently revised recommendations from the CDC (at right).¹ Though the CDC has historically taken a cautious approach to HIV testing, the winds appear to be changing. The reasons:

• Risk-based screening did not reduce incidence. The previous approach—targeted counseling and testing—has not led to a decline in HIV incidence—it has hovered at around 40,000 cases per year for over a decade.²
• An estimated one fourth of HIV-positive people in the US don’t know their status, and thus are at increased risk of transmitting the disease to others.
• Risk-based screening failed to detect many who are HIV-infected because patients either don’t appreciate—or don’t want to acknowledge—their risks.^3,4
• Risk-based screening failed to detect many HIV-infected pregnant women, leading to preventable infection in newborns; routine opt-out testing has been more successful.⁵
• Highly active antiretroviral therapy has had marked success in reducing mortality from HIV infection. Chemoprophylaxis has proven benefits for preventing certain opportunistic infections.^6,7

Removing barriers to testing

The CDC is also advising clinicians that requiring pretest counseling or a separate written consent is a barrier to testing. Clinicians still should inform patients that HIV testing is being conducted and that they have a right to refuse. There is evidence, though, that making the test routine reduces its stigma and increases acceptance.^8-11

Evidence also indicates that preventive counseling is very effective in reducing risky behavior among those who are HIV-positive. It’s unclear, however, whether such counseling is effective among those who are HIV-negative.¹²

Thus, the CDC’s new approach stresses finding those who are infected, getting them medical care, and lowering their risk of transmitting infection to others.

If a pregnant women refuses HIV testing, ask why

The new CDC recommendations take an especially aggressive approach to screening pregnant women, stating that women who refuse testing should be questioned about their reasons for refusal and counseled about the benefits of the test.

The CDC advises repeat testing in the third trimester, in areas of increased risk—which includes 20 states¹—and for pregnant women with individual risk factors, as well as those who receive care in facilities with rates of infection of 1 per 1000 women screened. The CDC also urges rapid HIV testing during labor, in women who were not tested during pregnancy, and on newborns whose mothers were not tested during pregnancy or labor.

USPSTF is less aggressive

The USPSTF¹³ does not recommend for or against testing persons who are not at high risk (TABLE). Both the CDC and the USPSTF recognize that routine screening is probably warranted in populations with HIV prevalence of 1/1000 or greater. However, the CDC recommends routine screening in all settings until there is evidence that the site or population-specific prevalence is lower than this threshold, while the USPSTF simply states that routine screening may be warranted in populations with a prevalence above this level.

TABLE
USPSTF vs CDC recommendations on HIV testing

The take-away message

It’s time to review both sets of guidelines and adopt HIV testing policies that are most appropriate for your clinical and community situation, and that meet state laws, many of which still require separate written consent and pretest counseling.

Correspondence
Doug Campos-outcalt, MD, MPA, 4001 N. Third Street #415, phoenix, AZ 85012. dougco@u.arizona.edu

Should all adults and adolescents be screened for HIV? Do all persons at high risk deserve annual screening? The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention thinks so, but the US Preventive Services Task Force takes a less aggressive stance. The 2 agencies looked at the evidence and interpreted it differently—and likewise we must each decide what is best for our own patients and community.

Routine screening is one of several recently revised recommendations from the CDC (at right).¹ Though the CDC has historically taken a cautious approach to HIV testing, the winds appear to be changing. The reasons:

• Risk-based screening did not reduce incidence. The previous approach—targeted counseling and testing—has not led to a decline in HIV incidence—it has hovered at around 40,000 cases per year for over a decade.²
• An estimated one fourth of HIV-positive people in the US don’t know their status, and thus are at increased risk of transmitting the disease to others.
• Risk-based screening failed to detect many who are HIV-infected because patients either don’t appreciate—or don’t want to acknowledge—their risks.^3,4
• Risk-based screening failed to detect many HIV-infected pregnant women, leading to preventable infection in newborns; routine opt-out testing has been more successful.⁵
• Highly active antiretroviral therapy has had marked success in reducing mortality from HIV infection. Chemoprophylaxis has proven benefits for preventing certain opportunistic infections.^6,7

Removing barriers to testing

The CDC is also advising clinicians that requiring pretest counseling or a separate written consent is a barrier to testing. Clinicians still should inform patients that HIV testing is being conducted and that they have a right to refuse. There is evidence, though, that making the test routine reduces its stigma and increases acceptance.^8-11

Evidence also indicates that preventive counseling is very effective in reducing risky behavior among those who are HIV-positive. It’s unclear, however, whether such counseling is effective among those who are HIV-negative.¹²

Thus, the CDC’s new approach stresses finding those who are infected, getting them medical care, and lowering their risk of transmitting infection to others.

If a pregnant women refuses HIV testing, ask why

The new CDC recommendations take an especially aggressive approach to screening pregnant women, stating that women who refuse testing should be questioned about their reasons for refusal and counseled about the benefits of the test.

The CDC advises repeat testing in the third trimester, in areas of increased risk—which includes 20 states¹—and for pregnant women with individual risk factors, as well as those who receive care in facilities with rates of infection of 1 per 1000 women screened. The CDC also urges rapid HIV testing during labor, in women who were not tested during pregnancy, and on newborns whose mothers were not tested during pregnancy or labor.

USPSTF is less aggressive

The USPSTF¹³ does not recommend for or against testing persons who are not at high risk (TABLE). Both the CDC and the USPSTF recognize that routine screening is probably warranted in populations with HIV prevalence of 1/1000 or greater. However, the CDC recommends routine screening in all settings until there is evidence that the site or population-specific prevalence is lower than this threshold, while the USPSTF simply states that routine screening may be warranted in populations with a prevalence above this level.

TABLE
USPSTF vs CDC recommendations on HIV testing

The take-away message

It’s time to review both sets of guidelines and adopt HIV testing policies that are most appropriate for your clinical and community situation, and that meet state laws, many of which still require separate written consent and pretest counseling.

Correspondence
Doug Campos-outcalt, MD, MPA, 4001 N. Third Street #415, phoenix, AZ 85012. dougco@u.arizona.edu

Should all adults and adolescents be screened for HIV? Do all persons at high risk deserve annual screening? The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention thinks so, but the US Preventive Services Task Force takes a less aggressive stance. The 2 agencies looked at the evidence and interpreted it differently—and likewise we must each decide what is best for our own patients and community.

Routine screening is one of several recently revised recommendations from the CDC (at right).¹ Though the CDC has historically taken a cautious approach to HIV testing, the winds appear to be changing. The reasons:

• Risk-based screening did not reduce incidence. The previous approach—targeted counseling and testing—has not led to a decline in HIV incidence—it has hovered at around 40,000 cases per year for over a decade.²
• An estimated one fourth of HIV-positive people in the US don’t know their status, and thus are at increased risk of transmitting the disease to others.
• Risk-based screening failed to detect many who are HIV-infected because patients either don’t appreciate—or don’t want to acknowledge—their risks.^3,4
• Risk-based screening failed to detect many HIV-infected pregnant women, leading to preventable infection in newborns; routine opt-out testing has been more successful.⁵
• Highly active antiretroviral therapy has had marked success in reducing mortality from HIV infection. Chemoprophylaxis has proven benefits for preventing certain opportunistic infections.^6,7

Removing barriers to testing

The CDC is also advising clinicians that requiring pretest counseling or a separate written consent is a barrier to testing. Clinicians still should inform patients that HIV testing is being conducted and that they have a right to refuse. There is evidence, though, that making the test routine reduces its stigma and increases acceptance.^8-11

Evidence also indicates that preventive counseling is very effective in reducing risky behavior among those who are HIV-positive. It’s unclear, however, whether such counseling is effective among those who are HIV-negative.¹²

Thus, the CDC’s new approach stresses finding those who are infected, getting them medical care, and lowering their risk of transmitting infection to others.

If a pregnant women refuses HIV testing, ask why

The new CDC recommendations take an especially aggressive approach to screening pregnant women, stating that women who refuse testing should be questioned about their reasons for refusal and counseled about the benefits of the test.

The CDC advises repeat testing in the third trimester, in areas of increased risk—which includes 20 states¹—and for pregnant women with individual risk factors, as well as those who receive care in facilities with rates of infection of 1 per 1000 women screened. The CDC also urges rapid HIV testing during labor, in women who were not tested during pregnancy, and on newborns whose mothers were not tested during pregnancy or labor.

USPSTF is less aggressive

The USPSTF¹³ does not recommend for or against testing persons who are not at high risk (TABLE). Both the CDC and the USPSTF recognize that routine screening is probably warranted in populations with HIV prevalence of 1/1000 or greater. However, the CDC recommends routine screening in all settings until there is evidence that the site or population-specific prevalence is lower than this threshold, while the USPSTF simply states that routine screening may be warranted in populations with a prevalence above this level.

TABLE
USPSTF vs CDC recommendations on HIV testing

The take-away message

It’s time to review both sets of guidelines and adopt HIV testing policies that are most appropriate for your clinical and community situation, and that meet state laws, many of which still require separate written consent and pretest counseling.

Correspondence
Doug Campos-outcalt, MD, MPA, 4001 N. Third Street #415, phoenix, AZ 85012. dougco@u.arizona.edu

All early adolescents should visit a physician at age 11 or 12 years to receive a set of recommended vaccines. Two vaccines are recommended for boys in this age group—quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MCV4) and tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria, and acellular pertussis vaccine (Tdap). Three vaccines are recommended for girls—MCV4, Tdap, and human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine.

In addition, 2 doses of varicella vaccine are now recommended before age 5 years; both boys and girls at age 11 or 12 who have received only 1 dose should be given a second. TABLE 1 contains details on each recommended vaccine.

TABLE 1
Vaccines recommended for early adolescents

Meningococcal vaccine

Quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine (Menactra) contains antigens for 4 meningococcal groups (A, C, Y, W-135), and is licensed for ages 11 to 55 years. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends that all preteens receive 1 dose at age 11 or 12. Unvaccinated older children should receive a dose before entering high school; unvaccinated college freshmen living in dorms should also be vaccinated.

Because of a shortage of vaccine, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had recommended a delay in the implementation of routine vaccination at age 11 and 12. The supply situation has now corrected, and this recommendation has been rescinded.

There have been 17 cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome appearing in adolescents and young adults within 33 days of receiving MCV4. The possibility of a cause-and-effect relationship is under investigation. The CDC recommends that preadolescents and adolescents who have a history of Guillain-Barré should not receive MCV4 unless they are college freshmen who live in dorms.

Tetanus/diphtheria/pertussis vaccine

There are 2 Tdap products, one licensed for ages 10 to 18 years (Boostrix), the other for ages 11 to 64 (Adacel). The ACIP recommends a single dose of Tdap for those aged 11 to 18, preferably at age 11 or 12. The optimal interval from the last tetanus and diphtheria toxoid (TD or Td) is 5 years but a shorter interval is acceptable. Thereafter, Td boosters are recommended every 10 years. If an 11- or 12-year-old has not previously received a complete series of a tetanus toxoid, diphtheria product tetanus and diphtheria vaccines, they should be given the recommended number of doses—only one of which should be Tdap, the others Td. The number and timing of doses can be found at www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr55e223a5.htm.

Human papilloma virus vaccine

The HPV vaccine (Gardasil) is licensed only for females aged 9 to 26 years, and is the first vaccine for the prevention of cervical cancer. It protects against HPV types 6, 11, 16, and 18, which are the cause of approximately 80% of cervical cancers. The ACIP recommends routine administration for all females between ages 9 and 26, preferably before the onset of sexual activity. The vaccine requires 3 doses at months 0, 2, and 6; it can be administered concurrently with MCV4, Tdap, and Td.

Varicella vaccine

Two doses of varicella are now recommended for all children at ages 12 to 15 months and 4 to 6 years—the same as for the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine (MMR). A new MMRV product (Proquad) could reduce the number of injections needed at these ages.

Adolescents and adults who are not immune to varicella should receive 2 doses of vaccine 3 months apart, or 1 dose if they have been vaccinated with a single dose of varicella vaccine. Immunity to varicella is defined as birth in the US prior to 1980, 2 doses of varicella vaccine, or having had a diagnosed case of chickenpox or shingles.

Other interventions

This expanding list of recommended vaccines should create an incentive for parents to bring their preteen children to visit a physician. The American College of Physicians (ACP) recommendations are built on the assumption that these vaccines should be part of a routine preventive visit at this age group.

If preteens do visit a physician more frequently, it will provide an opportunity for other health care maintenance interventions, such as measuring height, weight, and blood pressure and providing health education on diet, physical activity, and substance abuse. Unfortunately, the evidence base for the effectiveness of preventive interventions at this age is very weak.

TABLE 2 lists the interventions for the age group 11 to 12 years that have been evaluated by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). This is not a comprehensive list of all possible preventive interventions for young adolescents, only those that have been evaluated by the USPSTF. Those with either an A (strongly recommend) or B (recommend) recommendation are screening tests related to risks involved with sexual activity and will not apply to all young adolescents. Some of those with a D recommendation (recommend against) will surprise many physicians, as they have historically been included in various screening guidelines.

TABLE 2
US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations on interventions for adolescents

The bulk of the potential interventions are in the I category (insufficient evidence to recommend for or against) or are the subject of an ongoing evaluation. Many of these receive this rating not because the targeted behavior is in question but because it is unclear how effective physician counseling in a clinical encounter is in changing these behaviors—for example, avoidance of tobacco products and maintenance of ideal weight. Many providers will probably choose to provide young adolescents advice on these topics in spite of the meager evidence available.

CORRESPONDENCE
Doug Campos-Outcalt, MD, MPA, 4001 North Third Street #415, Phoenix, AZ 85012. E-mail: dougco@u.arizona.edu

All early adolescents should visit a physician at age 11 or 12 years to receive a set of recommended vaccines. Two vaccines are recommended for boys in this age group—quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MCV4) and tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria, and acellular pertussis vaccine (Tdap). Three vaccines are recommended for girls—MCV4, Tdap, and human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine.

In addition, 2 doses of varicella vaccine are now recommended before age 5 years; both boys and girls at age 11 or 12 who have received only 1 dose should be given a second. TABLE 1 contains details on each recommended vaccine.

TABLE 1
Vaccines recommended for early adolescents

Meningococcal vaccine

Quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine (Menactra) contains antigens for 4 meningococcal groups (A, C, Y, W-135), and is licensed for ages 11 to 55 years. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends that all preteens receive 1 dose at age 11 or 12. Unvaccinated older children should receive a dose before entering high school; unvaccinated college freshmen living in dorms should also be vaccinated.

Because of a shortage of vaccine, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had recommended a delay in the implementation of routine vaccination at age 11 and 12. The supply situation has now corrected, and this recommendation has been rescinded.

There have been 17 cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome appearing in adolescents and young adults within 33 days of receiving MCV4. The possibility of a cause-and-effect relationship is under investigation. The CDC recommends that preadolescents and adolescents who have a history of Guillain-Barré should not receive MCV4 unless they are college freshmen who live in dorms.

Tetanus/diphtheria/pertussis vaccine

There are 2 Tdap products, one licensed for ages 10 to 18 years (Boostrix), the other for ages 11 to 64 (Adacel). The ACIP recommends a single dose of Tdap for those aged 11 to 18, preferably at age 11 or 12. The optimal interval from the last tetanus and diphtheria toxoid (TD or Td) is 5 years but a shorter interval is acceptable. Thereafter, Td boosters are recommended every 10 years. If an 11- or 12-year-old has not previously received a complete series of a tetanus toxoid, diphtheria product tetanus and diphtheria vaccines, they should be given the recommended number of doses—only one of which should be Tdap, the others Td. The number and timing of doses can be found at www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr55e223a5.htm.

Human papilloma virus vaccine

The HPV vaccine (Gardasil) is licensed only for females aged 9 to 26 years, and is the first vaccine for the prevention of cervical cancer. It protects against HPV types 6, 11, 16, and 18, which are the cause of approximately 80% of cervical cancers. The ACIP recommends routine administration for all females between ages 9 and 26, preferably before the onset of sexual activity. The vaccine requires 3 doses at months 0, 2, and 6; it can be administered concurrently with MCV4, Tdap, and Td.

Varicella vaccine

Two doses of varicella are now recommended for all children at ages 12 to 15 months and 4 to 6 years—the same as for the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine (MMR). A new MMRV product (Proquad) could reduce the number of injections needed at these ages.

Adolescents and adults who are not immune to varicella should receive 2 doses of vaccine 3 months apart, or 1 dose if they have been vaccinated with a single dose of varicella vaccine. Immunity to varicella is defined as birth in the US prior to 1980, 2 doses of varicella vaccine, or having had a diagnosed case of chickenpox or shingles.

Other interventions

This expanding list of recommended vaccines should create an incentive for parents to bring their preteen children to visit a physician. The American College of Physicians (ACP) recommendations are built on the assumption that these vaccines should be part of a routine preventive visit at this age group.

If preteens do visit a physician more frequently, it will provide an opportunity for other health care maintenance interventions, such as measuring height, weight, and blood pressure and providing health education on diet, physical activity, and substance abuse. Unfortunately, the evidence base for the effectiveness of preventive interventions at this age is very weak.

TABLE 2 lists the interventions for the age group 11 to 12 years that have been evaluated by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). This is not a comprehensive list of all possible preventive interventions for young adolescents, only those that have been evaluated by the USPSTF. Those with either an A (strongly recommend) or B (recommend) recommendation are screening tests related to risks involved with sexual activity and will not apply to all young adolescents. Some of those with a D recommendation (recommend against) will surprise many physicians, as they have historically been included in various screening guidelines.

TABLE 2
US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations on interventions for adolescents

The bulk of the potential interventions are in the I category (insufficient evidence to recommend for or against) or are the subject of an ongoing evaluation. Many of these receive this rating not because the targeted behavior is in question but because it is unclear how effective physician counseling in a clinical encounter is in changing these behaviors—for example, avoidance of tobacco products and maintenance of ideal weight. Many providers will probably choose to provide young adolescents advice on these topics in spite of the meager evidence available.

CORRESPONDENCE
Doug Campos-Outcalt, MD, MPA, 4001 North Third Street #415, Phoenix, AZ 85012. E-mail: dougco@u.arizona.edu

All early adolescents should visit a physician at age 11 or 12 years to receive a set of recommended vaccines. Two vaccines are recommended for boys in this age group—quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MCV4) and tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria, and acellular pertussis vaccine (Tdap). Three vaccines are recommended for girls—MCV4, Tdap, and human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine.

In addition, 2 doses of varicella vaccine are now recommended before age 5 years; both boys and girls at age 11 or 12 who have received only 1 dose should be given a second. TABLE 1 contains details on each recommended vaccine.

TABLE 1
Vaccines recommended for early adolescents

Meningococcal vaccine

Quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine (Menactra) contains antigens for 4 meningococcal groups (A, C, Y, W-135), and is licensed for ages 11 to 55 years. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends that all preteens receive 1 dose at age 11 or 12. Unvaccinated older children should receive a dose before entering high school; unvaccinated college freshmen living in dorms should also be vaccinated.

Because of a shortage of vaccine, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had recommended a delay in the implementation of routine vaccination at age 11 and 12. The supply situation has now corrected, and this recommendation has been rescinded.

There have been 17 cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome appearing in adolescents and young adults within 33 days of receiving MCV4. The possibility of a cause-and-effect relationship is under investigation. The CDC recommends that preadolescents and adolescents who have a history of Guillain-Barré should not receive MCV4 unless they are college freshmen who live in dorms.

Tetanus/diphtheria/pertussis vaccine

There are 2 Tdap products, one licensed for ages 10 to 18 years (Boostrix), the other for ages 11 to 64 (Adacel). The ACIP recommends a single dose of Tdap for those aged 11 to 18, preferably at age 11 or 12. The optimal interval from the last tetanus and diphtheria toxoid (TD or Td) is 5 years but a shorter interval is acceptable. Thereafter, Td boosters are recommended every 10 years. If an 11- or 12-year-old has not previously received a complete series of a tetanus toxoid, diphtheria product tetanus and diphtheria vaccines, they should be given the recommended number of doses—only one of which should be Tdap, the others Td. The number and timing of doses can be found at www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr55e223a5.htm.

Human papilloma virus vaccine

The HPV vaccine (Gardasil) is licensed only for females aged 9 to 26 years, and is the first vaccine for the prevention of cervical cancer. It protects against HPV types 6, 11, 16, and 18, which are the cause of approximately 80% of cervical cancers. The ACIP recommends routine administration for all females between ages 9 and 26, preferably before the onset of sexual activity. The vaccine requires 3 doses at months 0, 2, and 6; it can be administered concurrently with MCV4, Tdap, and Td.

Varicella vaccine

Two doses of varicella are now recommended for all children at ages 12 to 15 months and 4 to 6 years—the same as for the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine (MMR). A new MMRV product (Proquad) could reduce the number of injections needed at these ages.

Adolescents and adults who are not immune to varicella should receive 2 doses of vaccine 3 months apart, or 1 dose if they have been vaccinated with a single dose of varicella vaccine. Immunity to varicella is defined as birth in the US prior to 1980, 2 doses of varicella vaccine, or having had a diagnosed case of chickenpox or shingles.

Other interventions

This expanding list of recommended vaccines should create an incentive for parents to bring their preteen children to visit a physician. The American College of Physicians (ACP) recommendations are built on the assumption that these vaccines should be part of a routine preventive visit at this age group.

If preteens do visit a physician more frequently, it will provide an opportunity for other health care maintenance interventions, such as measuring height, weight, and blood pressure and providing health education on diet, physical activity, and substance abuse. Unfortunately, the evidence base for the effectiveness of preventive interventions at this age is very weak.

TABLE 2 lists the interventions for the age group 11 to 12 years that have been evaluated by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). This is not a comprehensive list of all possible preventive interventions for young adolescents, only those that have been evaluated by the USPSTF. Those with either an A (strongly recommend) or B (recommend) recommendation are screening tests related to risks involved with sexual activity and will not apply to all young adolescents. Some of those with a D recommendation (recommend against) will surprise many physicians, as they have historically been included in various screening guidelines.

TABLE 2
US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations on interventions for adolescents

The bulk of the potential interventions are in the I category (insufficient evidence to recommend for or against) or are the subject of an ongoing evaluation. Many of these receive this rating not because the targeted behavior is in question but because it is unclear how effective physician counseling in a clinical encounter is in changing these behaviors—for example, avoidance of tobacco products and maintenance of ideal weight. Many providers will probably choose to provide young adolescents advice on these topics in spite of the meager evidence available.

CORRESPONDENCE
Doug Campos-Outcalt, MD, MPA, 4001 North Third Street #415, Phoenix, AZ 85012. E-mail: dougco@u.arizona.edu

Influenza season is upon us. If this year is typical, 5% to 20 % of the US population will contract influenza. Of these, 200,000 people will be hospitalized and 36,000 will die. To minimize the effects of seasonal influenza, family physicians rely on annual influenza vaccine and antiviral therapy and prophylaxis. Every year at this time, we need to ask ourselves important questions as we prepare to provide maximum protection for our patients, our communities, and ourselves.

Who should receive an influenza vaccine?—an addition this year

The list of those who should receive an annual influenza vaccine (TABLE 1) is the same as last year, with 1 addition; children between ages 24 and 59 months and their household contacts and out-of-home caregivers.^1-2 There are 2 types of vaccines available; trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIA) and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV). The TIA vaccine is administered intramuscularly, the LAIV by nasal spray. The vaccine products available and the ages for which they are licensed are listed in TABLE 2.³

The LAIV can be used for healthy people between the ages of 5 and 49 years; it should not be used for those who are pregnant, have a chronic illness, are caregivers to someone severely immune suppressed, are on chronic aspirin therapy, or have a history of Guillain-Barré syndrome. Neither vaccine should be used for anyone with an anaphylactic hypersensitivity to eggs or has had a severe allergic reaction to a previous vaccine. Vaccine should be postponed for anyone with a moderate-to-severe acute illness.

There are several other considerations for LAIV. Vaccination should be postponed for anyone with nasal congestion since it is not clear the vaccine can be administered correctly. Since LAIV is a live virus vaccine, it should be administered concurrently with, or 4 weeks after, any other live virus vaccines. It should also not be administered concurrently or within 2 weeks of receiving influenza antiviral agents. Finally, it needs to be stored at –15°C or below.

TABLE 1
Who should receive influenza vaccine

TABLE 2
Vaccine products available

What issues are specific to ages 6 months to <9 years?

A child being immunized against influenza for the first time before his or her ninth birthday should receive 2 doses—4 weeks apart for TIV, 6 weeks apart for LAIV. The doses can be 2 of either TIV or LAIV or 1 of each. If a child received only 1 dose the prior year and it was their first time to receive the vaccine, they only need 1 dose the current year.

The supply of vaccine for this age group can be problematic, especially for age 3, for whom there is only 1 product licensed. Four of the products available for children contain trace amounts of thimerosal (TABLE 2), with the highest amounts being in multidose vials.³ There have been no proven harmful effects of these amounts of thimerosal, and both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continue to recommend these products. Some parents, however, may insist on a thimerosal-free product, and a few states have taken action to limit the use of thimerosal-containing vaccines.

When should we immunize?

Immunization of those at high risk should begin in September (if vaccine is available) or October. This is particularly important for children who need 2 doses for protection. Vaccination in nursing homes is best started in October—early enough to provide protection throughout the season but late enough to provide more assurance immunity will last throughout a late season. Vaccination of all those at risk should continue throughout the whole season, or as long as vaccine supplies last.

Will there be an adequate supply of vaccine?

There will be between 100 million and 120 million doses of vaccine available this year. Based on prior years, this should be an adequate supply.

Information is available on the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) Web site on current vaccine supply issues and how to purchase influenza vaccine (available at: www.aafp.org/online/en/home/clinical/immunizations/flu06/ordering.html). The AAFP Web site will also contain information on vaccine prioritization should a shortage develop.

What is the role of antiviral medications?

The CDC currently recommends that the adamantanes (amantadine [Symmetrel] and rimantadine [Flumadine]) not be used for treatment or prophylaxis of influenza A because of a high rate of resistance documented last flu season. This situation could change as the current influenza season progresses. The remaining antivirals are both neuraminidase inhibitors; oseltamivir (Tamiflu—licensed for use in treatment and prophylaxis beginning at age 1 year) and zanamivir (Relenza—licensed for treatment beginning at age 5 years and prophylaxis at age 7 years).

Chemoprophylaxis is most useful in those whom the vaccine is contraindicated; in the 2 weeks after receipt of a vaccine, which is the time needed for it to be effective (2 weeks after the second dose in children receiving the vaccine for the first time); when the circulating virus does not match the vaccine; in those who are immune-suppressed and may have an inadequate response to the vaccine; and in nursing homes where there is an outbreak, when it should be used for everyone regardless of their vaccine status.

Treatment of those with influenza A can shorten the illness and reduce its severity if started within 2 days of symptoms. Details on antiviral recommendations and doses for treatment and prophylaxis can be found in the annual CDC influenza recommendations.³

Are rapid office lab tests useful?

The gold standard for laboratory confirmation of influenza is viral culture from a nasopharyngeal swab or washing. The time needed for this creates some difficulty initiating antiviral therapy within the two day window. Rapid, office-based tests are available and are listed in TABLE 3.⁵ Some of these tests are specific for influenza A, others for influenza B, and some are for both. The sensitivities and specificities for each product vary. A negative test in a highly suspicious patient should not rule out the disease, especially in a high prevalence situation. In a low prevalence situation a positive test is more likely to be a false positive than when the virus is causing an outbreak in the community.

TABLE 3
Rapid (<30-minute) laboratory tests available for influenza

CORRESPONDENCE
Doug Campos-Outcalt, MD, MPA, 4001 North Third Street #415, Phoenix, AZ 85012. E-mail: dougco@u.arizona.edu

Influenza season is upon us. If this year is typical, 5% to 20 % of the US population will contract influenza. Of these, 200,000 people will be hospitalized and 36,000 will die. To minimize the effects of seasonal influenza, family physicians rely on annual influenza vaccine and antiviral therapy and prophylaxis. Every year at this time, we need to ask ourselves important questions as we prepare to provide maximum protection for our patients, our communities, and ourselves.

Who should receive an influenza vaccine?—an addition this year

The list of those who should receive an annual influenza vaccine (TABLE 1) is the same as last year, with 1 addition; children between ages 24 and 59 months and their household contacts and out-of-home caregivers.^1-2 There are 2 types of vaccines available; trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIA) and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV). The TIA vaccine is administered intramuscularly, the LAIV by nasal spray. The vaccine products available and the ages for which they are licensed are listed in TABLE 2.³

The LAIV can be used for healthy people between the ages of 5 and 49 years; it should not be used for those who are pregnant, have a chronic illness, are caregivers to someone severely immune suppressed, are on chronic aspirin therapy, or have a history of Guillain-Barré syndrome. Neither vaccine should be used for anyone with an anaphylactic hypersensitivity to eggs or has had a severe allergic reaction to a previous vaccine. Vaccine should be postponed for anyone with a moderate-to-severe acute illness.

There are several other considerations for LAIV. Vaccination should be postponed for anyone with nasal congestion since it is not clear the vaccine can be administered correctly. Since LAIV is a live virus vaccine, it should be administered concurrently with, or 4 weeks after, any other live virus vaccines. It should also not be administered concurrently or within 2 weeks of receiving influenza antiviral agents. Finally, it needs to be stored at –15°C or below.

TABLE 1
Who should receive influenza vaccine

TABLE 2
Vaccine products available

What issues are specific to ages 6 months to <9 years?

A child being immunized against influenza for the first time before his or her ninth birthday should receive 2 doses—4 weeks apart for TIV, 6 weeks apart for LAIV. The doses can be 2 of either TIV or LAIV or 1 of each. If a child received only 1 dose the prior year and it was their first time to receive the vaccine, they only need 1 dose the current year.

The supply of vaccine for this age group can be problematic, especially for age 3, for whom there is only 1 product licensed. Four of the products available for children contain trace amounts of thimerosal (TABLE 2), with the highest amounts being in multidose vials.³ There have been no proven harmful effects of these amounts of thimerosal, and both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continue to recommend these products. Some parents, however, may insist on a thimerosal-free product, and a few states have taken action to limit the use of thimerosal-containing vaccines.

When should we immunize?

Immunization of those at high risk should begin in September (if vaccine is available) or October. This is particularly important for children who need 2 doses for protection. Vaccination in nursing homes is best started in October—early enough to provide protection throughout the season but late enough to provide more assurance immunity will last throughout a late season. Vaccination of all those at risk should continue throughout the whole season, or as long as vaccine supplies last.

Will there be an adequate supply of vaccine?

There will be between 100 million and 120 million doses of vaccine available this year. Based on prior years, this should be an adequate supply.

Information is available on the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) Web site on current vaccine supply issues and how to purchase influenza vaccine (available at: www.aafp.org/online/en/home/clinical/immunizations/flu06/ordering.html). The AAFP Web site will also contain information on vaccine prioritization should a shortage develop.

What is the role of antiviral medications?

The CDC currently recommends that the adamantanes (amantadine [Symmetrel] and rimantadine [Flumadine]) not be used for treatment or prophylaxis of influenza A because of a high rate of resistance documented last flu season. This situation could change as the current influenza season progresses. The remaining antivirals are both neuraminidase inhibitors; oseltamivir (Tamiflu—licensed for use in treatment and prophylaxis beginning at age 1 year) and zanamivir (Relenza—licensed for treatment beginning at age 5 years and prophylaxis at age 7 years).

Chemoprophylaxis is most useful in those whom the vaccine is contraindicated; in the 2 weeks after receipt of a vaccine, which is the time needed for it to be effective (2 weeks after the second dose in children receiving the vaccine for the first time); when the circulating virus does not match the vaccine; in those who are immune-suppressed and may have an inadequate response to the vaccine; and in nursing homes where there is an outbreak, when it should be used for everyone regardless of their vaccine status.

Treatment of those with influenza A can shorten the illness and reduce its severity if started within 2 days of symptoms. Details on antiviral recommendations and doses for treatment and prophylaxis can be found in the annual CDC influenza recommendations.³

Are rapid office lab tests useful?

The gold standard for laboratory confirmation of influenza is viral culture from a nasopharyngeal swab or washing. The time needed for this creates some difficulty initiating antiviral therapy within the two day window. Rapid, office-based tests are available and are listed in TABLE 3.⁵ Some of these tests are specific for influenza A, others for influenza B, and some are for both. The sensitivities and specificities for each product vary. A negative test in a highly suspicious patient should not rule out the disease, especially in a high prevalence situation. In a low prevalence situation a positive test is more likely to be a false positive than when the virus is causing an outbreak in the community.

TABLE 3
Rapid (<30-minute) laboratory tests available for influenza

CORRESPONDENCE
Doug Campos-Outcalt, MD, MPA, 4001 North Third Street #415, Phoenix, AZ 85012. E-mail: dougco@u.arizona.edu

Influenza season is upon us. If this year is typical, 5% to 20 % of the US population will contract influenza. Of these, 200,000 people will be hospitalized and 36,000 will die. To minimize the effects of seasonal influenza, family physicians rely on annual influenza vaccine and antiviral therapy and prophylaxis. Every year at this time, we need to ask ourselves important questions as we prepare to provide maximum protection for our patients, our communities, and ourselves.

Who should receive an influenza vaccine?—an addition this year

The list of those who should receive an annual influenza vaccine (TABLE 1) is the same as last year, with 1 addition; children between ages 24 and 59 months and their household contacts and out-of-home caregivers.^1-2 There are 2 types of vaccines available; trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIA) and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV). The TIA vaccine is administered intramuscularly, the LAIV by nasal spray. The vaccine products available and the ages for which they are licensed are listed in TABLE 2.³

The LAIV can be used for healthy people between the ages of 5 and 49 years; it should not be used for those who are pregnant, have a chronic illness, are caregivers to someone severely immune suppressed, are on chronic aspirin therapy, or have a history of Guillain-Barré syndrome. Neither vaccine should be used for anyone with an anaphylactic hypersensitivity to eggs or has had a severe allergic reaction to a previous vaccine. Vaccine should be postponed for anyone with a moderate-to-severe acute illness.

There are several other considerations for LAIV. Vaccination should be postponed for anyone with nasal congestion since it is not clear the vaccine can be administered correctly. Since LAIV is a live virus vaccine, it should be administered concurrently with, or 4 weeks after, any other live virus vaccines. It should also not be administered concurrently or within 2 weeks of receiving influenza antiviral agents. Finally, it needs to be stored at –15°C or below.

TABLE 1
Who should receive influenza vaccine

TABLE 2
Vaccine products available

What issues are specific to ages 6 months to <9 years?

A child being immunized against influenza for the first time before his or her ninth birthday should receive 2 doses—4 weeks apart for TIV, 6 weeks apart for LAIV. The doses can be 2 of either TIV or LAIV or 1 of each. If a child received only 1 dose the prior year and it was their first time to receive the vaccine, they only need 1 dose the current year.

The supply of vaccine for this age group can be problematic, especially for age 3, for whom there is only 1 product licensed. Four of the products available for children contain trace amounts of thimerosal (TABLE 2), with the highest amounts being in multidose vials.³ There have been no proven harmful effects of these amounts of thimerosal, and both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continue to recommend these products. Some parents, however, may insist on a thimerosal-free product, and a few states have taken action to limit the use of thimerosal-containing vaccines.

When should we immunize?

Immunization of those at high risk should begin in September (if vaccine is available) or October. This is particularly important for children who need 2 doses for protection. Vaccination in nursing homes is best started in October—early enough to provide protection throughout the season but late enough to provide more assurance immunity will last throughout a late season. Vaccination of all those at risk should continue throughout the whole season, or as long as vaccine supplies last.

Will there be an adequate supply of vaccine?

There will be between 100 million and 120 million doses of vaccine available this year. Based on prior years, this should be an adequate supply.

Information is available on the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) Web site on current vaccine supply issues and how to purchase influenza vaccine (available at: www.aafp.org/online/en/home/clinical/immunizations/flu06/ordering.html). The AAFP Web site will also contain information on vaccine prioritization should a shortage develop.

What is the role of antiviral medications?

The CDC currently recommends that the adamantanes (amantadine [Symmetrel] and rimantadine [Flumadine]) not be used for treatment or prophylaxis of influenza A because of a high rate of resistance documented last flu season. This situation could change as the current influenza season progresses. The remaining antivirals are both neuraminidase inhibitors; oseltamivir (Tamiflu—licensed for use in treatment and prophylaxis beginning at age 1 year) and zanamivir (Relenza—licensed for treatment beginning at age 5 years and prophylaxis at age 7 years).

Chemoprophylaxis is most useful in those whom the vaccine is contraindicated; in the 2 weeks after receipt of a vaccine, which is the time needed for it to be effective (2 weeks after the second dose in children receiving the vaccine for the first time); when the circulating virus does not match the vaccine; in those who are immune-suppressed and may have an inadequate response to the vaccine; and in nursing homes where there is an outbreak, when it should be used for everyone regardless of their vaccine status.

Treatment of those with influenza A can shorten the illness and reduce its severity if started within 2 days of symptoms. Details on antiviral recommendations and doses for treatment and prophylaxis can be found in the annual CDC influenza recommendations.³

Are rapid office lab tests useful?

The gold standard for laboratory confirmation of influenza is viral culture from a nasopharyngeal swab or washing. The time needed for this creates some difficulty initiating antiviral therapy within the two day window. Rapid, office-based tests are available and are listed in TABLE 3.⁵ Some of these tests are specific for influenza A, others for influenza B, and some are for both. The sensitivities and specificities for each product vary. A negative test in a highly suspicious patient should not rule out the disease, especially in a high prevalence situation. In a low prevalence situation a positive test is more likely to be a false positive than when the virus is causing an outbreak in the community.

TABLE 3
Rapid (<30-minute) laboratory tests available for influenza

CORRESPONDENCE
Doug Campos-Outcalt, MD, MPA, 4001 North Third Street #415, Phoenix, AZ 85012. E-mail: dougco@u.arizona.edu

One of your office personnel receives a superficial stick from a needle while putting it into a sharps disposal container. Is postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) for HIV warranted?

Another health care worker receives a major blood splash into her eye after dropping a blood tube taken from a source of unknown HIV status. Is PEP called for in this instance?

A child who was rifling through a trash bin accidentally poked himself with an improperly disposed hypodermic needle. Should he be given PEP?

In most cases, HIV PEP is given only to healthcare workers if the settings make exposure to HIV-infected persons likely. Otherwise, it is usually deemed unnecessary. However, a decision for or against PEP is complicated.

Occupational and nonoccupational exposure to HIV can produce fear, anxiety, and stress. Information on the exposure risk is frequently incomplete, the risk of infection is usually low, the degree of protection offered by PEP is not fully defined, and the potential for side effects from the medications is significant.

This article distills the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s most recent guidance on HIV PEP.

HIV on the rise again

Antiretroviral therapy has markedly reduced mortality from HIV/AIDS, but the incidence of new cases, after declining in the 1990s, has gradually increased since 2000.¹ As described in a previous article in the Journal of Family Practice,² efforts to control HIV now focus on increased testing of those persons at risk, behavior modification to reduce the chances of infected persons exposing others, and treating HIV-positive pregnant women and providing postnatal prophylaxis to their newly born infants.

Exposure to HIV can occur occupationally, during a sexual assault, or from the failure of barrier protection during sex. Though these types of exposure are not major contributors to HIV incidence, and postexposure prophylaxis is not expected to play a major role in reducing the incidence of disease, it is available to persons potentially exposed to HIV, and it is beneficial to know when it is and is not indicated. Evidence for possible effectiveness of PEP comes from studies of postnatal prophylaxis, animal studies, case control studies and case reports.³

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has developed 2 sets of recommendations for PEP that take into consideration the type and severity of the exposure and characteristics of the source of the exposure (TABLE 1).^3,4

TABLE 1
Recommended HIV postexposure prophylaxis for percutanous injuries and membrane/nonintact skin exposures

Occupational exposures to HIV

Occupational exposure to HIV can result from a needlestick injury, cut with a sharp object, or contact with potentially infectious body fluids to mucous membranes or skin that is not intact (chapped, cut, abraded, inflamed). Body fluids that are considered potentially infectious are listed in TABLE 2, along with fluids not considered to be infectious.

The risk of contracting HIV from an occupational exposure is determined by several factors, but is generally low. The risk of infection after a needle-stick injury with exposure to infected blood is estimated at 0.3%; after a mucous membrane exposure, 0.09%. The risk after exposure to nonintact skin is probably even lower. Risk increases with the quantity of blood exposed to, a needle-stick injury directly into a vein or artery, and deep injuries.

TABLE 2
Which body fluids are infectious?

Who should and should not receive PEP

TABLE 1 details recommended treatment responses to specific types of exposure (eg, puncture wound) and the status of the exposure source.⁴ In situations unlikely to result in disease transmission (superficial injury and source patient with unknown HIV status), no PEP is generally warranted due to the low risk of infection and potential toxicity of antiretrovirals.

Treatment particulars

Start postexposure prophylaxis, when indicated, as soon as possible following exposure and continue it for 4 weeks. Obtain baseline test results for HIV at the time of exposure and periodically for 6 months. The CDC recommends testing at 6 weeks, 12 weeks, and 6 months, whether or not PEP is provided.

Testing and monitoring for hepatitis B and C may also be indicated.

Advise patients on PEP to use precautions in avoiding the possibility of secondary transmission, especially in the first 3 months following exposure. Monitor for drug toxicity every week or 2 while giving PEP. Because of the complexity of potential PEP regimens and the risk for drug toxicity, you may want to take advantage of several national sources of consultation, such as the PEPline (www.ucsf.edu/hivcntr/Hotlines/PEPline or 888-448-4911) or the HIV/AIDS Treatment Information Service (aidsinfo.nih.gov)—especially with questions about potential drug resistance or if the exposed person is pregnant.

When risk is real but low, 2-drug PEP is recommended (TABLE 1), usually 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI) or 1 NRTI and 1 nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NtRTI).

For those at higher risk, 3 or more antiviral regimens are recommended, achieved by adding a protease inhibitor to one of the recommended 2-drug regimens. The potential antiviral combinations in the basic 2-drug and expanded PEP regimens, along with potential side effects and toxicities of antiviral medications are described in TABLE W1, available online at www.jfponline.com.⁴

Nonoccupational exposures rarely require PEP

There are many unresolved questions regarding PEP for nonoccupational exposures. The lack of definitive evidence of its effectiveness, its unknown influence on risk-taking behavior, and the potential to aggravate viral resistance have led CDC to recommend that PEP be used only infrequently and not continuously for those whose behavior results in frequent exposures.³ Those who continue to participate in high risk activities should be referred for risk-reduction behavioral counseling.

The risk of HIV transmission varies by route and source of exposure (TABLE 3). The CDC has developed an algorithm based on these variables (FIGURE) to help you decide whether to initiate PEP. Two situations that cause concerns but pose little known risk of infection are bites and needlestick injuries from discarded needles; PEP is rarely indicated for either.

As with occupational exposure PEP, those receiving nonoccupational PEP should be evaluated at baseline for HIV infection. In addition, consider evaluating them for other STD’s and pregnancy.

As with occupational exposure, start nonoccupational PEP as soon as possible and continue it for 28 days. Nonoccupational PEP is not recommended if time after exposure is more than 72 hours. A 3-drug regimen is recommended by the CDC for nonoccupational exposures, even though evidence is lacking that it provides superior benefit over 2 drugs (see TABLE W1 at www.jfponline.com).

Follow-up recommendations for those provided nonoccupational PEP are the same as for occupational PEP, and testing for other STDs and hepatitis B and C is also recommended (TABLE 4).

FIGURE
Evaluation and treatment of possible nonoccupational HIV exposures

TABLE 3
Estimated per-act risk for acquisition of HIV, by exposure route*

TABLE 4
Recommended laboratory evaluation for nonoccupational postexposure prophylaxis of HIV infection

Conclusion

When there is uncertainty whether PEP is recommended, start patients on a PEP regimen while the situation is sorted out. Fortunately, joint patient-physician decision making can be assisted by the physician consultation resources mentioned previously. Keep in mind that, depending on the circumstances of the exposure, HIV transmission is only one concern among others, including infectious diseases, pregnancy, and emotional/psychological aspects resulting from the incident.

CORRESPONDENCE
Doug Campos-Outcalt, MD,MPA, 4001 North Third Street #415, Phoenix, AZ 85012. E-mail: dougco@u.arizona.edu

One of your office personnel receives a superficial stick from a needle while putting it into a sharps disposal container. Is postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) for HIV warranted?

Another health care worker receives a major blood splash into her eye after dropping a blood tube taken from a source of unknown HIV status. Is PEP called for in this instance?

A child who was rifling through a trash bin accidentally poked himself with an improperly disposed hypodermic needle. Should he be given PEP?

In most cases, HIV PEP is given only to healthcare workers if the settings make exposure to HIV-infected persons likely. Otherwise, it is usually deemed unnecessary. However, a decision for or against PEP is complicated.

Occupational and nonoccupational exposure to HIV can produce fear, anxiety, and stress. Information on the exposure risk is frequently incomplete, the risk of infection is usually low, the degree of protection offered by PEP is not fully defined, and the potential for side effects from the medications is significant.

This article distills the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s most recent guidance on HIV PEP.

HIV on the rise again

Antiretroviral therapy has markedly reduced mortality from HIV/AIDS, but the incidence of new cases, after declining in the 1990s, has gradually increased since 2000.¹ As described in a previous article in the Journal of Family Practice,² efforts to control HIV now focus on increased testing of those persons at risk, behavior modification to reduce the chances of infected persons exposing others, and treating HIV-positive pregnant women and providing postnatal prophylaxis to their newly born infants.

Exposure to HIV can occur occupationally, during a sexual assault, or from the failure of barrier protection during sex. Though these types of exposure are not major contributors to HIV incidence, and postexposure prophylaxis is not expected to play a major role in reducing the incidence of disease, it is available to persons potentially exposed to HIV, and it is beneficial to know when it is and is not indicated. Evidence for possible effectiveness of PEP comes from studies of postnatal prophylaxis, animal studies, case control studies and case reports.³

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has developed 2 sets of recommendations for PEP that take into consideration the type and severity of the exposure and characteristics of the source of the exposure (TABLE 1).^3,4

TABLE 1
Recommended HIV postexposure prophylaxis for percutanous injuries and membrane/nonintact skin exposures

Occupational exposures to HIV

Occupational exposure to HIV can result from a needlestick injury, cut with a sharp object, or contact with potentially infectious body fluids to mucous membranes or skin that is not intact (chapped, cut, abraded, inflamed). Body fluids that are considered potentially infectious are listed in TABLE 2, along with fluids not considered to be infectious.

The risk of contracting HIV from an occupational exposure is determined by several factors, but is generally low. The risk of infection after a needle-stick injury with exposure to infected blood is estimated at 0.3%; after a mucous membrane exposure, 0.09%. The risk after exposure to nonintact skin is probably even lower. Risk increases with the quantity of blood exposed to, a needle-stick injury directly into a vein or artery, and deep injuries.

TABLE 2
Which body fluids are infectious?

Who should and should not receive PEP

TABLE 1 details recommended treatment responses to specific types of exposure (eg, puncture wound) and the status of the exposure source.⁴ In situations unlikely to result in disease transmission (superficial injury and source patient with unknown HIV status), no PEP is generally warranted due to the low risk of infection and potential toxicity of antiretrovirals.

Treatment particulars

Start postexposure prophylaxis, when indicated, as soon as possible following exposure and continue it for 4 weeks. Obtain baseline test results for HIV at the time of exposure and periodically for 6 months. The CDC recommends testing at 6 weeks, 12 weeks, and 6 months, whether or not PEP is provided.

Testing and monitoring for hepatitis B and C may also be indicated.

Advise patients on PEP to use precautions in avoiding the possibility of secondary transmission, especially in the first 3 months following exposure. Monitor for drug toxicity every week or 2 while giving PEP. Because of the complexity of potential PEP regimens and the risk for drug toxicity, you may want to take advantage of several national sources of consultation, such as the PEPline (www.ucsf.edu/hivcntr/Hotlines/PEPline or 888-448-4911) or the HIV/AIDS Treatment Information Service (aidsinfo.nih.gov)—especially with questions about potential drug resistance or if the exposed person is pregnant.

When risk is real but low, 2-drug PEP is recommended (TABLE 1), usually 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI) or 1 NRTI and 1 nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NtRTI).

For those at higher risk, 3 or more antiviral regimens are recommended, achieved by adding a protease inhibitor to one of the recommended 2-drug regimens. The potential antiviral combinations in the basic 2-drug and expanded PEP regimens, along with potential side effects and toxicities of antiviral medications are described in TABLE W1, available online at www.jfponline.com.⁴

Nonoccupational exposures rarely require PEP

There are many unresolved questions regarding PEP for nonoccupational exposures. The lack of definitive evidence of its effectiveness, its unknown influence on risk-taking behavior, and the potential to aggravate viral resistance have led CDC to recommend that PEP be used only infrequently and not continuously for those whose behavior results in frequent exposures.³ Those who continue to participate in high risk activities should be referred for risk-reduction behavioral counseling.

The risk of HIV transmission varies by route and source of exposure (TABLE 3). The CDC has developed an algorithm based on these variables (FIGURE) to help you decide whether to initiate PEP. Two situations that cause concerns but pose little known risk of infection are bites and needlestick injuries from discarded needles; PEP is rarely indicated for either.

As with occupational exposure PEP, those receiving nonoccupational PEP should be evaluated at baseline for HIV infection. In addition, consider evaluating them for other STD’s and pregnancy.

As with occupational exposure, start nonoccupational PEP as soon as possible and continue it for 28 days. Nonoccupational PEP is not recommended if time after exposure is more than 72 hours. A 3-drug regimen is recommended by the CDC for nonoccupational exposures, even though evidence is lacking that it provides superior benefit over 2 drugs (see TABLE W1 at www.jfponline.com).

Follow-up recommendations for those provided nonoccupational PEP are the same as for occupational PEP, and testing for other STDs and hepatitis B and C is also recommended (TABLE 4).

FIGURE
Evaluation and treatment of possible nonoccupational HIV exposures

TABLE 3
Estimated per-act risk for acquisition of HIV, by exposure route*

TABLE 4
Recommended laboratory evaluation for nonoccupational postexposure prophylaxis of HIV infection

Conclusion

When there is uncertainty whether PEP is recommended, start patients on a PEP regimen while the situation is sorted out. Fortunately, joint patient-physician decision making can be assisted by the physician consultation resources mentioned previously. Keep in mind that, depending on the circumstances of the exposure, HIV transmission is only one concern among others, including infectious diseases, pregnancy, and emotional/psychological aspects resulting from the incident.

CORRESPONDENCE
Doug Campos-Outcalt, MD,MPA, 4001 North Third Street #415, Phoenix, AZ 85012. E-mail: dougco@u.arizona.edu

One of your office personnel receives a superficial stick from a needle while putting it into a sharps disposal container. Is postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) for HIV warranted?

Another health care worker receives a major blood splash into her eye after dropping a blood tube taken from a source of unknown HIV status. Is PEP called for in this instance?

A child who was rifling through a trash bin accidentally poked himself with an improperly disposed hypodermic needle. Should he be given PEP?

In most cases, HIV PEP is given only to healthcare workers if the settings make exposure to HIV-infected persons likely. Otherwise, it is usually deemed unnecessary. However, a decision for or against PEP is complicated.

Occupational and nonoccupational exposure to HIV can produce fear, anxiety, and stress. Information on the exposure risk is frequently incomplete, the risk of infection is usually low, the degree of protection offered by PEP is not fully defined, and the potential for side effects from the medications is significant.

This article distills the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s most recent guidance on HIV PEP.

HIV on the rise again

Antiretroviral therapy has markedly reduced mortality from HIV/AIDS, but the incidence of new cases, after declining in the 1990s, has gradually increased since 2000.¹ As described in a previous article in the Journal of Family Practice,² efforts to control HIV now focus on increased testing of those persons at risk, behavior modification to reduce the chances of infected persons exposing others, and treating HIV-positive pregnant women and providing postnatal prophylaxis to their newly born infants.

Exposure to HIV can occur occupationally, during a sexual assault, or from the failure of barrier protection during sex. Though these types of exposure are not major contributors to HIV incidence, and postexposure prophylaxis is not expected to play a major role in reducing the incidence of disease, it is available to persons potentially exposed to HIV, and it is beneficial to know when it is and is not indicated. Evidence for possible effectiveness of PEP comes from studies of postnatal prophylaxis, animal studies, case control studies and case reports.³

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has developed 2 sets of recommendations for PEP that take into consideration the type and severity of the exposure and characteristics of the source of the exposure (TABLE 1).^3,4

TABLE 1
Recommended HIV postexposure prophylaxis for percutanous injuries and membrane/nonintact skin exposures

Occupational exposures to HIV

Occupational exposure to HIV can result from a needlestick injury, cut with a sharp object, or contact with potentially infectious body fluids to mucous membranes or skin that is not intact (chapped, cut, abraded, inflamed). Body fluids that are considered potentially infectious are listed in TABLE 2, along with fluids not considered to be infectious.

The risk of contracting HIV from an occupational exposure is determined by several factors, but is generally low. The risk of infection after a needle-stick injury with exposure to infected blood is estimated at 0.3%; after a mucous membrane exposure, 0.09%. The risk after exposure to nonintact skin is probably even lower. Risk increases with the quantity of blood exposed to, a needle-stick injury directly into a vein or artery, and deep injuries.

TABLE 2
Which body fluids are infectious?

Who should and should not receive PEP

TABLE 1 details recommended treatment responses to specific types of exposure (eg, puncture wound) and the status of the exposure source.⁴ In situations unlikely to result in disease transmission (superficial injury and source patient with unknown HIV status), no PEP is generally warranted due to the low risk of infection and potential toxicity of antiretrovirals.

Treatment particulars

Start postexposure prophylaxis, when indicated, as soon as possible following exposure and continue it for 4 weeks. Obtain baseline test results for HIV at the time of exposure and periodically for 6 months. The CDC recommends testing at 6 weeks, 12 weeks, and 6 months, whether or not PEP is provided.

Testing and monitoring for hepatitis B and C may also be indicated.

Advise patients on PEP to use precautions in avoiding the possibility of secondary transmission, especially in the first 3 months following exposure. Monitor for drug toxicity every week or 2 while giving PEP. Because of the complexity of potential PEP regimens and the risk for drug toxicity, you may want to take advantage of several national sources of consultation, such as the PEPline (www.ucsf.edu/hivcntr/Hotlines/PEPline or 888-448-4911) or the HIV/AIDS Treatment Information Service (aidsinfo.nih.gov)—especially with questions about potential drug resistance or if the exposed person is pregnant.

When risk is real but low, 2-drug PEP is recommended (TABLE 1), usually 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI) or 1 NRTI and 1 nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NtRTI).

For those at higher risk, 3 or more antiviral regimens are recommended, achieved by adding a protease inhibitor to one of the recommended 2-drug regimens. The potential antiviral combinations in the basic 2-drug and expanded PEP regimens, along with potential side effects and toxicities of antiviral medications are described in TABLE W1, available online at www.jfponline.com.⁴

Nonoccupational exposures rarely require PEP

There are many unresolved questions regarding PEP for nonoccupational exposures. The lack of definitive evidence of its effectiveness, its unknown influence on risk-taking behavior, and the potential to aggravate viral resistance have led CDC to recommend that PEP be used only infrequently and not continuously for those whose behavior results in frequent exposures.³ Those who continue to participate in high risk activities should be referred for risk-reduction behavioral counseling.

The risk of HIV transmission varies by route and source of exposure (TABLE 3). The CDC has developed an algorithm based on these variables (FIGURE) to help you decide whether to initiate PEP. Two situations that cause concerns but pose little known risk of infection are bites and needlestick injuries from discarded needles; PEP is rarely indicated for either.

As with occupational exposure PEP, those receiving nonoccupational PEP should be evaluated at baseline for HIV infection. In addition, consider evaluating them for other STD’s and pregnancy.

As with occupational exposure, start nonoccupational PEP as soon as possible and continue it for 28 days. Nonoccupational PEP is not recommended if time after exposure is more than 72 hours. A 3-drug regimen is recommended by the CDC for nonoccupational exposures, even though evidence is lacking that it provides superior benefit over 2 drugs (see TABLE W1 at www.jfponline.com).

Follow-up recommendations for those provided nonoccupational PEP are the same as for occupational PEP, and testing for other STDs and hepatitis B and C is also recommended (TABLE 4).

FIGURE
Evaluation and treatment of possible nonoccupational HIV exposures

TABLE 3
Estimated per-act risk for acquisition of HIV, by exposure route*

TABLE 4
Recommended laboratory evaluation for nonoccupational postexposure prophylaxis of HIV infection

Conclusion

When there is uncertainty whether PEP is recommended, start patients on a PEP regimen while the situation is sorted out. Fortunately, joint patient-physician decision making can be assisted by the physician consultation resources mentioned previously. Keep in mind that, depending on the circumstances of the exposure, HIV transmission is only one concern among others, including infectious diseases, pregnancy, and emotional/psychological aspects resulting from the incident.

CORRESPONDENCE
Doug Campos-Outcalt, MD,MPA, 4001 North Third Street #415, Phoenix, AZ 85012. E-mail: dougco@u.arizona.edu

The ongoing mumps epidemic in the Midwestern US is a stark reminder of how fast and easily an epidemic can still occur. It serves as a warning that we need to remain vigilant in maintaining high immunization levels among our patients. The morbidity and mortality resulting from this outbreak will depend on the soundness and response of the public health infrastructure.

We family physicians need to be prepared to detect and prevent mumps among our patients and staff. While it may not be immediately apparent, if we fulfill our roles competently the outbreak will be less severe.

The start of an epidemic

As of May 15, 1765 cases of mumps had been reported to the Iowa Department of Public Health.¹ The median age of those infected was 22 years, with more than one third of cases occurring in those aged 16 to 22 years (FIGURE). College students accounted for 20% of cases.

By the middle of April, at least 8 other states were also investigating possible mumps cases. More states will likely become involved: 2 people who were probably infectious traveled on 9 commercial airline flights in a 1-week period in late March.² The number of fellow travelers infected is under investigation.

In Iowa, investigation has shown that 5% of those infected reported no history of mumps immunization, 13% reported only 1 MMR vaccine, and in 30% the vaccine status was unknown. A majority of cases (51%) had received the recommended 2 MMR vaccines.¹ These numbers are consistent with what would be expected with a vaccine that has 90% to 95% effectiveness in a highly immunized population. In such conditions, most cases occur among the vaccinated even though their rate of infection is far lower than the unvaccinated.

The strain of mumps virus isolated in this outbreak is the same one responsible for a recent large outbreak in Great Britain, where there have been more than 70,000 cases in the past 3 years.³ In contrast to measles—which has resulted in few secondary cases and practically no prolonged transmission in the US after importation from abroad⁴ —this introduction of mumps has resulted in more cases and multiple generations. Given that mumps and measles vaccine are usally given together in MMR, the reasons for this difference are not clear and include several possibilities:

• The mumps vaccine appears to be less effective than measles vaccine. The mumps vaccine is reported to be 80% effective after the first dose and 90% after the second,³ where measles vaccine effectiveness approaches 98% after 2 doses.
• The number of persons with atypical or asymptomatic mumps presentations is significant and complicates control efforts.
• There is possibly a lower level of immunity to mumps in older age groups. The pre-vaccine epidemiology of measles and mumps were different, with virtually everyone born before 1957 having contracted measles naturally. This artificial cutoff date has also been used to set an age limit for mumps vaccine, although those born before 1957 may not be universally immune to mumps from natural infection.
  • Later adoption of routine mumps immunization (1970s) vs routine measles immunization (1960s).

FIGURE
Age distribution of mumps cases in Iowa

The public health response: Controlling the outbreak

Mumps vaccine is not effective until 2 to 4 weeks after it is administered, so it is not useful as postexposure prophylaxis. However, it is effective in stopping population-based outbreaks after 1 or 2 generations. MMR vaccine should be given to all who cannot provide evidence of immunity, which includes laboratory evidence of prior mumps infection, birth before 1957, or history of 1 dose of mumps-containing vaccine. Health care workers and students (including college students) should receive a second dose of vaccine.

At schools with documented cases, students and staff without proof of mumps immunity should be excluded until they receive a mumps vaccine (MMR) or provide proof of immunity. Exclusion should be until 25 days after the onset of parotitis in the last person with mumps at the institution. Anyone with mumps should be isolated until 9 days after onset of symptoms.

Laboratory confirmation of mumps involves positive mumps immunoglobulin M (IgM), a 4-fold rise in mumps IgG titers between acute and 2-week convalescent serum, or detection of virus by culture or polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in urine or throat swab specimens. Laboratory results can be confusing in those previously vaccinated; mumps IgM titers may not be detectable, a 4-fold rise in IgG titers my not occur, and the acute IgG titer may be high. False-positive IgM results can occur because of infection with parainfluenza viruses.⁷

How can you help bring this outbreak under control?

Appropriate steps can be grouped into office infection control practices, diagnosis and reporting, and community infection control measures (TABLE).

Office infection control. Office infection control (subject of a Practice Alert⁸) is critical so that health care settings do not become a major source of disease transmission. Make sure you and your staff have immunity to mumps. Health care workers should receive 2 doses of MMR vaccine at least a month apart. If mumps occurs in your area, consider requiring proof of immunity, even for those born before 1957.

Make sure that tissues and hand sanitizers are available for patients in the waiting areas, and that signs are posted advising respiratory hygiene. Instruct your front-office staff to ask patients to cover their mouths and noses when they cough and sneeze. Make masks available to any patient who is unable or unwilling to comply; surgical masks are sufficient. Health care staff should be familiar with and use recommended hand sanitation practices.

Don’t let patients with parotid gland swelling sit in the waiting area—place them in an examination room and ask them to wear a mask.

Diagnosis and reporting. When you suspect mumps, collect any specimens requested by the local health department. This probably includes an immediate serum sample for IgM or IgG and possibly a convalescent serum for IgG; it may include a throat swab or urine sample for viral isolation. You should know the phone number of the local health department or have access to their Web site so that current recommendations for specimen collection and analysis can be obtained quickly.

Community infection control. If you suspect a patient has mumps, report it to the local health department and instruct the patient to remain in isolation for 9 days after the start of symptoms. Family members and close contacts should be assisted in assuring they are immune to mumps.

Review with each patient their immunization status; encourage those without documented immunity to mumps to receive the vaccine, if they have no contraindications.

TABLE
Family physicians’ role in controlling mumps

The ongoing mumps epidemic in the Midwestern US is a stark reminder of how fast and easily an epidemic can still occur. It serves as a warning that we need to remain vigilant in maintaining high immunization levels among our patients. The morbidity and mortality resulting from this outbreak will depend on the soundness and response of the public health infrastructure.

We family physicians need to be prepared to detect and prevent mumps among our patients and staff. While it may not be immediately apparent, if we fulfill our roles competently the outbreak will be less severe.

The start of an epidemic

As of May 15, 1765 cases of mumps had been reported to the Iowa Department of Public Health.¹ The median age of those infected was 22 years, with more than one third of cases occurring in those aged 16 to 22 years (FIGURE). College students accounted for 20% of cases.

By the middle of April, at least 8 other states were also investigating possible mumps cases. More states will likely become involved: 2 people who were probably infectious traveled on 9 commercial airline flights in a 1-week period in late March.² The number of fellow travelers infected is under investigation.

In Iowa, investigation has shown that 5% of those infected reported no history of mumps immunization, 13% reported only 1 MMR vaccine, and in 30% the vaccine status was unknown. A majority of cases (51%) had received the recommended 2 MMR vaccines.¹ These numbers are consistent with what would be expected with a vaccine that has 90% to 95% effectiveness in a highly immunized population. In such conditions, most cases occur among the vaccinated even though their rate of infection is far lower than the unvaccinated.

The strain of mumps virus isolated in this outbreak is the same one responsible for a recent large outbreak in Great Britain, where there have been more than 70,000 cases in the past 3 years.³ In contrast to measles—which has resulted in few secondary cases and practically no prolonged transmission in the US after importation from abroad⁴ —this introduction of mumps has resulted in more cases and multiple generations. Given that mumps and measles vaccine are usally given together in MMR, the reasons for this difference are not clear and include several possibilities:

• The mumps vaccine appears to be less effective than measles vaccine. The mumps vaccine is reported to be 80% effective after the first dose and 90% after the second,³ where measles vaccine effectiveness approaches 98% after 2 doses.
• The number of persons with atypical or asymptomatic mumps presentations is significant and complicates control efforts.
• There is possibly a lower level of immunity to mumps in older age groups. The pre-vaccine epidemiology of measles and mumps were different, with virtually everyone born before 1957 having contracted measles naturally. This artificial cutoff date has also been used to set an age limit for mumps vaccine, although those born before 1957 may not be universally immune to mumps from natural infection.
  • Later adoption of routine mumps immunization (1970s) vs routine measles immunization (1960s).

FIGURE
Age distribution of mumps cases in Iowa

The public health response: Controlling the outbreak

Mumps vaccine is not effective until 2 to 4 weeks after it is administered, so it is not useful as postexposure prophylaxis. However, it is effective in stopping population-based outbreaks after 1 or 2 generations. MMR vaccine should be given to all who cannot provide evidence of immunity, which includes laboratory evidence of prior mumps infection, birth before 1957, or history of 1 dose of mumps-containing vaccine. Health care workers and students (including college students) should receive a second dose of vaccine.

At schools with documented cases, students and staff without proof of mumps immunity should be excluded until they receive a mumps vaccine (MMR) or provide proof of immunity. Exclusion should be until 25 days after the onset of parotitis in the last person with mumps at the institution. Anyone with mumps should be isolated until 9 days after onset of symptoms.

Laboratory confirmation of mumps involves positive mumps immunoglobulin M (IgM), a 4-fold rise in mumps IgG titers between acute and 2-week convalescent serum, or detection of virus by culture or polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in urine or throat swab specimens. Laboratory results can be confusing in those previously vaccinated; mumps IgM titers may not be detectable, a 4-fold rise in IgG titers my not occur, and the acute IgG titer may be high. False-positive IgM results can occur because of infection with parainfluenza viruses.⁷

How can you help bring this outbreak under control?

Appropriate steps can be grouped into office infection control practices, diagnosis and reporting, and community infection control measures (TABLE).

Office infection control. Office infection control (subject of a Practice Alert⁸) is critical so that health care settings do not become a major source of disease transmission. Make sure you and your staff have immunity to mumps. Health care workers should receive 2 doses of MMR vaccine at least a month apart. If mumps occurs in your area, consider requiring proof of immunity, even for those born before 1957.

Make sure that tissues and hand sanitizers are available for patients in the waiting areas, and that signs are posted advising respiratory hygiene. Instruct your front-office staff to ask patients to cover their mouths and noses when they cough and sneeze. Make masks available to any patient who is unable or unwilling to comply; surgical masks are sufficient. Health care staff should be familiar with and use recommended hand sanitation practices.

Don’t let patients with parotid gland swelling sit in the waiting area—place them in an examination room and ask them to wear a mask.

Diagnosis and reporting. When you suspect mumps, collect any specimens requested by the local health department. This probably includes an immediate serum sample for IgM or IgG and possibly a convalescent serum for IgG; it may include a throat swab or urine sample for viral isolation. You should know the phone number of the local health department or have access to their Web site so that current recommendations for specimen collection and analysis can be obtained quickly.

Community infection control. If you suspect a patient has mumps, report it to the local health department and instruct the patient to remain in isolation for 9 days after the start of symptoms. Family members and close contacts should be assisted in assuring they are immune to mumps.

Review with each patient their immunization status; encourage those without documented immunity to mumps to receive the vaccine, if they have no contraindications.

TABLE
Family physicians’ role in controlling mumps

The ongoing mumps epidemic in the Midwestern US is a stark reminder of how fast and easily an epidemic can still occur. It serves as a warning that we need to remain vigilant in maintaining high immunization levels among our patients. The morbidity and mortality resulting from this outbreak will depend on the soundness and response of the public health infrastructure.

We family physicians need to be prepared to detect and prevent mumps among our patients and staff. While it may not be immediately apparent, if we fulfill our roles competently the outbreak will be less severe.

The start of an epidemic

As of May 15, 1765 cases of mumps had been reported to the Iowa Department of Public Health.¹ The median age of those infected was 22 years, with more than one third of cases occurring in those aged 16 to 22 years (FIGURE). College students accounted for 20% of cases.

By the middle of April, at least 8 other states were also investigating possible mumps cases. More states will likely become involved: 2 people who were probably infectious traveled on 9 commercial airline flights in a 1-week period in late March.² The number of fellow travelers infected is under investigation.

In Iowa, investigation has shown that 5% of those infected reported no history of mumps immunization, 13% reported only 1 MMR vaccine, and in 30% the vaccine status was unknown. A majority of cases (51%) had received the recommended 2 MMR vaccines.¹ These numbers are consistent with what would be expected with a vaccine that has 90% to 95% effectiveness in a highly immunized population. In such conditions, most cases occur among the vaccinated even though their rate of infection is far lower than the unvaccinated.

The strain of mumps virus isolated in this outbreak is the same one responsible for a recent large outbreak in Great Britain, where there have been more than 70,000 cases in the past 3 years.³ In contrast to measles—which has resulted in few secondary cases and practically no prolonged transmission in the US after importation from abroad⁴ —this introduction of mumps has resulted in more cases and multiple generations. Given that mumps and measles vaccine are usally given together in MMR, the reasons for this difference are not clear and include several possibilities:

• The mumps vaccine appears to be less effective than measles vaccine. The mumps vaccine is reported to be 80% effective after the first dose and 90% after the second,³ where measles vaccine effectiveness approaches 98% after 2 doses.
• The number of persons with atypical or asymptomatic mumps presentations is significant and complicates control efforts.
• There is possibly a lower level of immunity to mumps in older age groups. The pre-vaccine epidemiology of measles and mumps were different, with virtually everyone born before 1957 having contracted measles naturally. This artificial cutoff date has also been used to set an age limit for mumps vaccine, although those born before 1957 may not be universally immune to mumps from natural infection.
  • Later adoption of routine mumps immunization (1970s) vs routine measles immunization (1960s).

FIGURE
Age distribution of mumps cases in Iowa

The public health response: Controlling the outbreak

Mumps vaccine is not effective until 2 to 4 weeks after it is administered, so it is not useful as postexposure prophylaxis. However, it is effective in stopping population-based outbreaks after 1 or 2 generations. MMR vaccine should be given to all who cannot provide evidence of immunity, which includes laboratory evidence of prior mumps infection, birth before 1957, or history of 1 dose of mumps-containing vaccine. Health care workers and students (including college students) should receive a second dose of vaccine.

At schools with documented cases, students and staff without proof of mumps immunity should be excluded until they receive a mumps vaccine (MMR) or provide proof of immunity. Exclusion should be until 25 days after the onset of parotitis in the last person with mumps at the institution. Anyone with mumps should be isolated until 9 days after onset of symptoms.

Laboratory confirmation of mumps involves positive mumps immunoglobulin M (IgM), a 4-fold rise in mumps IgG titers between acute and 2-week convalescent serum, or detection of virus by culture or polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in urine or throat swab specimens. Laboratory results can be confusing in those previously vaccinated; mumps IgM titers may not be detectable, a 4-fold rise in IgG titers my not occur, and the acute IgG titer may be high. False-positive IgM results can occur because of infection with parainfluenza viruses.⁷

How can you help bring this outbreak under control?

Appropriate steps can be grouped into office infection control practices, diagnosis and reporting, and community infection control measures (TABLE).

Office infection control. Office infection control (subject of a Practice Alert⁸) is critical so that health care settings do not become a major source of disease transmission. Make sure you and your staff have immunity to mumps. Health care workers should receive 2 doses of MMR vaccine at least a month apart. If mumps occurs in your area, consider requiring proof of immunity, even for those born before 1957.

Make sure that tissues and hand sanitizers are available for patients in the waiting areas, and that signs are posted advising respiratory hygiene. Instruct your front-office staff to ask patients to cover their mouths and noses when they cough and sneeze. Make masks available to any patient who is unable or unwilling to comply; surgical masks are sufficient. Health care staff should be familiar with and use recommended hand sanitation practices.

Don’t let patients with parotid gland swelling sit in the waiting area—place them in an examination room and ask them to wear a mask.

Diagnosis and reporting. When you suspect mumps, collect any specimens requested by the local health department. This probably includes an immediate serum sample for IgM or IgG and possibly a convalescent serum for IgG; it may include a throat swab or urine sample for viral isolation. You should know the phone number of the local health department or have access to their Web site so that current recommendations for specimen collection and analysis can be obtained quickly.

Community infection control. If you suspect a patient has mumps, report it to the local health department and instruct the patient to remain in isolation for 9 days after the start of symptoms. Family members and close contacts should be assisted in assuring they are immune to mumps.

Review with each patient their immunization status; encourage those without documented immunity to mumps to receive the vaccine, if they have no contraindications.

TABLE
Family physicians’ role in controlling mumps

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is the most evidence-based and authoritative organization making recommendations on preventive services in the US. During 2005, 20 recommendations were made on a total of 10 conditions. TABLE 1 lists the recommendations made in 2005. TABLE 2 describes the criteria for the recommendations coming from the task force.

Several of these recommendations deserve elaboration.

TABLE 1
USPSTF recommendations made in 2005

TABLE 2
Meaning of recommendations by the USPSTF

Sexually transmitted infections

Among the conditions studied in 2005 were gonorrhea, herpes simplex virus (HSV), and human immunodefeciency virus (HIV). The recommendations were different for each. The task force strongly recommends (A recommendation) screening all pregnant women and all high-risk adolescents and adults for HIV. No recommendation is made regarding HIV screening in adolescents and adults who are not at high risk.

The task force recommends (B recommendation) screening high-risk women for gonorrhea, including those who are pregnant.

It recommends against (D recommendation) screening for gonorrhea in men and women at low risk and believes there is insufficient evidence (I recommendation) to advocate for or against screening men at high risk and pregnant women at low risk. It recommends against screening for HSV during pregnancy and among asymptomatic adolescents and adults.

The Task Force defines high risk a little differently for gonorrhea and HIV. These definitions are listed in TABLE 3.

What the C and I recommendations do and do not mean. Keep several points in mind regarding these recommendations. When no recommendation is made for or against (C recommendation), it signifies there is evidence of some benefit but not clear enough to outweigh harms. An I recommendation means that there is not enough quality evidence to make a recommendation. These 2 recommendations are often misinterpreted as a recommendation against the service, which they are not.

Don’t confuse screening with diagnosis. Screening, by definition, means looking for a condition among asymptomatic persons. Diagnostic tests performed to clarify the cause of symptoms or to improve clinical care are not screening tests. Screening recommendations therefore do not apply in these latter instances. In addition, the task force recognizes that screening recommendations need to be interpreted in light of local epidemiology. In areas of high STD prevalence, more widespread screening might well be justified.

TABLE 3
USPSTF definitions of risk for HIV and gonorrhea

Abdominal aortic aneurysms

The rationale behind these recommendations was discussed in a previous Practice Alert.¹ The take-home message for physicians is that any male who has ever smoked can possibly benefit from a one-time abdominal ultrasound.

Women’s health conditions

Two sets of recommendations pertain to hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and screening for breast and ovarian cancer.

When to avoid HRT. The task force recommends against using combined estrogen and progestin in postmenopausal women, and against using estrogen to prevent chronic health conditions in postmenopausal women who have had a hysterectomy.

Estrogen and progestin combinations reduce the risk for fractures and colorectal cancer but have no beneficial effect on (and may increase the risk of) coronary heart disease. Other documented harms include increased risk for breast cancer, venous thromboembolism, stroke, cholecystitis, dementia, and lower global cognitive function. Unopposed estrogen reduces the risk for fractures but increases risk for venous thromboembolism, stroke, dementia, and lower global cognitive functioning, and it has no beneficial effect on coronary heart disease.

When to investigate possible BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene mutations. For women with family histories suggestive of mutations of BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes—which place women at markedly higher lifetime risk of breast and ovarian cancer—the task force recommends referral for counseling and possible genetic testing. While the task force acknowledges the unresolved ethical, social, and legal issues, as well as the unknown benefits of chemoprevention and intensive screening, they believe the potential of prophylactic surgery to prevent breast and ovarian cancer is sufficient to make the recommendation.

Note that the recommendation is for referral for genetic counseling in which genetic testing may be considered. It is not a recommendation for testing by itself.

The following elements of a family history place a woman at risk:

• 2 first-degree relatives with breast cancer, 1 of whom received the diagnosis at age 50 years or younger
• A combination of 3 or more first- or second-degree relatives with breast cancer regardless of age at diagnosis
• A combination of both breast and ovarian cancer among first- and second-degree relatives
• A first-degree relative with bilateral breast cancer
• A combination of 2 or more first-or second-degree relatives with ovarian cancer regardless of age at diagnosis
• A first- or second-degree relative with both breast and ovarian cancer at any age
• A history of breast cancer in a male relative.

For Ashkenazi Jewish women, an increased-risk family history includes any first-degree relative (or 2 second-degree relatives on the same side of the family) with breast or ovarian cancer.

For women without a high-risk family history, the task force believes that counseling or routine testing will lead to more harms than benefits and they recommend against it.

Overweight in children and adolescents

The task force acknowledges the increasing prevalence of overweight and obesity in children and adolescents and the consequent adverse health outcomes caused by this condition. As with many unhealthy conditions or habits, however, it is not known whether screening and counseling in the primary care setting reduce child and adolescent obesity.

Remember that the task force is not recommending for or against measuring height, weight, and body-mass index in the office or talking to young patients about their weight. They are simply summarizing the state of the science, which is unclear about whether such efforts by physicians have any effect.

Resources

The complete set of current USPSTF recommendations along with clinical considerations and links to evidence reports can be found on the USPSTF web site, www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstfix.htm.

CORRESPONDENCE
Doug Campos-Outcalt, MD,MPA, 4001North Third Street #415, Phoenix, AZ 85012. E-mail: dougco@u.arizona.edu

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is the most evidence-based and authoritative organization making recommendations on preventive services in the US. During 2005, 20 recommendations were made on a total of 10 conditions. TABLE 1 lists the recommendations made in 2005. TABLE 2 describes the criteria for the recommendations coming from the task force.

Several of these recommendations deserve elaboration.

TABLE 1
USPSTF recommendations made in 2005