Mmwr Recommendations and Reports最新文献

Program evaluation is a critical tool for understanding and improving organizational activities and systems. This report updates the 1999 CDC Framework for Program Evaluation in Public Health (CDC. Framework for program evaluation in public health. MMWR Recomm Rep 1999;48[No. RR-11];1-40) by integrating major advancements in the fields of evaluation and public health, lessons learned from practical applications of the original framework, and current Federal agency policies and practices. A practical, nonprescriptive tool, the updated 2024 framework is designed to summarize and organize essential elements of program evaluation, and can be applied at any level from individual programs to broader systems by novices and experts for planning and implementing an evaluation. Although many of the key aspects from the 1999 framework remain, certain key differences exist. For example, this updated framework also includes six steps that describe the general process of evaluation planning and implementation, but some content and step names have changed (e.g., the first step has been renamed Assess context). The standards for high-quality evaluation remain central to the framework, although they have been updated to the five Federal evaluation standards. The most substantial change from the 1999 framework is the addition of three cross-cutting actions that are core tenets to incorporate within each evaluation step: engage collaboratively, advance equity, and learn from and use insights. The 2024 framework provides a guide for designing and conducting evaluation across many topics within and outside of public health that anyone involved in program evaluation efforts can use alone or in conjunction with other evaluation approaches, tools, or methods to build evidence, understand programs, and refine evidence-based decision-making to improve all program outcomes.

The 2024 U.S. Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use (U.S. SPR) addresses a selected group of common, yet sometimes complex, issues regarding initiation and use of specific contraceptive methods. These recommendations for health care providers were updated by CDC after review of the scientific evidence and a meeting with national experts in Atlanta, Georgia, during January 25-27, 2023. The information in this report replaces the 2016 U.S. SPR (CDC. U.S. Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use, 2016. MMWR 2016;65[No. RR-4]:1-66). Notable updates include 1) updated recommendations for provision of medications for intrauterine device placement, 2) updated recommendations for bleeding irregularities during implant use, 3) new recommendations for testosterone use and risk for pregnancy, and 4) new recommendations for self-administration of injectable contraception. The recommendations in this report are intended to serve as a source of evidence-based clinical practice guidance for health care providers. The goals of these recommendations are to remove unnecessary medical barriers to accessing and using contraception and to support the provision of person-centered contraceptive counseling and services in a noncoercive manner. Health care providers should always consider the individual clinical circumstances of each person seeking contraceptive services. This report is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice for individual patients; when needed, patients should seek advice from their health care providers about contraceptive use.

The 2024 U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use (U.S. MEC) comprises recommendations for the use of specific contraceptive methods by persons who have certain characteristics or medical conditions. These recommendations for health care providers were updated by CDC after review of the scientific evidence and a meeting with national experts in Atlanta, Georgia, during January 25-27, 2023. The information in this report replaces the 2016 U.S. MEC (CDC. U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2016. MMWR 2016:65[No. RR-3]:1-103). Notable updates include 1) the addition of recommendations for persons with chronic kidney disease; 2) revisions to the recommendations for persons with certain characteristics or medical conditions (i.e., breastfeeding, postpartum, postabortion, obesity, surgery, deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism with or without anticoagulant therapy, thrombophilia, superficial venous thrombosis, valvular heart disease, peripartum cardiomyopathy, systemic lupus erythematosus, high risk for HIV infection, cirrhosis, liver tumor, sickle cell disease, solid organ transplantation, and drug interactions with antiretrovirals used for prevention or treatment of HIV infection); and 3) inclusion of new contraceptive methods, including new doses or formulations of combined oral contraceptives, contraceptive patches, vaginal rings, progestin-only pills, levonorgestrel intrauterine devices, and vaginal pH modulator. The recommendations in this report are intended to serve as a source of evidence-based clinical practice guidance for health care providers. The goals of these recommendations are to remove unnecessary medical barriers to accessing and using contraception and to support the provision of person-centered contraceptive counseling and services in a noncoercive manner. Health care providers should always consider the individual clinical circumstances of each person seeking contraceptive services. This report is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice for individual patients; when needed, patients should seek advice from their health care providers about contraceptive use.

No vaccines and few chemoprophylaxis options exist for the prevention of bacterial sexually transmitted infections (STIs) (specifically syphilis, chlamydia, and gonorrhea). These infections have increased in the United States and disproportionately affect gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) and transgender women (TGW). In three large randomized controlled trials, 200 mg of doxycycline taken within 72 hours after sex has been shown to reduce syphilis and chlamydia infections by >70% and gonococcal infections by approximately 50%. This report outlines CDC's recommendation for the use of doxycycline postexposure prophylaxis (doxy PEP), a novel, ongoing, patient-managed biomedical STI prevention strategy for a selected population. CDC recommends that MSM and TGW who have had a bacterial STI (specifically syphilis, chlamydia, or gonorrhea) diagnosed in the past 12 months should receive counseling that doxy PEP can be used as postexposure prophylaxis to prevent these infections. Following shared decision-making with their provider, CDC recommends that providers offer persons in this group a prescription for doxy PEP to be self-administered within 72 hours after having oral, vaginal, or anal sex. The recommended dose of doxy PEP is 200 mg and should not exceed a maximum dose of 200 mg every 24 hours.Doxy PEP, when offered, should be implemented in the context of a comprehensive sexual health approach, including risk reduction counseling, STI screening and treatment, recommended vaccination and linkage to HIV PrEP, HIV care, or other services as appropriate. Persons who are prescribed doxy PEP should undergo bacterial STI testing at anatomic sites of exposure at baseline and every 3-6 months thereafter. Ongoing need for doxy PEP should be assessed every 3-6 months as well. HIV screening should be performed for HIV-negative MSM and TGW according to current recommendations.

This report provides new CDC recommendations for tests that can support a diagnosis of syphilis, including serologic testing and methods for the identification of the causative agent Treponema pallidum. These comprehensive recommendations are the first published by CDC on laboratory testing for syphilis, which has traditionally been based on serologic algorithms to detect a humoral immune response to T. pallidum. These tests can be divided into nontreponemal and treponemal tests depending on whether they detect antibodies that are broadly reactive to lipoidal antigens shared by both host and T. pallidum or antibodies specific to T. pallidum, respectively. Both types of tests must be used in conjunction to help distinguish between an untreated infection or a past infection that has been successfully treated. Newer serologic tests allow for laboratory automation but must be used in an algorithm, which also can involve older manual serologic tests. Direct detection of T. pallidum continues to evolve from microscopic examination of material from lesions for visualization of T. pallidum to molecular detection of the organism. Limited point-of-care tests for syphilis are available in the United States; increased availability of point-of-care tests that are sensitive and specific could facilitate expansion of screening programs and reduce the time from test result to treatment. These recommendations are intended for use by clinical laboratory directors, laboratory staff, clinicians, and disease control personnel who must choose among the multiple available testing methods, establish standard operating procedures for collecting and processing specimens, interpret test results for laboratory reporting, and counsel and treat patients. Future revisions to these recommendations will be based on new research or technologic advancements for syphilis clinical laboratory science.

This report updates previous cdc guidelines and recommendations on preferred prevention and treatment regimens regarding naturally occurring anthrax. also provided are a wide range of alternative regimens to first-line antimicrobial drugs for use if patients have contraindications or intolerances or after a wide-area aerosol release of: Bacillus anthracis spores if resources become limited or a multidrug-resistant B. anthracis strain is used (Hendricks KA, Wright ME, Shadomy SV, et al.; Workgroup on Anthrax Clinical Guidelines. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention expert panel meetings on prevention and treatment of anthrax in adults. Emerg Infect Dis 2014;20:e130687; Meaney-Delman D, Rasmussen SA, Beigi RH, et al. Prophylaxis and treatment of anthrax in pregnant women. Obstet Gynecol 2013;122:885-900; Bradley JS, Peacock G, Krug SE, et al. Pediatric anthrax clinical management. Pediatrics 2014;133:e1411-36). Specifically, this report updates antimicrobial drug and antitoxin use for both postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) and treatment from these previous guidelines best practices and is based on systematic reviews of the literature regarding 1) in vitro antimicrobial drug activity against B. anthracis; 2) in vivo antimicrobial drug efficacy for PEP and treatment; 3) in vivo and human antitoxin efficacy for PEP, treatment, or both; and 4) human survival after antimicrobial drug PEP and treatment of localized anthrax, systemic anthrax, and anthrax meningitis.

Changes from previous cdc guidelines and recommendations include an expanded list of alternative antimicrobial drugs to use when first-line antimicrobial drugs are contraindicated or not tolerated or after a bioterrorism event when first-line antimicrobial drugs are depleted or ineffective against a genetically engineered resistant: B. anthracis strain. In addition, these updated guidelines include new recommendations regarding special considerations for the diagnosis and treatment of anthrax meningitis, including comorbid, social, and clinical predictors of anthrax meningitis. The previously published CDC guidelines and recommendations described potentially beneficial critical care measures and clinical assessment tools and procedures for persons with anthrax, which have not changed and are not addressed in this update. In addition, no changes were made to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendations for use of anthrax vaccine (Bower WA, Schiffer J, Atmar RL, et al. Use of anthrax vaccine in the United States: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, 2019. MMWR Recomm Rep 2019;68[No. RR-4]:1-14). The updated guidelines in this report can be used by health care providers to prevent and treat anthrax and guide emergency preparedness officials and planners as they develop and update plans for a wide-area aerosol release of B. anthracis.

Tick-borne encephalitis (tbe) virus is focally endemic in parts of europe and asia. the virus is primarily transmitted to humans by the bites of infected: Ixodes species ticks but can also be acquired less frequently by alimentary transmission. Other rare modes of transmission include through breastfeeding, blood transfusion, solid organ transplantation, and slaughtering of viremic animals. TBE virus can cause acute neurologic disease, which usually results in hospitalization, often permanent neurologic or cognitive sequelae, and sometimes death. TBE virus infection is a risk for certain travelers and for laboratory workers who work with the virus. In August 2021, the Food and Drug Administration approved Ticovac TBE vaccine for use among persons aged ≥1 year. This report summarizes the epidemiology of and risks for infection with TBE virus, provides information on the immunogenicity and safety of TBE vaccine, and summarizes the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) for use of TBE vaccine among U.S. travelers and laboratory workers.

The risk for tbe for most u.s. travelers to areas where the disease is endemic is very low. the risk for exposure to infected ticks is highest for persons who are in areas where tbe is endemic during the main tbe virus transmission season of april–november and who are planning to engage in recreational activities in woodland habitats or who might be occupationally exposed. all persons who travel to areas where tbe is endemic should be advised to take precautions to avoid tick bites and to avoid the consumption of unpasteurized dairy products because alimentary transmission of tbe virus can occur. tbe vaccine can further reduce infection risk and might be indicated for certain persons who are at higher risk for tbe. the key factors in the risk-benefit assessment for vaccination are likelihood of exposure to ticks based on activities and itinerary (e.g., location, rurality, season, and duration of travel or residence). other risk-benefit considerations should include 1) the rare occurrence of tbe but its potentially high morbidity and mortality, 2) the higher risk for severe disease among certain persons (e.g., older persons aged ≥60 years), 3) the availability of an effective vaccine, 4) the possibility but low probability of serious adverse events after vaccination, 5) the likelihood of future travel to areas where tbe is endemic, and 6) personal perception and tolerance of risk:

Acip recommends tbe vaccine for u.s. persons who are moving or traveling to an area where the disease is endemic and will have extensive exposure to ticks based on their planned outdoor activities and itinerary. extensive exposure can be considered based on the duration of travel and frequency of exposure and might include shorter-term (e.g., <1>adddd