Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 7 de 7
Filtrar
1.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 66(24): 649-652, 2017 Jun 23.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28640795

RESUMO

The Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) continues to make progress toward the eradication target. Only one of the three serotypes, wild poliovirus (WPV) type 1 (WPV1), is still circulating, and the numbers of cases and countries with endemic transmission are at record lows. With the certification of wild poliovirus type 2 (WPV2) eradication in 2015 and the global replacement of trivalent oral poliovirus vaccine (tOPV) containing Sabin poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3 with bivalent OPV containing only Sabin poliovirus types 1 and 3 during April-May 2016, poliovirus type 2 (PV2) is now an eradicated pathogen. However, in eight countries (Cameroon, Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Syria), monovalent type 2 OPV (mOPV2) was authorized for large-scale outbreak control after tOPV withdrawal (1). Poliovirus containment, an evolving area of work that affects every country, aims to ensure that all PV2 specimens are safely contained to minimize the risk for reintroducing the virus into communities. This report summarizes the current status of poliovirus containment and progress since the last report (2), and outlines remaining challenges. Within 30 countries, 86 facilities have been designated by the relevant national authorities (usually the Ministry of Health) to become poliovirus-essential facilities for the continued storage or handling of PV2 materials; each country is responsible for ensuring that these facilities meet all biorisk management requirements.


Assuntos
Erradicação de Doenças , Saúde Global/estatística & dados numéricos , Poliomielite/prevenção & controle , Humanos , Poliomielite/epidemiologia
2.
Prev Chronic Dis ; 11: E97, 2014 Jun 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24921900

RESUMO

State health departments in Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, and Utah explored the use of genomic information, including family health history, in chronic disease prevention programs. To support these explorations, the Office of Public Health Genomics at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provided cooperative agreement funds from 2003 through 2008. The 4 states' chronic disease programs identified advocates, formed partnerships, and assessed public data; they integrated genomics into existing state plans for genetics and chronic disease prevention; they developed projects focused on prevention of asthma, cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and other chronic conditions; and they created educational curricula and materials for health workers, policymakers, and the public. Each state's program was different because of the need to adapt to existing culture, infrastructure, and resources, yet all were able to enhance their chronic disease prevention programs with the use of family health history, a low-tech "genomic tool." Additional states are drawing on the experience of these 4 states to develop their own approaches.


Assuntos
Doença Crônica/prevenção & controle , Planejamento em Saúde Comunitária , Genômica/tendências , Avaliação de Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde/métodos , Saúde Pública/tendências , Governo Estadual , Fortalecimento Institucional , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. , Testes Genéticos , Genômica/educação , Projeto Genoma Humano , Humanos , Liderança , Michigan , Minnesota , Oregon , Projetos Piloto , Vigilância da População , Desenvolvimento de Programas , Estados Unidos , Utah , Recursos Humanos
3.
Genet Med ; 14(1): 152-62, 2012 Jan.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22237445

RESUMO

Lynch syndrome is the most common cause of inherited colorectal cancer, accounting for approximately 3% of all colorectal cancer cases in the United States. In 2009, an evidence-based review process conducted by the independent Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention Working Group resulted in a recommendation to offer genetic testing for Lynch syndrome to all individuals with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer, with the intent of reducing morbidity and mortality in family members. To explore issues surrounding implementation of this recommendation, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention convened a multidisciplinary working group meeting in September 2010. This article reviews background information regarding screening for Lynch syndrome and summarizes existing clinical paradigms, potential implementation strategies, and conclusions which emerged from the meeting. It was recognized that widespread implementation will present substantial challenges, and additional data from pilot studies will be needed. However, evidence of feasibility and population health benefits and the advantages of considering a public health approach were acknowledged. Lynch syndrome can potentially serve as a model to facilitate the development and implementation of population-level programs for evidence-based genomic medicine applications involving follow-up testing of at-risk relatives. Such endeavors will require multilevel and multidisciplinary approaches building on collaborative public health and clinical partnerships.


Assuntos
Neoplasias Colorretais Hereditárias sem Polipose/complicações , Neoplasias Colorretais Hereditárias sem Polipose/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Colorretais/complicações , Testes Genéticos , Saúde Pública , Neoplasias Colorretais/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Colorretais/genética , Neoplasias Colorretais Hereditárias sem Polipose/genética , Comportamento Cooperativo , Humanos , Comunicação Interdisciplinar
4.
Acad Pediatr ; 22(4): 542-550, 2022.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34252608

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Rotavirus vaccine (RV) coverage levels for US infants are <80%. METHODS: We surveyed nationally representative networks of pediatricians by internet/mail from April to June, 2019. Multivariable regression assessed factors associated with difficulty administering the first RV dose (RV#1) by the maximum age. RESULTS: Response rate was 68% (303/448). Ninety-nine percent of providers reported strongly recommending RV. The most common barriers to RV delivery overall (definite/somewhat of a barrier) were: parental concerns about vaccine safety overall (27%), parents wanting to defer (25%), parents not thinking RV was necessary (12%), and parent concerns about RV safety (6%). The most commonly reported reasons for nonreceipt of RV#1 by 4 to 5 months (often/always) were parental vaccine refusal (9%), hospitals not giving RV at discharge from nursery (7%), infants past the maximum age when discharged from neonatal intensive care unit/nursery (6%), and infant not seen before maximum age for well care visit (3%) or seen but no vaccine given (4%). Among respondents 4% strongly agreed and 25% somewhat agreed that they sometimes have difficulty giving RV#1 before the maximum age. Higher percentage of State Child Health Insurance Program/Medicaid-insured children in the practice and reporting that recommendations for timing of RV doses are too complicated were associated with reporting difficulty delivering the RV#1 by the maximum age. CONCLUSIONS: US pediatricians identified multiple, actionable issues that may contribute to suboptimal RV immunization rates including lack of vaccination prior to leaving nurseries after prolonged stays, infants not being seen for well care visits by the maximum age, missed opportunities at visits and parents refusing/deferring.


Assuntos
Infecções por Rotavirus , Vacinas contra Rotavirus , Criança , Humanos , Imunização , Lactente , Recém-Nascido , Medicaid , Infecções por Rotavirus/prevenção & controle , Vacinas contra Rotavirus/uso terapêutico , Estados Unidos , Vacinação
5.
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis ; 92(3): 206-209, 2018 Nov.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30177420
6.
Public Health Rep ; 130(4): 307-17, 2015.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26345122

RESUMO

The first ever case of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) was reported in September 2012. This report describes the approaches taken by CDC, in collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO) and other partners, to respond to this novel virus, and outlines the agency responses prior to the first case appearing in the United States in May 2014. During this time, CDC's response integrated multiple disciplines and was divided into three distinct phases: before, during, and after the initial activation of its Emergency Operations Center. CDC's response to MERS-CoV required a large effort, deploying at least 353 staff members who worked in the areas of surveillance, laboratory capacity, infection control guidance, and travelers' health. This response built on CDC's experience with previous outbreaks of other pathogens and provided useful lessons for future emerging threats.


Assuntos
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S./organização & administração , Controle de Doenças Transmissíveis/organização & administração , Infecções por Coronavirus/epidemiologia , Coronavírus da Síndrome Respiratória do Oriente Médio , Comunicação , Comportamento Cooperativo , Surtos de Doenças , Humanos , Vigilância em Saúde Pública , Viagem , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , Organização Mundial da Saúde/organização & administração
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
Detalhe da pesquisa