Noreen Qualls, Alexandra Levitt, Neha Kanade, Narue Wright-Jegede, Stephanie Dopson, Matthew Biggerstaff, Carrie Reed, Amra Uzicanin
When a novel influenza A virus with pandemic potential emerges, nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) often are the most readily available interventions to help slow transmission of the virus in communities, which is especially important before a pandemic vaccine becomes widely available. NPIs, also known as community mitigation measures, are actions that persons and communities can take to help slow the spread of respiratory virus infections, including seasonal and pandemic influenza viruses.These guidelines replace the 2007 Interim Pre-pandemic Planning Guidance: Community Strategy for Pandemic Influenza Mitigation in the United States - Early, Targeted, Layered Use of Nonpharmaceutical Interventions (https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/11425). Several elements remain unchanged from the 2007 guidance, which described recommended NPIs and the supporting rationale and key concepts for the use of these interventions during influenza pandemics. NPIs can be phased in, or layered, on the basis of pandemic severity and local transmission patterns over time. Categories of NPIs include personal protective measures for everyday use (e.g., voluntary home isolation of ill persons, respiratory etiquette, and hand hygiene); personal protective measures reserved for influenza pandemics (e.g., voluntary home quarantine of exposed household members and use of face masks in community settings when ill); community measures aimed at increasing social distancing (e.g., school closures and dismissals, social distancing in workplaces, and postponing or cancelling mass gatherings); and environmental measures (e.g., routine cleaning of frequently touched surfaces).Several new elements have been incorporated into the 2017 guidelines. First, to support updated recommendations on the use of NPIs, the latest scientific evidence available since the influenza A (H1N1)pdm09 pandemic has been added. Second, a summary of lessons learned from the 2009 H1N1 pandemic response is presented to underscore the importance of broad and flexible prepandemic planning. Third, a new section on community engagement has been included to highlight that the timely and effective use of NPIs depends on community acceptance and active participation. Fourth, to provide new or updated pandemic assessment and planning tools, the novel influenza virus pandemic intervals tool, the Influenza Risk Assessment Tool, the Pandemic Severity Assessment Framework, and a set of prepandemic planning scenarios are described. Finally, to facilitate implementation of the updated guidelines and to assist states and localities with prepandemic planning and decision-making, this report links to six supplemental prepandemic NPI planning guides for different community settings that are available online (https://www.cdc.gov/nonpharmaceutical-interventions).
{"title":"Community Mitigation Guidelines to Prevent Pandemic Influenza - United States, 2017.","authors":"Noreen Qualls, Alexandra Levitt, Neha Kanade, Narue Wright-Jegede, Stephanie Dopson, Matthew Biggerstaff, Carrie Reed, Amra Uzicanin","doi":"10.15585/mmwr.rr6601a1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.rr6601a1","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>When a novel influenza A virus with pandemic potential emerges, nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) often are the most readily available interventions to help slow transmission of the virus in communities, which is especially important before a pandemic vaccine becomes widely available. NPIs, also known as community mitigation measures, are actions that persons and communities can take to help slow the spread of respiratory virus infections, including seasonal and pandemic influenza viruses.These guidelines replace the 2007 Interim Pre-pandemic Planning Guidance: Community Strategy for Pandemic Influenza Mitigation in the United States - Early, Targeted, Layered Use of Nonpharmaceutical Interventions (https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/11425). Several elements remain unchanged from the 2007 guidance, which described recommended NPIs and the supporting rationale and key concepts for the use of these interventions during influenza pandemics. NPIs can be phased in, or layered, on the basis of pandemic severity and local transmission patterns over time. Categories of NPIs include personal protective measures for everyday use (e.g., voluntary home isolation of ill persons, respiratory etiquette, and hand hygiene); personal protective measures reserved for influenza pandemics (e.g., voluntary home quarantine of exposed household members and use of face masks in community settings when ill); community measures aimed at increasing social distancing (e.g., school closures and dismissals, social distancing in workplaces, and postponing or cancelling mass gatherings); and environmental measures (e.g., routine cleaning of frequently touched surfaces).Several new elements have been incorporated into the 2017 guidelines. First, to support updated recommendations on the use of NPIs, the latest scientific evidence available since the influenza A (H1N1)pdm09 pandemic has been added. Second, a summary of lessons learned from the 2009 H1N1 pandemic response is presented to underscore the importance of broad and flexible prepandemic planning. Third, a new section on community engagement has been included to highlight that the timely and effective use of NPIs depends on community acceptance and active participation. Fourth, to provide new or updated pandemic assessment and planning tools, the novel influenza virus pandemic intervals tool, the Influenza Risk Assessment Tool, the Pandemic Severity Assessment Framework, and a set of prepandemic planning scenarios are described. Finally, to facilitate implementation of the updated guidelines and to assist states and localities with prepandemic planning and decision-making, this report links to six supplemental prepandemic NPI planning guides for different community settings that are available online (https://www.cdc.gov/nonpharmaceutical-interventions).</p>","PeriodicalId":51328,"journal":{"name":"Mmwr Recommendations and Reports","volume":"66 1","pages":"1-34"},"PeriodicalIF":33.7,"publicationDate":"2017-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5837128/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"34928440","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Guillermo V Sanchez, K. Fleming-Dutra, Rebecca Roberts, L. Hicks
The Core Elements of Outpatient Antibiotic Stewardship provides a framework for antibiotic stewardship for outpatient clinicians and facilities that routinely provide antibiotic treatment. This report augments existing guidance for other clinical settings. In 2014 and 2015, respectively, CDC released the Core Elements of Hospital Antibiotic Stewardship Programs and the Core Elements of Antibiotic Stewardship for Nursing Homes. Antibiotic stewardship is the effort to measure and improve how antibiotics are prescribed by clinicians and used by patients. Improving antibiotic prescribing involves implementing effective strategies to modify prescribing practices to align them with evidence-based recommendations for diagnosis and management. The four core elements of outpatient antibiotic stewardship are commitment, action for policy and practice, tracking and reporting, and education and expertise. Outpatient clinicians and facility leaders can commit to improving antibiotic prescribing and take action by implementing at least one policy or practice aimed at improving antibiotic prescribing practices. Clinicians and leaders of outpatient clinics and health care systems can track antibiotic prescribing practices and regularly report these data back to clinicians. Clinicians can provide educational resources to patients and families on appropriate antibiotic use. Finally, leaders of outpatient clinics and health systems can provide clinicians with education aimed at improving antibiotic prescribing and with access to persons with expertise in antibiotic stewardship. Establishing effective antibiotic stewardship interventions can protect patients and improve clinical outcomes in outpatient health care settings.
{"title":"Core Elements of Outpatient Antibiotic Stewardship.","authors":"Guillermo V Sanchez, K. Fleming-Dutra, Rebecca Roberts, L. Hicks","doi":"10.15585/mmwr.rr6506a1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.rr6506a1","url":null,"abstract":"The Core Elements of Outpatient Antibiotic Stewardship provides a framework for antibiotic stewardship for outpatient clinicians and facilities that routinely provide antibiotic treatment. This report augments existing guidance for other clinical settings. In 2014 and 2015, respectively, CDC released the Core Elements of Hospital Antibiotic Stewardship Programs and the Core Elements of Antibiotic Stewardship for Nursing Homes. Antibiotic stewardship is the effort to measure and improve how antibiotics are prescribed by clinicians and used by patients. Improving antibiotic prescribing involves implementing effective strategies to modify prescribing practices to align them with evidence-based recommendations for diagnosis and management. The four core elements of outpatient antibiotic stewardship are commitment, action for policy and practice, tracking and reporting, and education and expertise. Outpatient clinicians and facility leaders can commit to improving antibiotic prescribing and take action by implementing at least one policy or practice aimed at improving antibiotic prescribing practices. Clinicians and leaders of outpatient clinics and health care systems can track antibiotic prescribing practices and regularly report these data back to clinicians. Clinicians can provide educational resources to patients and families on appropriate antibiotic use. Finally, leaders of outpatient clinics and health systems can provide clinicians with education aimed at improving antibiotic prescribing and with access to persons with expertise in antibiotic stewardship. Establishing effective antibiotic stewardship interventions can protect patients and improve clinical outcomes in outpatient health care settings.","PeriodicalId":51328,"journal":{"name":"Mmwr Recommendations and Reports","volume":"38 1","pages":"1-12"},"PeriodicalIF":33.7,"publicationDate":"2016-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80152508","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Lisa A Grohskopf, Leslie Z Sokolow, Karen R Broder, Sonja J Olsen, Ruth A Karron, Daniel B Jernigan, Joseph S Bresee
This report updates the 2015-16 recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) regarding the use of seasonal influenza vaccines (Grohskopf LA, Sokolow LZ, Olsen SJ, Bresee JS, Broder KR, Karron RA. Prevention and control of influenza with vaccines: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, United States, 2015-16 influenza season. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2015;64:818-25). Routine annual influenza vaccination is recommended for all persons aged ≥6 months who do not have contraindications. For the 2016-17 influenza season, inactivated influenza vaccines (IIVs) will be available in both trivalent (IIV3) and quadrivalent (IIV4) formulations. Recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV) will be available in a trivalent formulation (RIV3). In light of concerns regarding low effectiveness against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 in the United States during the 2013-14 and 2015-16 seasons, for the 2016-17 season, ACIP makes the interim recommendation that live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV4) should not be used. Vaccine virus strains included in the 2016-17 U.S. trivalent influenza vaccines will be an A/California/7/2009 (H1N1)-like virus, an A/Hong Kong/4801/2014 (H3N2)-like virus, and a B/Brisbane/60/2008-like virus (Victoria lineage). Quadrivalent vaccines will include an additional influenza B virus strain, a B/Phuket/3073/2013-like virus (Yamagata lineage).Recommendations for use of different vaccine types and specific populations are discussed. A licensed, age-appropriate vaccine should be used. No preferential recommendation is made for one influenza vaccine product over another for persons for whom more than one licensed, recommended product is otherwise appropriate. This information is intended for vaccination providers, immunization program personnel, and public health personnel. Information in this report reflects discussions during public meetings of ACIP held on October 21, 2015; February 24, 2016; and June 22, 2016. These recommendations apply to all licensed influenza vaccines used within Food and Drug Administration-licensed indications, including those licensed after the publication date of this report. Updates and other information are available at CDC's influenza website (http://www.cdc.gov/flu). Vaccination and health care providers should check CDC's influenza website periodically for additional information.
{"title":"Prevention and Control of Seasonal Influenza with Vaccines.","authors":"Lisa A Grohskopf, Leslie Z Sokolow, Karen R Broder, Sonja J Olsen, Ruth A Karron, Daniel B Jernigan, Joseph S Bresee","doi":"10.15585/mmwr.rr6505a1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.rr6505a1","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This report updates the 2015-16 recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) regarding the use of seasonal influenza vaccines (Grohskopf LA, Sokolow LZ, Olsen SJ, Bresee JS, Broder KR, Karron RA. Prevention and control of influenza with vaccines: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, United States, 2015-16 influenza season. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2015;64:818-25). Routine annual influenza vaccination is recommended for all persons aged ≥6 months who do not have contraindications. For the 2016-17 influenza season, inactivated influenza vaccines (IIVs) will be available in both trivalent (IIV3) and quadrivalent (IIV4) formulations. Recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV) will be available in a trivalent formulation (RIV3). In light of concerns regarding low effectiveness against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 in the United States during the 2013-14 and 2015-16 seasons, for the 2016-17 season, ACIP makes the interim recommendation that live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV4) should not be used. Vaccine virus strains included in the 2016-17 U.S. trivalent influenza vaccines will be an A/California/7/2009 (H1N1)-like virus, an A/Hong Kong/4801/2014 (H3N2)-like virus, and a B/Brisbane/60/2008-like virus (Victoria lineage). Quadrivalent vaccines will include an additional influenza B virus strain, a B/Phuket/3073/2013-like virus (Yamagata lineage).Recommendations for use of different vaccine types and specific populations are discussed. A licensed, age-appropriate vaccine should be used. No preferential recommendation is made for one influenza vaccine product over another for persons for whom more than one licensed, recommended product is otherwise appropriate. This information is intended for vaccination providers, immunization program personnel, and public health personnel. Information in this report reflects discussions during public meetings of ACIP held on October 21, 2015; February 24, 2016; and June 22, 2016. These recommendations apply to all licensed influenza vaccines used within Food and Drug Administration-licensed indications, including those licensed after the publication date of this report. Updates and other information are available at CDC's influenza website (http://www.cdc.gov/flu). Vaccination and health care providers should check CDC's influenza website periodically for additional information. </p>","PeriodicalId":51328,"journal":{"name":"Mmwr Recommendations and Reports","volume":"65 5","pages":"1-54"},"PeriodicalIF":33.7,"publicationDate":"2016-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"34336011","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Kathryn M Curtis, Naomi K Tepper, Tara C Jatlaoui, Erin Berry-Bibee, Leah G Horton, Lauren B Zapata, Katharine B Simmons, H Pamela Pagano, Denise J Jamieson, Maura K Whiteman
The 2016 U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use (U.S. MEC) comprises recommendations for the use of specific contraceptive methods by women and men who have certain characteristics or medical conditions. These recommendations for health care providers were updated by CDC after review of the scientific evidence and consultation with national experts who met in Atlanta, Georgia, during August 26-28, 2015. The information in this report updates the 2010 U.S. MEC (CDC. U.S. medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use, 2010. MMWR 2010:59 [No. RR-4]). Notable updates include the addition of recommendations for women with cystic fibrosis, women with multiple sclerosis, and women receiving certain psychotropic drugs or St. John's wort; revisions to the recommendations for emergency contraception, including the addition of ulipristal acetate; and revisions to the recommendations for postpartum women; women who are breastfeeding; women with known dyslipidemias, migraine headaches, superficial venous disease, gestational trophoblastic disease, sexually transmitted diseases, and human immunodeficiency virus; and women who are receiving antiretroviral therapy. The recommendations in this report are intended to assist health care providers when they counsel women, men, and couples about contraceptive method choice. Although these recommendations are meant to serve as a source of clinical guidance, health care providers should always consider the individual clinical circumstances of each person seeking family planning services. This report is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice for individual patients. Persons should seek advice from their health care providers when considering family planning options.
{"title":"U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2016.","authors":"Kathryn M Curtis, Naomi K Tepper, Tara C Jatlaoui, Erin Berry-Bibee, Leah G Horton, Lauren B Zapata, Katharine B Simmons, H Pamela Pagano, Denise J Jamieson, Maura K Whiteman","doi":"10.15585/mmwr.rr6503a1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.rr6503a1","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The 2016 U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use (U.S. MEC) comprises recommendations for the use of specific contraceptive methods by women and men who have certain characteristics or medical conditions. These recommendations for health care providers were updated by CDC after review of the scientific evidence and consultation with national experts who met in Atlanta, Georgia, during August 26-28, 2015. The information in this report updates the 2010 U.S. MEC (CDC. U.S. medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use, 2010. MMWR 2010:59 [No. RR-4]). Notable updates include the addition of recommendations for women with cystic fibrosis, women with multiple sclerosis, and women receiving certain psychotropic drugs or St. John's wort; revisions to the recommendations for emergency contraception, including the addition of ulipristal acetate; and revisions to the recommendations for postpartum women; women who are breastfeeding; women with known dyslipidemias, migraine headaches, superficial venous disease, gestational trophoblastic disease, sexually transmitted diseases, and human immunodeficiency virus; and women who are receiving antiretroviral therapy. The recommendations in this report are intended to assist health care providers when they counsel women, men, and couples about contraceptive method choice. Although these recommendations are meant to serve as a source of clinical guidance, health care providers should always consider the individual clinical circumstances of each person seeking family planning services. This report is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice for individual patients. Persons should seek advice from their health care providers when considering family planning options.</p>","PeriodicalId":51328,"journal":{"name":"Mmwr Recommendations and Reports","volume":"65 3","pages":"1-103"},"PeriodicalIF":33.7,"publicationDate":"2016-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"34710551","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Kathryn M Curtis, Tara C Jatlaoui, Naomi K Tepper, Lauren B Zapata, Leah G Horton, Denise J Jamieson, Maura K Whiteman
The 2016 U.S. Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use (U.S. SPR) addresses a select group of common, yet sometimes controversial or 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 consultation with national experts who met in Atlanta, Georgia, during August 26-28, 2015. The information in this report updates the 2013 U.S. SPR (CDC. U.S. selected practice recommendations for contraceptive use, 2013. MMWR 2013;62[No. RR-5]). Major updates include 1) revised recommendations for starting regular contraception after the use of emergency contraceptive pills and 2) new recommendations for the use of medications to ease insertion of intrauterine devices. The recommendations in this report are intended to serve as a source of clinical guidance for health care providers and provide evidence-based guidance to reduce medical barriers to contraception access and use. Health care providers should always consider the individual clinical circumstances of each person seeking family planning services. This report is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice for individual patients. Persons should seek advice from their health care providers when considering family planning options.
{"title":"U.S. Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use, 2016.","authors":"Kathryn M Curtis, Tara C Jatlaoui, Naomi K Tepper, Lauren B Zapata, Leah G Horton, Denise J Jamieson, Maura K Whiteman","doi":"10.15585/mmwr.rr6504a1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.rr6504a1","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The 2016 U.S. Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use (U.S. SPR) addresses a select group of common, yet sometimes controversial or 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 consultation with national experts who met in Atlanta, Georgia, during August 26-28, 2015. The information in this report updates the 2013 U.S. SPR (CDC. U.S. selected practice recommendations for contraceptive use, 2013. MMWR 2013;62[No. RR-5]). Major updates include 1) revised recommendations for starting regular contraception after the use of emergency contraceptive pills and 2) new recommendations for the use of medications to ease insertion of intrauterine devices. The recommendations in this report are intended to serve as a source of clinical guidance for health care providers and provide evidence-based guidance to reduce medical barriers to contraception access and use. Health care providers should always consider the individual clinical circumstances of each person seeking family planning services. This report is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice for individual patients. Persons should seek advice from their health care providers when considering family planning options.</p>","PeriodicalId":51328,"journal":{"name":"Mmwr Recommendations and Reports","volume":"65 4","pages":"1-66"},"PeriodicalIF":33.7,"publicationDate":"2016-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"34601613","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Holly M Biggs, Casey Barton Behravesh, Kristy K Bradley, F Scott Dahlgren, Naomi A Drexler, J Stephen Dumler, Scott M Folk, Cecilia Y Kato, R Ryan Lash, Michael L Levin, Robert F Massung, Robert B Nadelman, William L Nicholson, Christopher D Paddock, Bobbi S Pritt, Marc S Traeger
Tickborne rickettsial diseases continue to cause severe illness and death in otherwise healthy adults and children, despite the availability of low-cost, effective antibacterial therapy. Recognition early in the clinical course is critical because this is the period when antibacterial therapy is most effective. Early signs and symptoms of these illnesses are nonspecific or mimic other illnesses, which can make diagnosis challenging. Previously undescribed tickborne rickettsial diseases continue to be recognized, and since 2004, three additional agents have been described as causes of human disease in the United States: Rickettsia parkeri, Ehrlichia muris-like agent, and Rickettsia species 364D. This report updates the 2006 CDC recommendations on the diagnosis and management of tickborne rickettsial diseases in the United States and includes information on the practical aspects of epidemiology, clinical assessment, treatment, laboratory diagnosis, and prevention of tickborne rickettsial diseases. The CDC Rickettsial Zoonoses Branch, in consultation with external clinical and academic specialists and public health professionals, developed this report to assist health care providers and public health professionals to 1) recognize key epidemiologic features and clinical manifestations of tickborne rickettsial diseases, 2) recognize that doxycycline is the treatment of choice for suspected tickborne rickettsial diseases in adults and children, 3) understand that early empiric antibacterial therapy can prevent severe disease and death, 4) request the appropriate confirmatory diagnostic tests and understand their usefulness and limitations, and 5) report probable and confirmed cases of tickborne rickettsial diseases to public health authorities.
{"title":"Diagnosis and Management of Tickborne Rickettsial Diseases: Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever and Other Spotted Fever Group Rickettsioses, Ehrlichioses, and Anaplasmosis - United States.","authors":"Holly M Biggs, Casey Barton Behravesh, Kristy K Bradley, F Scott Dahlgren, Naomi A Drexler, J Stephen Dumler, Scott M Folk, Cecilia Y Kato, R Ryan Lash, Michael L Levin, Robert F Massung, Robert B Nadelman, William L Nicholson, Christopher D Paddock, Bobbi S Pritt, Marc S Traeger","doi":"10.15585/mmwr.rr6502a1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.rr6502a1","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Tickborne rickettsial diseases continue to cause severe illness and death in otherwise healthy adults and children, despite the availability of low-cost, effective antibacterial therapy. Recognition early in the clinical course is critical because this is the period when antibacterial therapy is most effective. Early signs and symptoms of these illnesses are nonspecific or mimic other illnesses, which can make diagnosis challenging. Previously undescribed tickborne rickettsial diseases continue to be recognized, and since 2004, three additional agents have been described as causes of human disease in the United States: Rickettsia parkeri, Ehrlichia muris-like agent, and Rickettsia species 364D. This report updates the 2006 CDC recommendations on the diagnosis and management of tickborne rickettsial diseases in the United States and includes information on the practical aspects of epidemiology, clinical assessment, treatment, laboratory diagnosis, and prevention of tickborne rickettsial diseases. The CDC Rickettsial Zoonoses Branch, in consultation with external clinical and academic specialists and public health professionals, developed this report to assist health care providers and public health professionals to 1) recognize key epidemiologic features and clinical manifestations of tickborne rickettsial diseases, 2) recognize that doxycycline is the treatment of choice for suspected tickborne rickettsial diseases in adults and children, 3) understand that early empiric antibacterial therapy can prevent severe disease and death, 4) request the appropriate confirmatory diagnostic tests and understand their usefulness and limitations, and 5) report probable and confirmed cases of tickborne rickettsial diseases to public health authorities. </p>","PeriodicalId":51328,"journal":{"name":"Mmwr Recommendations and Reports","volume":"65 2","pages":"1-44"},"PeriodicalIF":33.7,"publicationDate":"2016-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"34542050","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This guideline provides recommendations for primary care clinicians who are prescribing opioids for chronic pain outside of active cancer treatment, palliative care, and end-of-life care. The guideline addresses 1) when to initiate or continue opioids for chronic pain; 2) opioid selection, dosage, duration, follow-up, and discontinuation; and 3) assessing risk and addressing harms of opioid use. CDC developed the guideline using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework, and recommendations are made on the basis of a systematic review of the scientific evidence while considering benefits and harms, values and preferences, and resource allocation. CDC obtained input from experts, stakeholders, the public, peer reviewers, and a federally chartered advisory committee. It is important that patients receive appropriate pain treatment with careful consideration of the benefits and risks of treatment options. This guideline is intended to improve communication between clinicians and patients about the risks and benefits of opioid therapy for chronic pain, improve the safety and effectiveness of pain treatment, and reduce the risks associated with long-term opioid therapy, including opioid use disorder, overdose, and death. CDC has provided a checklist for prescribing opioids for chronic pain (http://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/38025) as well as a website (http://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/prescribingresources.html) with additional tools to guide clinicians in implementing the recommendations.
{"title":"CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain - United States, 2016.","authors":"D. Dowell, Tamara M. Haegerich, R. Chou","doi":"10.15585/mmwr.rr6501e1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.rr6501e1","url":null,"abstract":"This guideline provides recommendations for primary care clinicians who are prescribing opioids for chronic pain outside of active cancer treatment, palliative care, and end-of-life care. The guideline addresses 1) when to initiate or continue opioids for chronic pain; 2) opioid selection, dosage, duration, follow-up, and discontinuation; and 3) assessing risk and addressing harms of opioid use. CDC developed the guideline using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework, and recommendations are made on the basis of a systematic review of the scientific evidence while considering benefits and harms, values and preferences, and resource allocation. CDC obtained input from experts, stakeholders, the public, peer reviewers, and a federally chartered advisory committee. It is important that patients receive appropriate pain treatment with careful consideration of the benefits and risks of treatment options. This guideline is intended to improve communication between clinicians and patients about the risks and benefits of opioid therapy for chronic pain, improve the safety and effectiveness of pain treatment, and reduce the risks associated with long-term opioid therapy, including opioid use disorder, overdose, and death. CDC has provided a checklist for prescribing opioids for chronic pain (http://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/38025) as well as a website (http://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/prescribingresources.html) with additional tools to guide clinicians in implementing the recommendations.","PeriodicalId":51328,"journal":{"name":"Mmwr Recommendations and Reports","volume":"48 1","pages":"1-49"},"PeriodicalIF":33.7,"publicationDate":"2016-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88552426","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-03-15DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.rr6501e1er
Deborah Dowell,Tamara M. Haegerich,Roger Chou
{"title":"CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain — United States, 2016","authors":"Deborah Dowell,Tamara M. Haegerich,Roger Chou","doi":"10.15585/mmwr.rr6501e1er","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.rr6501e1er","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51328,"journal":{"name":"Mmwr Recommendations and Reports","volume":"83 ","pages":"1-49"},"PeriodicalIF":33.7,"publicationDate":"2016-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138506754","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
W. Bower, K. Hendricks, Satish K. Pillai, Julie T Guarnizo, D. Meaney-Delman
In 2014, CDC published updated guidelines for the prevention and treatment of anthrax (Hendricks KA, Wright ME, Shadomy SV, et al. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention expert panel meetings on prevention and treatment of anthrax in adults. Emerg Infect Dis 2014;20[2]. Available at http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/20/2/13-0687_article.htm). These guidelines provided recommended best practices for the diagnosis and treatment of persons with naturally occurring or bioterrorism-related anthrax in conventional medical settings. An aerosolized release of Bacillus anthracis spores over densely populated areas could become a mass-casualty incident. To prepare for this possibility, the U.S. government has stockpiled equipment and therapeutics (known as medical countermeasures [MCMs]) for anthrax prevention and treatment. However, previously developed, publicly available clinical recommendations have not addressed the use of MCMs or clinical management during an anthrax mass-casualty incident, when the number of patients is likely to exceed the ability of the health care infrastructure to provide conventional standards of care and supplies of MCMs might be inadequate to meet the demand required. To address this gap, in 2013, CDC conducted a series of systematic reviews of the scientific literature on anthrax to identify evidence that could help clinicians and public health authorities set guidelines for intravenous antimicrobial and antitoxin use, diagnosis of anthrax meningitis, and management of common anthrax-specific complications in the setting of a mass-casualty incident. Evidence from these reviews was presented to professionals with expertise in anthrax, critical care, and disaster medicine during a series of workgroup meetings that were held from August 2013 through March 2014. In March 2014, a meeting was held at which 102 subject matter experts discussed the evidence and adapted the existing best practices guidance to a clinical use framework for the judicious, efficient, and rational use of stockpiled MCMs for the treatment of anthrax during a mass-casualty incident, which is described in this report. This report addresses elements of hospital-based acute care, specifically antitoxins and intravenous antimicrobial use, and the diagnosis and management of common anthrax-specific complications during a mass-casualty incident. The recommendations in this report should be implemented only after predefined triggers have been met for shifting from conventional to contingency or crisis standards of care, such as when the magnitude of cases might lead to impending shortages of intravenous antimicrobials, antitoxins, critical care resources (e.g., chest tubes and chest drainage systems), or diagnostic capability. This guidance does not address primary triage decisions, anthrax postexposure prophylaxis, hospital bed or workforce surge capacity, or the logistics of dispensing MCMs. Clinicians, hospital administrators, state and local health official
2014年,疾病预防控制中心发布了最新的炭疽热预防和治疗指南(Hendricks KA, Wright ME, Shadomy SV等)。疾病控制和预防中心专家小组会议,讨论成人炭疽的预防和治疗。传染病杂志,2014;20[2]。网址:http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/20/2/13-0687_article.htm)。这些准则为在常规医疗环境中诊断和治疗自然发生的炭疽或与生物恐怖主义有关的炭疽提供了推荐的最佳做法。炭疽芽孢杆菌孢子在人口稠密地区的雾化释放可能成为大规模伤亡事件。为了应对这种可能性,美国政府储备了预防和治疗炭疽热的设备和治疗药物(被称为医疗对策[mcm])。然而,以前制定的、可公开获得的临床建议并没有涉及在炭疽大规模伤亡事件中使用mcm或临床管理的问题,因为在这种情况下,患者人数可能超过卫生保健基础设施提供常规标准护理的能力,而mcm的供应可能不足以满足所需的需求。为了弥补这一差距,2013年,疾病预防控制中心对有关炭疽的科学文献进行了一系列系统审查,以确定证据,帮助临床医生和公共卫生当局制定静脉注射抗菌素和抗毒素使用指南,诊断炭疽性脑膜炎,以及在发生大规模伤亡事件时处理常见炭疽特异性并发症。在2013年8月至2014年3月举行的一系列工作组会议上,这些审查的证据被提交给具有炭疽、重症监护和灾难医学专业知识的专业人员。2014年3月举行了一次会议,102名主题专家讨论了证据,并将现有最佳做法指南改编为临床使用框架,以便在大规模伤亡事件中明智、有效和合理地使用储存的mcm来治疗炭疽,本报告对此进行了描述。本报告涉及医院急性护理的要素,特别是抗毒素和静脉注射抗菌素的使用,以及大规模伤亡事件中常见炭疽特异性并发症的诊断和管理。本报告中的建议只有在满足从传统护理标准转向应急或危机护理标准的预定触发条件后才能实施,例如当病例的严重程度可能导致静脉注射抗菌剂、抗毒素、重症护理资源(例如胸管和胸引流系统)或诊断能力即将短缺时。本指南不涉及初级分诊决定、炭疽接触后预防、医院床位或劳动力激增能力,或mcm分发的后勤。临床医生、医院管理人员、州和地方卫生官员以及规划人员可以利用这些建议协助制定危机处理方案,以确保国家为炭疽大规模伤亡事件做好准备。
{"title":"Clinical Framework and Medical Countermeasure Use During an Anthrax Mass-Casualty Incident.","authors":"W. Bower, K. Hendricks, Satish K. Pillai, Julie T Guarnizo, D. Meaney-Delman","doi":"10.15585/mmwr.rr6404a1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.rr6404a1","url":null,"abstract":"In 2014, CDC published updated guidelines for the prevention and treatment of anthrax (Hendricks KA, Wright ME, Shadomy SV, et al. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention expert panel meetings on prevention and treatment of anthrax in adults. Emerg Infect Dis 2014;20[2]. Available at http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/20/2/13-0687_article.htm). These guidelines provided recommended best practices for the diagnosis and treatment of persons with naturally occurring or bioterrorism-related anthrax in conventional medical settings. An aerosolized release of Bacillus anthracis spores over densely populated areas could become a mass-casualty incident. To prepare for this possibility, the U.S. government has stockpiled equipment and therapeutics (known as medical countermeasures [MCMs]) for anthrax prevention and treatment. However, previously developed, publicly available clinical recommendations have not addressed the use of MCMs or clinical management during an anthrax mass-casualty incident, when the number of patients is likely to exceed the ability of the health care infrastructure to provide conventional standards of care and supplies of MCMs might be inadequate to meet the demand required. To address this gap, in 2013, CDC conducted a series of systematic reviews of the scientific literature on anthrax to identify evidence that could help clinicians and public health authorities set guidelines for intravenous antimicrobial and antitoxin use, diagnosis of anthrax meningitis, and management of common anthrax-specific complications in the setting of a mass-casualty incident. Evidence from these reviews was presented to professionals with expertise in anthrax, critical care, and disaster medicine during a series of workgroup meetings that were held from August 2013 through March 2014. In March 2014, a meeting was held at which 102 subject matter experts discussed the evidence and adapted the existing best practices guidance to a clinical use framework for the judicious, efficient, and rational use of stockpiled MCMs for the treatment of anthrax during a mass-casualty incident, which is described in this report. This report addresses elements of hospital-based acute care, specifically antitoxins and intravenous antimicrobial use, and the diagnosis and management of common anthrax-specific complications during a mass-casualty incident. The recommendations in this report should be implemented only after predefined triggers have been met for shifting from conventional to contingency or crisis standards of care, such as when the magnitude of cases might lead to impending shortages of intravenous antimicrobials, antitoxins, critical care resources (e.g., chest tubes and chest drainage systems), or diagnostic capability. This guidance does not address primary triage decisions, anthrax postexposure prophylaxis, hospital bed or workforce surge capacity, or the logistics of dispensing MCMs. Clinicians, hospital administrators, state and local health official","PeriodicalId":51328,"journal":{"name":"Mmwr Recommendations and Reports","volume":"39 1","pages":"1-22"},"PeriodicalIF":33.7,"publicationDate":"2015-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90054532","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2015-06-05DOI: 10.18370/2309-4117.2015.24.51-56
K. Workowski, Gail A Bolan
These guidelines for the treatment of persons who have or are at risk for sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) were updated by CDC after consultation with a group of professionals knowledgeable in the field of STDs who met in Atlanta on April 30-May 2, 2013. The information in this report updates the Sexually Transmitted Diseases Treatment Guidelines, 2010 (MMWR Recomm Rep 2010;59 [No. RR-12]). These updated guidelines discuss 1) alternative treatment regimens for Neisseria gonorrhoeae; 2) the use of nucleic acid amplification tests for the diagnosis of trichomoniasis; 3) alternative treatment options for genital warts; 4) the role of Mycoplasma genitalium in urethritis/cervicitis and treatment-related implications; 5) updated HPV vaccine recommendations and counseling messages; 6) the management of persons who are transgender; 7) annual testing for hepatitis C in persons with HIV infection; 8) updated recommendations for diagnostic evaluation of urethritis; and 9) retesting to detect repeat infection. Physicians and other health-care providers can use these guidelines to assist in the prevention and treatment of STDs.
{"title":"Sexually transmitted diseases treatment guidelines, 2015.","authors":"K. Workowski, Gail A Bolan","doi":"10.18370/2309-4117.2015.24.51-56","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18370/2309-4117.2015.24.51-56","url":null,"abstract":"These guidelines for the treatment of persons who have or are at risk for sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) were updated by CDC after consultation with a group of professionals knowledgeable in the field of STDs who met in Atlanta on April 30-May 2, 2013. The information in this report updates the Sexually Transmitted Diseases Treatment Guidelines, 2010 (MMWR Recomm Rep 2010;59 [No. RR-12]). These updated guidelines discuss 1) alternative treatment regimens for Neisseria gonorrhoeae; 2) the use of nucleic acid amplification tests for the diagnosis of trichomoniasis; 3) alternative treatment options for genital warts; 4) the role of Mycoplasma genitalium in urethritis/cervicitis and treatment-related implications; 5) updated HPV vaccine recommendations and counseling messages; 6) the management of persons who are transgender; 7) annual testing for hepatitis C in persons with HIV infection; 8) updated recommendations for diagnostic evaluation of urethritis; and 9) retesting to detect repeat infection. Physicians and other health-care providers can use these guidelines to assist in the prevention and treatment of STDs.","PeriodicalId":51328,"journal":{"name":"Mmwr Recommendations and Reports","volume":"94 1","pages":"1-137"},"PeriodicalIF":33.7,"publicationDate":"2015-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90305156","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}