Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 41
Filtrar
Más filtros

Bases de datos
País/Región como asunto
Tipo del documento
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Clin Infect Dis ; 73(7): e1546-e1553, 2021 10 05.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32766827

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: A third measles-mumps-rubella vaccine (MMR) dose (MMR3) is recommended in the United States for persons at increased risk for mumps during outbreaks. MMR3 is also likely given to persons who might have received 2 doses of MMR but lack documentation. Since MMR3 safety data are limited, we describe adverse events in persons receiving MMR3 in a nonoutbreak setting. METHODS: Young adults with 2 documented MMR doses were administered MMR3. From 2 weeks before until 4 weeks after MMR3 receipt, participants reported daily on 11 solicited, common symptoms potentially associated with MMR. Weekly rate differences in post- vs prevaccination (baseline) were evaluated by Poisson regression. Baseline rates were subtracted from postvaccination rates of significantly different symptoms to estimate the number and percentage of participants with excess risk for symptoms post-MMR3. Descriptive analyses were performed for 3 postvaccination injection-site symptoms. RESULTS: The 662 participants were aged 18-28 years (median = 20 years); 56% were women. Headache, joint problems, diarrhea, and lymphadenopathy rates were significantly higher postvaccination vs baseline. We estimate that 119 participants (18%) reported more symptoms after MMR3 than prevaccination. By symptom, 13%, 10%, 8%, and 6% experienced increased symptoms of headache, joint problems, diarrhea, and lymphadenopathy, respectively, after MMR3. The median onset was Days 3-6 postvaccination; the median duration was 1-2 days. One healthcare visit for a potential vaccination-related symptom (urticaria) was reported. Injection-site symptoms were reported by 163 participants (25%); the median duration was 1-2 days. CONCLUSIONS: Reported systemic and local events were mild and transient. MMR3 is safe and tolerable among young adults.


Asunto(s)
Sarampión , Paperas , Rubéola (Sarampión Alemán) , Anticuerpos Antivirales , Diarrea , Femenino , Humanos , Lactante , Vacuna contra el Sarampión-Parotiditis-Rubéola/efectos adversos , Paperas/prevención & control , Vacunación/efectos adversos , Adulto Joven
2.
Clin Infect Dis ; 73(Suppl 1): S92-S97, 2021 07 15.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33977297

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Influenza vaccination is the most effective way to prevent influenza and influenza-associated complications including those leading to hospitalization. Resources otherwise used for influenza could support caring for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) Health Center Program serves 30 million people annually by providing comprehensive primary healthcare, including influenza vaccination, to demographically diverse and historically underserved communities. Because racial and ethnic minority groups have been disproportionately affected by COVID-19, the objective of this analysis was to assess disparities in influenza vaccination at HRSA-funded health centers during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and HRSA analyzed cross-sectional data on influenza vaccinations from a weekly, voluntary health center COVID-19 survey after addition of an influenza-related question covering 7-11 November 2020. RESULTS: During the 3-week period, 1126 of 1385 health centers (81%) responded to the survey. Most of the 811 738 influenza vaccinations took place in urban areas and in the Western US region. There were disproportionately more health center influenza vaccinations among racial and ethnic minorities in comparison with county demographics, except among non-Hispanic blacks and American Indian/Alaska Natives. CONCLUSIONS: HRSA-funded health centers were able to quickly vaccinate large numbers of mostly racial or ethnic minority populations, disproportionately more than county demographics. However, additional efforts might be needed to reach specific racial populations and persons in rural areas. Success in influenza vaccination efforts can support success in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccination efforts.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Vacunas contra la Influenza , Gripe Humana , Estudios Transversales , Etnicidad , Humanos , Gripe Humana/epidemiología , Gripe Humana/prevención & control , Grupos Minoritarios , Pandemias/prevención & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Vacunación
3.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 70(30): 1036-1039, 2021 Jul 30.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34324478

RESUMEN

Residents of long-term care facilities (LTCFs) and health care personnel (HCP) working in these facilities are at high risk for COVID-19-associated mortality. As of March 2021, deaths among LTCF residents and HCP have accounted for almost one third (approximately 182,000) of COVID-19-associated deaths in the United States (1). Accordingly, LTCF residents and HCP were prioritized for early receipt of COVID-19 vaccination and were targeted for on-site vaccination through the federal Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program (2). In December 2020, CDC's National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) launched COVID-19 vaccination modules, which allow U.S. LTCFs to voluntarily submit weekly facility-level COVID-19 vaccination data.* CDC analyzed data submitted during March 1-April 4, 2021, to describe COVID-19 vaccination coverage among a convenience sample of HCP working in LTCFs, by job category, and compare HCP vaccination coverage rates with social vulnerability metrics of the surrounding community using zip code tabulation area (zip code area) estimates. Through April 4, 2021, a total of 300 LTCFs nationwide, representing approximately 1.8% of LTCFs enrolled in NHSN, reported that 22,825 (56.8%) of 40,212 HCP completed COVID-19 vaccination.† Vaccination coverage was highest among physicians and advanced practice providers (75.1%) and lowest among nurses (56.7%) and aides (45.6%). Among aides (including certified nursing assistants, nurse aides, medication aides, and medication assistants), coverage was lower in facilities located in zip code areas with higher social vulnerability (social and structural factors associated with adverse health outcomes), corresponding to vaccination disparities present in the wider community (3). Additional efforts are needed to improve LTCF immunization policies and practices, build confidence in COVID-19 vaccines, and promote COVID-19 vaccination. CDC and partners have prepared education and training resources to help educate HCP and promote COVID-19 vaccination coverage among LTCF staff members.§.


Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra la COVID-19/administración & dosificación , Personal de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Disparidades en Atención de Salud , Ocupaciones/estadística & datos numéricos , Instituciones Residenciales , Cobertura de Vacunación/estadística & datos numéricos , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , Humanos , Estados Unidos/epidemiología
4.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 69(39): 1391-1397, 2020 Oct 02.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33001873

RESUMEN

Vaccination of pregnant women with influenza vaccine and tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid, and acellular pertussis vaccine (Tdap) can decrease the risk for influenza and pertussis among pregnant women and their infants. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends that all women who are or might be pregnant during the influenza season receive influenza vaccine, which can be administered at any time during pregnancy (1). ACIP also recommends that women receive Tdap during each pregnancy, preferably during the early part of gestational weeks 27-36 (2,3). Despite these recommendations, vaccination coverage among pregnant women has been found to be suboptimal with racial/ethnic disparities persisting (4-6). To assess influenza and Tdap vaccination coverage among women pregnant during the 2019-20 influenza season, CDC analyzed data from an Internet panel survey conducted during April 2020. Among 1,841 survey respondents who were pregnant anytime during October 2019-January 2020, 61.2% reported receiving influenza vaccine before or during their pregnancy, an increase of 7.5 percentage points compared with the rate during the 2018-19 season. Among 463 respondents who had a live birth by their survey date, 56.6% reported receiving Tdap during pregnancy, similar to the 2018-19 season (4). Vaccination coverage was highest among women who reported receiving a provider offer or referral for vaccination (influenza = 75.2%; Tdap = 72.7%). Compared with the 2018-19 season, increases in influenza vaccination coverage were observed during the 2019-20 season for non-Hispanic Black (Black) women (14.7 percentage points, to 52.7%), Hispanic women (9.9 percentage points, to 67.2%), and women of other non-Hispanic (other) races (7.9 percentage points, to 69.6%), and did not change for non-Hispanic White (White) women (60.6%). As in the 2018-19 season, Hispanic and Black women had the lowest Tdap vaccination coverage (35.8% and 38.8%, respectively), compared with White women (65.5%) and women of other races (54.0%); in addition, a decrease in Tdap vaccination coverage was observed among Hispanic women in 2019-20 compared with the previous season. Racial/ethnic disparities in influenza vaccination coverage decreased but persisted, even among women who received a provider offer or referral for vaccination. Consistent provider offers or referrals, in combination with conversations culturally and linguistically tailored for patients of all races/ethnicities, could increase vaccination coverage among pregnant women in all racial/ethnic groups and reduce disparities in coverage.


Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra Difteria, Tétanos y Tos Ferina Acelular/administración & dosificación , Disparidades en Atención de Salud/etnología , Vacunas contra la Influenza/administración & dosificación , Mujeres Embarazadas/etnología , Cobertura de Vacunación/estadística & datos numéricos , Adolescente , Adulto , Etnicidad/estadística & datos numéricos , Femenino , Humanos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Embarazo , Grupos Raciales/estadística & datos numéricos , Estados Unidos , Adulto Joven
5.
Clin Infect Dis ; 68(10): 1684-1690, 2019 05 02.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30204850

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Mumps is an acute viral illness that classically presents with parotitis. Although the United States experienced a 99% reduction in mumps cases following implementation of the 2-dose vaccination program in 1989, mumps has resurged in the past 10 years. METHODS: We assessed the epidemiological characteristics of mumps outbreaks with ≥20 cases reported in the United States electronically through the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System and from supplemental outbreak data through direct communications with jurisdictions from July 2010 through December 2015. Mumps cases were defined using the 2012 Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists case definition. RESULTS: Twenty-three outbreaks with 20-485 cases per outbreak were reported in 18 jurisdictions. The duration of outbreaks ranged from 1.5 to 8.5 months (median, 3 months). All outbreaks involved close-contact settings; 18 (78%) involved universities, 16 (70%) occurred primarily among young adults (median age, 18-24 years), and 9 (39%) occurred in highly vaccinated populations (2-dose measles-mumps-rubella vaccine coverage ≥85%). CONCLUSIONS: During 2010-2015, multiple mumps outbreaks among highly vaccinated populations in close-contact settings occurred. Most cases occurred among vaccinated young adults, suggesting that waning immunity played a role. Further evaluation of risk factors associated with these outbreaks is warranted.


Asunto(s)
Brotes de Enfermedades/estadística & datos numéricos , Monitoreo Epidemiológico , Programas de Inmunización , Vacuna contra el Sarampión-Parotiditis-Rubéola/administración & dosificación , Paperas/epidemiología , Vacunación/estadística & datos numéricos , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Niño , Preescolar , Humanos , Lactante , Persona de Mediana Edad , Paperas/transmisión , Investigación Cualitativa , Factores de Riesgo , Estudiantes/estadística & datos numéricos , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Universidades , Adulto Joven
6.
Clin Infect Dis ; 69(2): 306-315, 2019 07 02.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30312374

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Measles importations and the subsequent spread from US travelers returning from abroad are responsible for most measles cases in the United States. Increasing measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccination among departing US travelers could reduce the clinical impact and costs of measles in the United States. METHODS: We designed a decision tree to evaluate MMR vaccination at a pretravel health encounter (PHE), compared with no encounter. We derived input parameters from Global TravEpiNet data and literature. We quantified Riskexposure to measles while traveling and the average number of US-acquired cases and contacts due to a measles importation. In sensitivity analyses, we examined the impact of destination-specific Riskexposure, including hot spots with active measles outbreaks; the percentage of previously-unvaccinated travelers; and the percentage of travelers returning to US communities with heterogeneous MMR coverage. RESULTS: The no-encounter strategy projected 22 imported and 66 US-acquired measles cases, costing $14.8M per 10M travelers. The PHE strategy projected 15 imported and 35 US-acquired cases at $190.3M per 10M travelers. PHE was not cost effective for all international travelers (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] $4.6M/measles case averted), but offered better value (ICER <$100 000/measles case averted) or was even cost saving for travelers to hot spots, especially if travelers were previously unvaccinated or returning to US communities with heterogeneous MMR coverage. CONCLUSIONS: PHEs that improve MMR vaccination among US international travelers could reduce measles cases, but are costly. The best value is for travelers with a high likelihood of measles exposure, especially if the travelers are previously unvaccinated or will return to US communities with heterogeneous MMR coverage.


Asunto(s)
Enfermedades Transmisibles Importadas/economía , Enfermedades Transmisibles Importadas/prevención & control , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Vacuna contra el Sarampión-Parotiditis-Rubéola/economía , Sarampión/economía , Sarampión/prevención & control , Enfermedad Relacionada con los Viajes , Adulto , Enfermedades Transmisibles Importadas/epidemiología , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Sarampión/epidemiología , Vacuna contra el Sarampión-Parotiditis-Rubéola/administración & dosificación , Resultado del Tratamiento , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Adulto Joven
7.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 67(38): 1050-1054, 2018 Sep 28.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30260944

RESUMEN

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends that all health care personnel receive an annual influenza vaccination to reduce influenza-related morbidity and mortality among health care personnel and their patients and to reduce absenteeism among health care personnel (1-4). CDC conducted an opt-in Internet panel survey of 2,265 U.S. health care personnel to estimate influenza vaccination coverage among these persons during the 2017-18 influenza season. Overall, 78.4% of health care personnel reported receiving influenza vaccination during the 2017-18 season, similar to reported coverage in the previous four influenza seasons (5). As in previous seasons, coverage was highest among personnel who were required by their employer to be vaccinated (94.8%) and lowest among those working in settings where vaccination was not required, promoted, or offered on-site (47.6%). Health care personnel working in long-term care settings, the majority of whom work as assistants or aides, have lower influenza vaccination coverage than do health care personnel working in all other health care settings, which puts the elderly in long-term settings at increased risk for severe complications for influenza. Implementing workplace strategies shown to improve vaccination coverage among health care personnel, including vaccination requirements and active promotion of on-site vaccinations at no cost, can help ensure health care personnel and patients are protected against influenza (6). CDC's long-term care web-based toolkit* provides resources, strategies, and educational materials for increasing influenza vaccination among health care personnel in long-term care settings.


Asunto(s)
Personal de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Vacunas contra la Influenza/administración & dosificación , Gripe Humana/prevención & control , Vacunación/estadística & datos numéricos , Humanos , Estaciones del Año , Estados Unidos
8.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 67(38): 1055-1059, 2018 Sep 28.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30260946

RESUMEN

Vaccinating pregnant women with influenza and tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccines can reduce the risk for influenza and pertussis for themselves and their infants. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends that all women who are or might be pregnant during the influenza season receive influenza vaccine, which can be administered any time during pregnancy (1). The ACIP also recommends that women receive Tdap during each pregnancy, preferably from 27 through 36 weeks' gestation (2). To assess influenza and Tdap vaccination coverage among women pregnant during the 2017-18 influenza season, CDC analyzed data from an Internet panel survey conducted during March 28-April 10, 2018. Among 1,771 survey respondents pregnant during the peak influenza vaccination period (October 2017-January 2018), 49.1% reported receiving influenza vaccine before or during their pregnancy. Among 700 respondents who had a live birth, 54.4% reported receiving Tdap during their pregnancy. Women who reported receiving a provider offer of vaccination had higher vaccination coverage than did women who received a recommendation but no offer and women who did not receive a recommendation. Reasons for nonvaccination included concern about effectiveness of the influenza vaccine and lack of knowledge regarding the need for Tdap vaccination during every pregnancy. Provider offers or referrals for vaccination in combination with patient education could reduce missed opportunities for vaccination and increase vaccination coverage among pregnant women.


Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra Difteria, Tétanos y Tos Ferina Acelular/administración & dosificación , Vacunas contra la Influenza/administración & dosificación , Mujeres Embarazadas , Cobertura de Vacunación/estadística & datos numéricos , Adolescente , Adulto , Femenino , Encuestas de Atención de la Salud , Humanos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Embarazo , Estaciones del Año , Estados Unidos , Adulto Joven
9.
Am J Epidemiol ; 185(7): 562-569, 2017 04 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28338902

RESUMEN

We assessed the status of measles elimination in the United States using outbreak notification data. Measles transmissibility was assessed by estimation of the reproduction number, R, the average number of secondary cases per infection, using 4 methods; elimination requires maintaining R at <1. Method 1 estimates R as 1 minus the proportion of cases that are imported. Methods 2 and 3 estimate R by fitting a model of the spread of infection to data on the sizes and generations of chains of transmission, respectively. Method 4 assesses transmissibility before public health interventions, by estimating R for the case with the earliest symptom onset in each cluster (Rindex). During 2001-2014, R and Rindex estimates obtained using methods 1-4 were 0.72 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.68, 0.76), 0.66 (95% CI: 0.62, 0.70), 0.45 (95% CI: 0.40, 0.49), and 0.63 (95% CI: 0.57, 0.69), respectively. Year-to-year variability in the values of R and Rindex and an increase in transmissibility in recent years were noted with all methods. Elimination of endemic measles transmission is maintained in the United States. A suggested increase in measles transmissibility since elimination warrants continued monitoring and emphasizes the importance of high measles vaccination coverage throughout the population.


Asunto(s)
Erradicación de la Enfermedad/estadística & datos numéricos , Sarampión/prevención & control , Adolescente , Niño , Preescolar , Erradicación de la Enfermedad/métodos , Brotes de Enfermedades/prevención & control , Brotes de Enfermedades/estadística & datos numéricos , Humanos , Programas de Inmunización , Lactante , Sarampión/epidemiología , Sarampión/transmisión , Vacuna Antisarampión/uso terapéutico , Estados Unidos/epidemiología
10.
Am J Public Health ; 107(10): 1643-1645, 2017 10.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28817330

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To assess the readiness to vaccinate critical infrastructure personnel (CIP) involved in managing public works, emergency services, transportation, or any other system or asset that would have an immediate debilitating impact on the community if not maintained. METHODS: We analyzed self-reported planning to vaccinate CIP during an influenza pandemic with data from 2 surveys: (1) the Program Annual Progress Assessment of immunization programs and (2) the Pandemic Influenza Readiness Assessment of public health emergency preparedness programs. Both surveys were conducted in 2015. RESULTS: Twenty-six (43.3%) of 60 responding public health emergency preparedness programs reported having an operational plan to identify and vaccinate CIP, and 16 (26.2%) of 61 responding immunization programs reported knowing the number of CIP in their program's jurisdictions. CONCLUSIONS: Many programs may not be ready to identify and vaccinate CIP during an influenza pandemic. Additional efforts are needed to ensure operational readiness to vaccinate CIP during the next influenza pandemic.


Asunto(s)
Actitud del Personal de Salud , Vacunas contra la Influenza/administración & dosificación , Gripe Humana/epidemiología , Gripe Humana/prevención & control , Pandemias/prevención & control , Planificación en Desastres , Humanos , Estados Unidos
11.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 66(43): 1178-1181, 2017 Nov 03.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29095809

RESUMEN

In 2016, 55 jurisdictions in 49 states and six cities in the United States* used immunization information systems (IISs) to collect and manage immunization data and support vaccination providers and immunization programs. To monitor progress toward achieving IIS program goals, CDC surveys jurisdictions through an annual self-administered IIS Annual Report (IISAR). Data from the 2013-2016 IISARs were analyzed to assess progress made in four priority areas: 1) data completeness, 2) bidirectional exchange of data with electronic health record systems, 3) clinical decision support for immunizations, and 4) ability to generate childhood vaccination coverage estimates. IIS participation among children aged 4 months through 5 years increased from 90% in 2013 to 94% in 2016, and 33 jurisdictions reported ≥95% of children aged 4 months through 5 years participating in their IIS in 2016. Bidirectional messaging capacity in IISs increased from 25 jurisdictions in 2013 to 37 in 2016. In 2016, nearly all jurisdictions (52 of 55) could provide automated provider-level coverage reports, and 32 jurisdictions reported that their IISs could send vaccine forecasts to providers via Health Level 7 (HL7) messaging, up from 17 in 2013. Incremental progress was made in each area since 2013, but continued effort is needed to implement these critical functionalities among all IISs. Success in these priority areas, as defined by the IIS Functional Standards (1), bolsters clinicians' and public health practitioners' ability to attain high vaccination coverage in pediatric populations, and prepares IISs to develop more advanced functionalities to support state/local immunization services. Success in these priority areas also supports the achievement of federal immunization objectives, including the use of IISs as supplemental sampling frames for vaccination coverage surveys like the National Immunization Survey (NIS)-Child, reducing data collection costs, and supporting increased precision of state-level estimates.


Asunto(s)
Programas de Inmunización , Inmunización/estadística & datos numéricos , Sistemas de Información/tendencias , Preescolar , Encuestas de Atención de la Salud , Humanos , Lactante , Evaluación de Programas y Proyectos de Salud , Estados Unidos
12.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 66(38): 1016-1022, 2017 Sep 29.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28957044

RESUMEN

Pregnant women and their infants are at increased risk for severe influenza-associated illness (1), and since 2004, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has recommended influenza vaccination for all women who are or might be pregnant during the influenza season, regardless of the trimester of the pregnancy (2). To assess influenza vaccination coverage among pregnant women during the 2016-17 influenza season, CDC analyzed data from an Internet panel survey conducted during March 28-April 7, 2017. Among 1,893 survey respondents pregnant at any time during October 2016-January 2017, 53.6% reported having received influenza vaccination before (16.2%) or during (37.4%) pregnancy, similar to coverage during the preceding four influenza seasons. Also similar to the preceding influenza season, 67.3% of women reported receiving a provider offer for influenza vaccination, 11.9% reported receiving a recommendation but no offer, and 20.7% reported receiving no recommendation; among these women, reported influenza vaccination coverage was 70.5%, 43.7%, and 14.8%, respectively. Among women who received a provider offer for vaccination, vaccination coverage differed by race/ethnicity, education, insurance type, and other sociodemographic factors. Use of evidence-based practices such as provider reminders and standing orders could reduce missed opportunities for vaccination and increase vaccination coverage among pregnant women.


Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra la Influenza/administración & dosificación , Gripe Humana/prevención & control , Complicaciones Infecciosas del Embarazo/prevención & control , Vacunación/estadística & datos numéricos , Adolescente , Adulto , Femenino , Encuestas de Atención de la Salud , Humanos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Embarazo , Estaciones del Año , Estados Unidos , Adulto Joven
13.
J Infect Dis ; 213(7): 1115-23, 2016 Apr 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26597262

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Two doses of measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine are 97% effective against measles, but waning antibody immunity to measles and failure of the 2-dose vaccine occur. We administered a third MMR dose (MMR3) to young adults and assessed immunogenicity over 1 year. METHODS: Measles virus (MeV) neutralizing antibody concentrations, cell-mediated immunity (CMI), and immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody avidity were assessed at baseline and 1 month and 1 year after MMR3 receipt. RESULTS: Of 662 subjects at baseline, 1 (0.2%) was seronegative for MeV-neutralizing antibodies (level, <8 mIU/mL), and 23 (3.5%) had low antibody levels (8-120 mIU/mL). One month after MMR3 receipt, 1 subject (0.2%) was seronegative, and 6 (0.9%) had low neutralizing antibodies, with only 21 of 662 (3.2%) showing a ≥ 4-fold rise in neutralizing antibodies. One year after MMR3 receipt, no subject was seronegative, and 10 of 617 (1.6%) had low neutralizing antibody levels. CMI analyses showed low levels of spot-forming cells after stimulation, suggesting the presence of T-cell memory, but the response was minimal after MMR3 receipt. MeV IgG avidity did not correlate with findings of neutralization analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Most subjects were seropositive before MMR3 receipt, and very few had a secondary immune response after MMR3 receipt. Similarly, CMI and avidity analyses showed minimal qualitative improvements in immune response after MMR3 receipt. We did not find compelling data to support a routine third dose of MMR vaccine.


Asunto(s)
Anticuerpos Neutralizantes/sangre , Anticuerpos Antivirales/sangre , Inmunidad Celular/fisiología , Inmunoglobulina G/sangre , Virus del Sarampión/inmunología , Vacuna contra el Sarampión-Parotiditis-Rubéola/inmunología , Adolescente , Adulto , Afinidad de Anticuerpos , Estudios de Cohortes , Femenino , Humanos , Esquemas de Inmunización , Estudios Longitudinales , Masculino , Vacuna contra el Sarampión-Parotiditis-Rubéola/administración & dosificación , Pruebas de Neutralización , Oportunidad Relativa , Adulto Joven
14.
Clin Infect Dis ; 61(4): 615-8, 2015 Aug 15.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25979309

RESUMEN

Between 2001 and 2014, 78 reported measles cases resulted from transmission in US healthcare facilities, and 29 healthcare personnel were infected from occupational exposure, 1 of whom transmitted measles to a patient. The economic impact of preventing and controlling measles transmission in healthcare facilities was $19 000-$114 286 per case.


Asunto(s)
Infección Hospitalaria/epidemiología , Sarampión/epidemiología , Control de Enfermedades Transmisibles/economía , Control de Enfermedades Transmisibles/métodos , Infección Hospitalaria/transmisión , Transmisión de Enfermedad Infecciosa , Costos de la Atención en Salud , Instituciones de Salud , Humanos , Sarampión/transmisión , Exposición Profesional , Estados Unidos/epidemiología
15.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 64(14): 373-6, 2015 Apr 17.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25879894

RESUMEN

Measles is a highly contagious, acute viral illness that can lead to complications such as pneumonia, encephalitis, and death. As a result of high 2-dose measles vaccination coverage in the United States and improved control of measles in the World Health Organization's Region of the Americas, the United States declared measles elimination (defined as interruption of year-round endemic transmission) in 2000. Importations from other countries where measles remains endemic continue to occur, however, which can lead to clusters of measles cases in the United States. To update surveillance data on current measles outbreaks, CDC analyzed cases reported during January 4-April 2, 2015. A total of 159 cases were reported during this period. Over 80% of the cases occurred among persons who were unvaccinated or had unknown vaccination status. Four outbreaks have occurred, with one accounting for 70% of all measles cases this year. The continued risk for importation of measles into the United States and occurrence of measles cases and outbreaks in communities with high proportions of unvaccinated persons highlight the need for sustained, high vaccination coverage across the country.


Asunto(s)
Brotes de Enfermedades , Sarampión/epidemiología , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Niño , Preescolar , Humanos , Lactante , Sarampión/prevención & control , Vacuna contra el Sarampión-Parotiditis-Rubéola/administración & dosificación , Persona de Mediana Edad , Viaje , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Vacunación/estadística & datos numéricos , Adulto Joven
16.
MMWR Recomm Rep ; 62(RR-04): 1-34, 2013 Jun 14.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23760231

RESUMEN

This report is a compendium of all current recommendations for the prevention of measles, rubella, congenital rubella syndrome (CRS), and mumps. The report presents the recent revisions adopted by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) on October 24, 2012, and also summarizes all existing ACIP recommendations that have been published previously during 1998-2011 (CDC. Measles, mumps, and rubella--vaccine use and strategies for elimination of measles, rubella, and congenital rubella syndrome and control of mumps: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP]. MMWR 1998;47[No. RR-8]; CDC. Revised ACIP recommendation for avoiding pregnancy after receiving a rubellacontaining vaccine. MMWR 2001;50:1117; CDC. Updated recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP] for the control and elimination of mumps. MMWR 2006;55:629-30; and, CDC. Immunization of healthcare personnel: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR 2011;60[No. RR-7]). Currently, ACIP recommends 2 doses of MMR vaccine routinely for children with the first dose administered at age 12 through 15 months and the second dose administered at age 4 through 6 years before school entry. Two doses are recommended for adults at high risk for exposure and transmission (e.g., students attending colleges or other post-high school educational institutions, healthcare personnel, and international travelers) and 1 dose for other adults aged ≥18 years. For prevention of rubella, 1 dose of MMR vaccine is recommended for persons aged ≥12 months. At the October 24, 2012 meeting, ACIP adopted the following revisions, which are published here for the first time. These included: • For acceptable evidence of immunity, removing documentation of physician diagnosed disease as an acceptable criterion for evidence of immunity for measles and mumps, and including laboratory confirmation of disease as a criterion for acceptable evidence of immunity for measles, rubella, and mumps. • For persons with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, expanding recommendations for vaccination to all persons aged ≥12 months with HIV infection who do not have evidence of current severe immunosuppression; recommending revaccination of persons with perinatal HIV infection who were vaccinated before establishment of effective antiretroviral therapy (ART) with 2 appropriately spaced doses of MMR vaccine once effective ART has been established; and changing the recommended timing of the 2 doses of MMR vaccine for HIV-infected persons to age 12 through 15 months and 4 through 6 years. • For measles postexposure prophylaxis, expanding recommendations for use of immune globulin administered intramuscularly (IGIM) to include infants aged birth to 6 months exposed to measles; increasing the recommended dose of IGIM for immunocompetent persons; and recommending use of immune globulin administered intravenously (IGIV) for severely immunocompromised persons and pregnant women without evidence of measles immunity who are exposed to measles. As a compendium of all current recommendations for the prevention of measles, rubella, congenital rubella syndrome (CRS), and mumps, the information in this report is intended for use by clinicians as baseline guidance for scheduling of vaccinations for these conditions and considerations regarding vaccination of special populations. ACIP recommendations are reviewed periodically and are revised as indicated when new information becomes available.


Asunto(s)
Vacuna contra el Sarampión-Parotiditis-Rubéola/administración & dosificación , Sarampión/prevención & control , Paperas/prevención & control , Síndrome de Rubéola Congénita/prevención & control , Rubéola (Sarampión Alemán)/prevención & control , Adolescente , Adulto , Comités Consultivos , Niño , Preescolar , Femenino , Humanos , Esquemas de Inmunización , Lactante , Masculino , Sarampión/epidemiología , Vacuna contra el Sarampión-Parotiditis-Rubéola/efectos adversos , Vacuna contra el Sarampión-Parotiditis-Rubéola/inmunología , Paperas/epidemiología , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto , Embarazo , Rubéola (Sarampión Alemán)/epidemiología , Síndrome de Rubéola Congénita/epidemiología , Estados Unidos/epidemiología
17.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 63(22): 496-9, 2014 Jun 06.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24898167

RESUMEN

Measles is a highly contagious, acute viral illness that can lead to serious complications and death. Although measles elimination (i.e., interruption of year-round endemic transmission) was declared in the United States in 2000, importations of measles cases from endemic areas of the world continue to occur, leading to secondary measles cases and outbreaks in the United States, primarily among unvaccinated persons. To update national measles data in the United States, CDC evaluated cases reported by states from January 1 through May 23, 2014. A total of 288 confirmed measles cases have been reported to CDC, surpassing the highest reported yearly total of measles cases since elimination (220 cases reported in 2011). Fifteen outbreaks accounted for 79% of cases reported, including the largest outbreak reported in the United States since elimination (138 cases and ongoing). The large number of cases this year emphasizes the need for health-care providers to have a heightened awareness of the potential for measles in their communities and the importance of vaccination to prevent measles.


Asunto(s)
Brotes de Enfermedades , Sarampión/epidemiología , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. , Niño , Preescolar , Humanos , Lactante , Recién Nacido , Sarampión/prevención & control , Vacuna Antisarampión/administración & dosificación , Persona de Mediana Edad , Riesgo , Viaje , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Vacunación/estadística & datos numéricos , Adulto Joven
18.
Vaccine ; 2024 Jan 17.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38238113

RESUMEN

During the COVID-19 vaccination rollout from March 2021- December 2022, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funded 110 primary and 1051 subrecipient partners at the national, state, local, and community-based level to improve COVID-19 vaccination access, confidence, demand, delivery, and equity in the United States. The partners implemented evidence-based strategies among racial and ethnic minority populations, rural populations, older adults, people with disabilities, people with chronic illness, people experiencing homelessness, and other groups disproportionately impacted by COVID-19. CDC also expanded existing partnerships with healthcare professional societies and other core public health partners, as well as developed innovative partnerships with organizations new to vaccination, including museums and libraries. Partners brought COVID-19 vaccine education into farm fields, local fairs, churches, community centers, barber and beauty shops, and, when possible, partnered with local healthcare providers to administer COVID-19 vaccines. Inclusive, hyper-localized outreach through partnerships with community-based organizations, faith-based organizations, vaccination providers, and local health departments was critical to increasing COVID-19 vaccine access and building a broad network of trusted messengers that promoted vaccine confidence. Data from monthly and quarterly REDCap reports and monthly partner calls showed that through these partnerships, more than 295,000 community-level spokespersons were trained as trusted messengers and more than 2.1 million COVID-19 vaccinations were administered at new or existing vaccination sites. More than 535,035 healthcare personnel were reached through outreach strategies. Quality improvement interventions were implemented in healthcare systems, long-term care settings, and community health centers resulting in changes to the clinical workflow to incorporate COVID-19 vaccine assessments, recommendations, and administration or referrals into routine office visits. Funded partners' activities improved COVID-19 vaccine access and addressed community concerns among racial and ethnic minority groups, as well as among people with barriers to vaccination due to chronic illness or disability, older age, lower income, or other factors.

19.
Emerg Infect Dis ; 19(9): 1411-7, 2013.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23965729

RESUMEN

Although the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine is not recommended for mumps postexposure prophylaxis (PEP), data on its effectiveness are limited. During the 2009-2010 mumps outbreak in the northeastern United States, we assessed effectiveness of PEP with a third dose of MMR vaccine among contacts in Orthodox Jewish households who were given a third dose within 5 days of mumps onset in the household's index patient. We compared mumps attack rates between persons who received a third MMR dose during the first incubation period after onset in the index patient and 2-dose vaccinated persons who had not. Twenty-eight (11.7%) of 239 eligible household members received a third MMR dose as PEP. Mumps attack rates were 0% among third-dose recipients versus 5.2% among 2-dose recipients without PEP (p=0.57). Although a third MMR dose administered as PEP did not have a significant effect, it may offer some benefits in specific outbreak contexts.


Asunto(s)
Vacuna contra el Sarampión-Parotiditis-Rubéola/inmunología , Virus de la Parotiditis/inmunología , Paperas/prevención & control , Profilaxis Posexposición , Adolescente , Adulto , Niño , Preescolar , Femenino , Humanos , Esquemas de Inmunización , Lactante , Masculino , Paperas/epidemiología , Virus de la Parotiditis/química , New York , Adulto Joven
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA