Assessment of potential adverse events following the 2022-2023 seasonal influenza vaccines among U.S. adults aged 65 years and older.

BACKGROUND: While safety of influenza vaccines is well-established, some studies have suggested potential associations between influenza vaccines and certain adverse events (AEs). This study examined the safety of the 2022-2023 influenza vaccines among U.S. adults ≥ 65 years. METHODS: A self-controlled case series compared incidence rates of anaphylaxis, encephalitis/encephalomyelitis, Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS), and transverse myelitis following 2022-2023 seasonal influenza vaccinations (i.e., any, high-dose or adjuvanted) in risk and control intervals among Medicare beneficiaries ≥ 65 years. We used conditional Poisson regression to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for event-dependent observation time and seasonality. Analyses also accounted for uncertainty from outcome misclassification where feasible. For AEs with any statistically significant associations, we stratified results by concomitant vaccination status. RESULTS: Among 12.7 million vaccine recipients, we observed 76 anaphylaxis, 276 encephalitis/encephalomyelitis, 134 GBS and 75 transverse myelitis cases. Only rates of anaphylaxis were elevated in risk compared to control intervals. With all adjustments, an elevated, but non-statistically significant, anaphylaxis rate was observed following any (IRR: 2.40, 95% CI: 0.96-6.03), high-dose (IRR: 2.31, 95% CI: 0.67-7.91), and adjuvanted (IRR: 3.28, 95% CI: 0.71-15.08) influenza vaccination; anaphylaxis IRRs were 2.54 (95% CI: 0.49-13.05) and 1.64 (95% CI: 0.38-7.05) for persons with and without concomitant vaccination, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of encephalitis/encephalomyelitis, GBS, or transverse myelitis were not elevated following 2022-2023 seasonal influenza vaccinations among U.S. adults ≥ 65 years. There was an increased rate of anaphylaxis following influenza vaccination that may have been influenced by concomitant vaccination.

Effectiveness of BNT162b2 COVID-19 primary series vaccination in children aged 5-17 years in the United States: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccines are authorized for use in children in the United States; real-world assessment of vaccine effectiveness in children is needed. This study's objective was to estimate the effectiveness of receiving a complete primary series of monovalent BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) COVID-19 vaccine in US children. METHODS: This cohort study identified children aged 5-17 years vaccinated with BNT162b2 matched with unvaccinated children. Participants and BNT162b2 vaccinations were identified in Optum and CVS Health insurance administrative claims databases linked with Immunization Information System (IIS) COVID-19 vaccination records from 16 US jurisdictions between December 11, 2020, and May 31, 2022 (end date varied by database and IIS). Vaccinated children were followed from their first BNT162b2 dose and matched to unvaccinated children on calendar date, US county of residence, and demographic and clinical factors. Censoring occurred if vaccinated children failed to receive a timely dose 2 or if unvaccinated children received any dose. Two COVID-19 outcome definitions were evaluated: COVID-19 diagnosis in any medical setting and COVID-19 diagnosis in hospitals/emergency departments (EDs). Propensity score-weighted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated with Cox proportional hazards models, and vaccine effectiveness (VE) was estimated as 1 minus HR. VE was estimated overall, within age subgroups, and within variant-specific eras. Sensitivity, negative control, and quantitative bias analyses evaluated various potential biases. RESULTS: There were 453,655 eligible vaccinated children one-to-one matched to unvaccinated comparators (mean age 12 years; 50% female). COVID-19 hospitalizations/ED visits were rare in children, regardless of vaccination status (Optum, 41.2 per 10,000 person-years; CVS Health, 44.1 per 10,000 person-years). Overall, vaccination was associated with reduced incidence of any medically diagnosed COVID-19 (meta-analyzed VE = 38% [95% CI, 36-40%]) and hospital/ED-diagnosed COVID-19 (meta-analyzed VE = 61% [95% CI, 56-65%]). VE estimates were lowest among children 5-11 years and during the Omicron-variant era. CONCLUSIONS: Receipt of a complete BNT162b2 vaccine primary series was associated with overall reduced medically diagnosed COVID-19 and hospital/ED-diagnosed COVID-19 in children; observed VE estimates differed by age group and variant era. REGISTRATION: The study protocol was publicly posted on the BEST Initiative website ( https://bestinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/C19-VX-Effectiveness-Protocol_2022_508.pdf ).

Effectiveness of monovalent COVID-19 booster/additional vaccine doses in the United States.

Background: Monovalent booster/additional doses of COVID-19 vaccines were first authorized in August 2021 in the United States. We evaluated the real-world effectiveness of receipt of a monovalent booster/additional dose of COVID-19 vaccine compared with receiving a primary vaccine series without a booster/additional dose. Methods: Cohorts of individuals receiving a COVID-19 booster/additional dose after receipt of a complete primary vaccine series were identified in 2 administrative insurance claims databases (Optum, CVS Health) supplemented with state immunization information system data between August 2021 and March 2022. Individuals with a complete primary series but without a booster/additional dose were one-to-one matched to boosted individuals on calendar date, geography, and clinical factors. COVID-19 diagnoses were identified in any medical setting, or specifically in hospitals/emergency departments (EDs). Propensity score-weighted hazards ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated with Cox proportional hazards models; vaccine effectiveness (VE) was estimated as 1 minus the HR by vaccine brand overall and within subgroups of variant-specific eras, immunocompromised status, and homologous/heterologous booster status. Results: Across both data sources, we identified 752,165 matched pairs for BNT162b2, 410,501 for mRNA-1273, and 11,398 for JNJ-7836735. For any medically diagnosed COVID-19, meta-analyzed VE estimates for BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, and JNJ-7836735, respectively, were: BNT162b2, 54% (95% CI, 53%-56%); mRNA-1273, 58% (95% CI, 56%-59%); JNJ-7836735, 34% (95% CI, 23%-44%). For hospital/ED-diagnosed COVID-19, VE estimates ranged from 70% to 76%. VE was generally lower during the Omicron era than the Delta era and for immunocompromised individuals. There was little difference observed by homologous or heterologous booster status. Conclusion: The original, monovalent booster/additional doses were reasonably effective in real-world use among the populations for which they were indicated during the study period. Additional studies may be informative in the future as new variants emerge and new vaccines become available.Registration: The study protocol was publicly posted on the BEST Initiative website (https://bestinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/C19-VX-Effectiveness-Protocol_2022_508.pdf).

Evaluation of potential adverse events following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination among adults aged 65 years and older: Two self-controlled studies in the U.S.

BACKGROUND: Our near-real-time safety monitoring of 16 adverse events (AEs) following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination identified potential elevation in risk for six AEs following primary series and monovalent booster dose administration. The crude association with AEs does not imply causality. Accordingly, we conducted robust evaluation of potential associations. METHODS: We conducted two self-controlled case series studies of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273) in U.S. Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥ 65 years. Adjusted incidence rate ratio (IRRs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated following primary series doses for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), pulmonary embolism (PE), immune thrombocytopenia (ITP), disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC); and following monovalent booster doses for AMI, PE, ITP, Bell's Palsy (BP) and Myocarditis/Pericarditis (Myo/Peri). RESULTS: The primary series study included 3,360,981 individuals who received 6,388,542 primary series doses; the booster study included 6,156,100 individuals with one monovalent booster dose. The AMI IRR following BNT162b2 primary series and booster was 1.04 (95 % CI: 0.91 to 1.18) and 1.06 (95 % CI: 1.003 to 1.12), respectively; for mRNA-1273 primary series and booster, 1.01 (95 % CI: 0.82 to 1.26) and 1.05 (95 % CI: 0.998 to 1.11), respectively. The hospital inpatient PE IRR following BNT162b2 primary series and booster was 1.19 (95 % CI: 1.03 to 1.38) and 0.86 (95 % CI: 0.78 to 0.95), respectively; for mRNA-1273 primary series and booster, 1.15 (95 % CI: 0.94 to 1.41) and 0.87 (95 % CI: 0.79 to 0.96), respectively. The studies' results do not support that exposure to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines elevate the risk of ITP, DIC, Myo/Peri, and BP. CONCLUSION: We did not find an increased risk for AMI, ITP, DIC, BP, and Myo/Peri and there was not consistent evidence for PE after exposure to COVID-19 mRNA primary series or monovalent booster vaccines. These results support the favorable safety profile of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines administered in the U.S. elderly population.

Use of Immunization Information Systems in Ascertainment of COVID-19 Vaccinations for Claims-Based Vaccine Safety and Effectiveness Studies.

Importance: Safety and effectiveness studies of COVID-19 vaccines are being conducted using clinical data, including administrative claims. However, claims data only partially capture administered COVID-19 vaccine doses for numerous reasons, such as vaccination at sites that do not generate claims for reimbursement. Objective: To evaluate the extent to which Immunization Information Systems (IIS) data linked to claims data enhances claims-based COVID-19 vaccine capture for a commercially insured population and to estimate the magnitude of misclassification of vaccinated individuals as having unvaccinated status in the linked IIS and claims data. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used claims data from a commercial health insurance database and obtained vaccination data from IIS repositories in 11 US states. Participants were individuals younger than 65 years who resided in 1 of 11 states of interest and who were insured in health plans from December 1, 2020, through December 31, 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Estimated proportion of individuals with at least 1 dose of any COVID-19 vaccine and proportion of individuals with a completed vaccine series based on general population guidelines. Vaccination status estimates were calculated and compared using claims data alone and linked IIS and claims data. Remaining misclassification of vaccination status was assessed by comparing linked IIS and claims data estimates with estimates from external surveillance data sources (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] and state Department of Health [DOH]) and capture-recapture analysis. Results: This cohort study included 5 112 722 individuals (mean [SD] age, 33.5 [17.6] years; 2 618 098 females [51.2%]) from 11 states. Characteristics of those who received at least 1 vaccine dose and those who completed a vaccine series were similar to the overall study population. The proportion with at least 1 vaccine dose increased from 32.8% using claims data alone to 48.1% when the data were supplemented with IIS vaccination records. Vaccination estimates using linked IIS and claims data varied widely by state. The percentage of individuals who completed a vaccine series increased from 24.4% to 41.9% after the addition of IIS vaccine records and varied across states. The percentages of underrecording using linked IIS and claims data were 12.1% to 47.1% lower than those using CDC data, 9.1% to 46.9% lower than the state DOH, and 9.2% to 50.9% lower than capture-recapture analysis. Conclusion and Relevance: Results of this study suggested that supplementing COVID-19 claims records with IIS vaccination records substantially increased the number of individuals who were identified as vaccinated, yet potential underrecording remained. Improvements in reporting vaccination data to IIS infrastructures could allow frequent updates of vaccination status for all individuals and all vaccines.

Characterization of COVID-19 Hospitalized Patients in Three United States Electronic Health Record Databases.

COVID-19 infections have contributed to substantial increases in hospitalizations. This study describes demographics, baseline clinical characteristics and treatments, and clinical outcomes among U.S. patients admitted to hospitals with COVID-19 during the prevaccine phase of the pandemic. A total of 20,446 hospitalized patients with a positive COVID-19 nucleic acid amplification test were identified from three large electronic health record databases during 5 February-30 November 2020 (Academic Health System: n = 4504; Explorys; n = 7492; OneFlorida: n = 8450). Over 90% of patients were ≥30 years of age, with an even distribution between sexes. At least one comorbidity was recorded in 84.6-96.1% of patients; cardiovascular and respiratory conditions (28.8-50.3%) and diabetes (25.6-44.4%) were most common. Anticoagulants were the most frequently reported medications on or up to 28 days after admission (44.5-81.7%). Remdesivir was administered to 14.1-24.6% of patients and increased over time. Patients exhibited higher COVID-19 severity 14 days following admission than the 14 days prior to and on admission. The length of in-patient hospital stay ranged from a median of 4 to 6 days, and over 85% of patients were discharged alive. These results promote understanding of the clinical characteristics and hospital-resource utilization associated with hospitalized COVID-19 over time.

Guidance for Selecting Model Options in the National Cancer Institute Joinpoint Regression Software.

The purpose of this report is to provide guidance to users of NCHS data in the selection of modeling options when using the NCI Joinpoint regression software to analyze trends. This report complements another report, "National Center for Health Statistics Guidelines for Analysis of Trends." Considerations are presented for selecting the modeling options, with examples illustrating the choices. The tradeoffs and consequences of choosing the various modeling options using data from NCHS data systems are discussed.encounters.

Multi-center matched cohort study of convalescent plasma for hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Although frequently used in the early pandemic, data on the effectiveness of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) remain mixed. We investigated the effectiveness and safety of CCP in hospitalized COVID-19 patients in real-world practices during the first two waves of the pandemic in a multi-hospital healthcare system in Texas. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Among 11,322 hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection from July 1, 2020 to April 15, 2021, we included patients who received CCP and matched them with those who did not receive CCP within ±2 days of the transfusion date across sites within strata of sex, age groups, days and use of dexamethasone from hospital admission to the match date, and oxygen requirements 4-12 hours prior to the match date. Cox proportional hazards model estimated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for effectiveness outcomes in a propensity score 1:1 matched cohort. Pre-defined safety outcomes were described. We included 1,245 patients each in the CCP treated and untreated groups. Oxygen support was required by 93% of patients at the baseline. The pre-defined primary effectiveness outcome of 28-day in-hospital all-cause mortality (HR = 0.85; 95%CI: 0.66,1.10) were similar between treatment groups. Sensitivity and stratified analyses found similar null results. CCP-treated patients were less likely to be discharged alive (HR = 0.82; 95%CI: 0.74, 0.91), and more likely to receive mechanical ventilation (HR = 1.48; 95%CI: 1.12, 1.96). Safety outcomes were rare and similar between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: The findings in this large, matched cohort of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and mostly requiring oxygen support at the time of treatment, do not support a clinical benefit in 28-day in-hospital all-cause mortality for CCP. Future studies should assess the potential benefits with specifically high-titer units in perhaps certain subgroups of patients (e.g. those with early disease or immunocompromised).

Characterization of test positivity among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in three electronic health records databases, February-November 2020.

BACKGROUND: Monitoring COVID-19 testing volumes and test positivity is an integral part of the response to the pandemic. We described the characteristics of individuals who were tested and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during the pre-vaccine phase of the pandemic in the United States (U.S.). METHODS: This descriptive study analyzed three U.S. electronic health record (EHR) databases (Explorys, Academic Health System, and OneFlorida) between February and November 2020, identifying patients who received an interpretable nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) result. Test-level data were used to characterize the settings in which tests were administered. Patient-level data were used to calculate test positivity rates and characterize the demographics, comorbidities, and hospitalization rates of COVID-19-positive patients. RESULTS: Over 40% of tests were conducted in outpatient care settings, with a median time between test order and result of 0-1 day for most settings. Patients tested were mostly female (55.6-57.7%), 18-44 years of age (33.9-41.2%), and Caucasian (44.0-66.7%). The overall test positivity rate was 13.0% in Explorys, 8.0% in Academic Health System, and 8.9% in OneFlorida. The proportion of patients hospitalized within 14 days of a positive COVID-19 NAAT result was 24.2-33.1% across databases, with patients over 75 years demonstrating the highest hospitalization rates (46.7-69.7% of positive tests). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis of COVID-19 testing volume and positivity patterns across three large EHR databases provides insight into the characteristics of COVID-19-tested, COVID-19-test-positive, and hospitalized COVID-19-test-positive patients during the early phase of the pandemic in the U.S.

Cancer Screening Test Use-U.S., 2019.

INTRODUCTION: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening to reduce mortality from these cancers, but screening use has been below national targets. The purpose of this study is to examine the proportion of screening-eligible adults who are up to date with these screenings and how screening use compares with Healthy People 2020 targets. METHODS: Data from the 2019 National Health Interview Survey were used to examine the percentages of adults up to date with breast cancer screening among women aged 50‒74 years without previous breast cancer, cervical cancer screening among women aged 21‒65 years without previous cervical cancer or hysterectomy, and colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 50‒75 years without previous colorectal cancer. Estimates are presented by sociodemographic characteristics and healthcare access factors. Analyses were conducted in 2021. RESULTS: Percentages of adults up to date were 76.2% (95% CI= 75.0, 77.5) for breast cancer screening, 76.4% (95% CI= 75.2, 77.6) for cervical cancer screening, and 68.3% (95% CI= 67.3, 69.3) for colorectal cancer screening. Although some population subgroups met breast and colorectal cancer screening targets (81.1% and 70.5%, respectively), many did not, and cervical cancer screening was below the target for all examined subgroups. Lower education and income, nonmetropolitan county of residence (which included rural counties), no usual source of care or health insurance coverage, and Medicaid coverage were associated with lower screening test use. CONCLUSIONS: Estimated use of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening tests based on the 2019 National Health Interview Survey were below national targets. Continued monitoring may allow for examination of screening trends, inform interventions, and track progress in eliminating disparities.

Screening for Colorectal Cancer in the United States: Correlates and Time Trends by Type of Test.

BACKGROUND: It is strongly recommended that adults aged 50-75 years be screened for colorectal cancer. Recommended screening options include colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, CT colonography, guaiac fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), or the more recently introduced FIT-DNA (FIT in combination with a stool DNA test). Colorectal cancer screening programs can benefit from knowledge of patterns of use by test type and within population subgroups. METHODS: Using 2018 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data, we examined colorectal cancer screening test use for adults aged 50-75 years (N = 10,595). We also examined time trends in colorectal cancer screening test use from 2010-2018. RESULTS: In 2018, an estimated 66.9% of U.S. adults aged 50-75 years had a colorectal cancer screening test within recommended time intervals. However, the prevalence was less than 50% among those aged 50-54 years, those without a usual source of health care, those with no doctor visits in the past year, and those who were uninsured. The test types most commonly used within recommended time intervals were colonoscopy within 10 years (61.1%), FOBT or FIT in the past year (8.8%), and FIT-DNA within 3 years (2.7%). After age-standardization to the 2010 census population, the percentage up-to-date with CRC screening increased from 61.2% in 2015 to 65.3% in 2018, driven by increased use of stool testing, including FIT-DNA. CONCLUSIONS: These results show some progress, driven by a modest increase in stool testing. However, colorectal cancer testing remains low in many population subgroups. IMPACT: These results can inform efforts to achieve population colorectal cancer screening goals.

Health of American Indian and Alaska Native Adults, by Urbanization Level: United States, 2014-2018.

Historically, the American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) population in the United States has faced health disparities including greater prevalence of physical and mental health problems and high uninsured rates when compared with the non-AIAN population (1). Almost 80% of the AIAN population resides outside of reservations or land trusts and about 40% reside in rural areas (2). Rural Americans are more likely to die from preventable or selfmanageable conditions (3), and risk factors and health conditions may vary by urbanization level (4). This report examines differences in the percentage of selected health status and conditions by urbanization level between AIAN adults and all U.S. adults.

Breast Cancer Screening Among Women by Nativity, Birthplace, and Length of Time in the United States.

Objective-The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends biennial mammography screening for women aged 50-74 to reduce mortality from breast cancer. In the United States, foreign-born women have historically had higher breast cancer mortality rates than their U.S.-born peers. This report presents national estimates of mammography screening among women by nativity, birthplace, and percentage of lifetime living in the United States. Methods-Combined data were analyzed from 29,951 women aged 50-74 years who participated in the 2005, 2008, 2010, 2013, and 2015 National Health Interview Survey. The percentage of these women who ever had a mammogram and met the USPSTF recommendations for screening by nativity, birthplace, and percentage of lifetime in the United States was generated. Estimates were adjusted for selected demographic, socioeconomic, and health care access and utilization factors and presented as predictive margins. Results-Overall, foreign-born women were less likely than U.S.-born women to have ever had a mammogram (88.3% compared with 94.1%). Foreign-born women living in the United States for less than 25% of their lifetime were less likely to have ever had a mammogram (76.4%) or meet the USPSTF recommendations (55.0%) compared with U.S.-born women. Foreign-born women living in the United States for 25% or more of their lifetime were also less likely to have ever had a mammogram (90.9%) compared with U.S.-born women. After adjustment for selected sociodemographic characteristics, the percentage of foreign-born women who ever received a mammogram increased but was still lower than that of U.S.-born women. Foreign-born women residing in the United States for less than 25% of their lifetime were as likely as U.S.-born women to have met the USPSTF recommendations (72.1% and 72.4%, respectively), while those residing in the United States for 25% or more of their lifetime (75.1%) were more likely to do so than U.S.-born women. Differences by birthplace were also observed.

Use of Yoga, Meditation, and Chiropractors Among U.S. Adults Aged 18 and Over.

Complementary health is the use of holistic or unconventional medicine with mainstream Western medicine for health and wellness (1,2). Past research has identified yoga, meditation, and seeing a chiropractor as some of the most commonly used approaches (3). This report examines changes over time in the percentage of adults who used yoga, meditation, and chiropractors in the past 12 months, as well as variation by sex, age, and race and Hispanic origin.

Use of Yoga, Meditation, and Chiropractors Among U.S. Children Aged 4-17 Years.

Yoga, meditation, and use of chiropractors are types of complementary health approaches developed outside of mainstream Western medicine (1-2). Although complementary health approaches as a whole are not widely used among children, previous work has established a rise in the use of selected approaches over time (3). This report presents the most recent national estimates of use of the three most prevalent approaches during the past 12 months, among children aged 4-17 years in the United States. Comparable estimates from 2012 are also included to examine changes over time.

State Variation in Meeting the 2008 Federal Guidelines for Both Aerobic and Muscle-strengthening Activities Through Leisure-time Physical Activity Among Adults Aged 18-64: United States, 2010-2015.

This report presents national and state-level age-adjusted estimates of percentages of U.S. adults aged 18-64 who met the 2008 federal guidelines for both aerobic and muscle-strengthening activities during leisure-time physical activity (LTPA) in 2010-2015, by sex and work status (working compared with nonworking). State variation in work status, health status and difficulty in physical functioning, and occupational distributions for men and women were also considered.

Health Promotion at the Construction Work Site: The Lunch Truck Pilot Study.

The transient nature of construction work makes it difficult to conduct longitudinal worksite-based health promotion activities. As part of a workplace health assessment pilot study, we worked with a commercial lunch truck company to disseminate four types of health education materials including cancer screening, workplace injury prevention, fruit and vegetable consumption, and smoking cessation to construction workers purchasing food items from the truck during their job breaks. Two weeks following the worksite assessment, we followed up with these workers to ascertain their use of the health promotion materials. Of the 54 workers surveyed, 83% reported reviewing and sharing the cancer screening materials with their families, whereas 44% discussed the cancer screening materials with coworkers. Similar proportions of workers reviewed, shared, and discussed the other health promotion materials with their family. Lunch trucks may be an effective strategy and delivery method for educating construction workers on healthy behaviors and injury prevention practices.

The Use of Complementary Health Approaches Among U.S. Adults with a Recent Cancer Diagnosis.

OBJECTIVE: The object of this study was to explore the use of complementary health approaches among U.S. adults with a cancer diagnosis in the past 5 years and distinguish use for general wellness from use specifically for treatment. METHODS: Using data from the 2002, 2007, and 2012 National Health Interview Survey, the study included 1359 persons with a cancer diagnosis of selected cancers in the past 5 years. Participants were asked about their use of complementary health approaches for general reasons and cancer treatment in the past 12 months. Responses were aggregated into the use of any complementary approach as well as examined by mode of practice. RESULTS: Overall, 35.3% of persons with a cancer diagnosis used complementary health approaches in the past 12 months. These persons were more likely to have used a biologically based approach (22.8%) compared with other approaches. Persons with breast cancer were significantly more likely to use any complementary health approach (43.6%) compared with those with other recently diagnosed cancers. Few persons with a cancer history (2.3%) used complementary approaches specifically for cancer treatment. However, prevalence of use for treatment varied by cancer type (0.4%-6.8%). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights differences in the use of various types of complementary health approaches for different reasons among persons with recent diagnoses of some of the most commonly diagnosed cancers in the United States.

Use of Complementary Health Approaches for Musculoskeletal Pain Disorders Among Adults: United States, 2012.

OBJECTIVE: This report examines the use of complementary health approaches among U.S. adults aged 18 and over who had a musculoskeletal pain disorder. Prevalence of use among this population subgroup is compared with use by persons without a musculoskeletal disorder. Use for any reason, as well as specifically to treat musculoskeletal pain disorders, is examined. METHODS: Using the 2012 National Health Interview Survey, estimates of the use of complementary health approaches for any reason, as well as use to treat musculoskeletal pain disorders, are presented. Statistical tests were performed to assess the significance of differences between groups of complementary health approaches used among persons with specific musculoskeletal pain disorders. Musculoskeletal pain disorders included lower back pain, sciatica, neck pain, joint pain or related conditions, arthritic conditions, and other musculoskeletal pain disorders not included in any of the previous categories. Respondents could report having more than one disorder. RESULTS: In 2012, 54.5% of U.S. adults had a musculoskeletal pain disorder. The use of any complementary health approach for any reason among persons with a musculoskeletal pain disorder (41.6%) was significantly higher than use among persons without a musculoskeletal pain disorder (24.1%). Among adults with any musculoskeletal pain disorder, the use of natural products for any reason (24.7%) was significantly higher than the use of mind and body approaches (15.3%), practitioner-based approaches (18.2%), or whole medical system approaches (5.3%). The pattern of use of the above-mentioned groups of complementary health approaches was similar for persons without a musculoskeletal disorder. However, prevalence of use among these persons was significantly lower compared with persons with a musculoskeletal disorder. For treatment, the use of practitioner-based approaches among persons with any musculoskeletal pain disorder (9.7%) was more than three times as high as the use of any other group of approaches (0.7%-3.1%). The patterns of use of specific groups of complementary health approaches also differed among specific musculoskeletal pain disorders.

Occupational Differences Among Employed Adults Who Met 2008 Federal Guidelines for Both Aerobic and Muscle-strengthening Activities: United States, 2008-2014.

OBJECTIVE: This report presents national estimates of occupational differences among employed adults meeting the 2008 federal guidelines for both aerobic and muscle-strengthening activities performed during leisure time from 2008 through 2014. METHODS: Using pooled data from the 2008­2014 National Health Interview Survey, age-adjusted percentages of currently employed adults aged 18­64 who met the 2008 federal physical activity guidelines for leisure-time aerobic and muscle-strengthening activities are shown by occupation, sex, race and Hispanic ethnicity, education, and hours worked in the week before the survey interview. RESULTS: Among all employed adults aged 18­64, those in production and related occupations were the least likely to meet the 2008 federal physical activity guidelines for both aerobic and muscle-strengthening activities performed during their leisure time. Across occupation categories, men were more likely than women to meet the guidelines. Non-Hispanic white adults in professional, teaching or social service, sales, and services occupations were more likely than non-Hispanic black or Hispanic adults in those occupations to meet the guidelines. In production and related occupations, Hispanic adults were less likely to meet the guidelines than non-Hispanic adults; in managerial occupations, by contrast, all adults were equally likely to meet the guidelines regardless of their race and ethnicity. The likelihood of meeting the guidelines uniformly increased as education increased across every occupation category. Lastly, employees in professional, services, and sales occupations who worked 50 hours or more in the last week were more likely to meet the guidelines than their counterparts who worked fewer hours. In production and related occupations, by contrast, the number of hours worked in the last week was unrelated to whether adults met the guidelines. CONCLUSION: Occupational differences in meeting the 2008 federal guidelines for both aerobic and muscle-strengthening activities by sex, race and ethnicity, and education suggest that disparities in leisure-time physical activities across occupations and socioeconomic strata exist.