MMWR. Recommendations and reports: Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Recommendations and reports / Centers for Disease Control

For adults and adolescents (i.e., persons aged >/=13 years), the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection classification system and the surveillance case definitions for HIV infection and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) have been revised and combined into a single case definition for HIV infection. In addition, the HIV infection case definition for children aged <13 years and the AIDS case definition for children aged 18 months to <13 years have been revised. No changes have been made to the HIV infection classification system, the 24 AIDS-defining conditions for children aged <13 years, or the AIDS case definition for children aged <18 months. These case definitions are intended for public health surveillance only and not as a guide for clinical diagnosis. Public health surveillance data are used primarily for monitoring the HIV epidemic and for planning on a population level, not for making clinical decisions for individual patients. CDC and the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists recommend that all states and territories conduct case surveillance of HIV infection and AIDS using the 2008 surveillance case definitions, effective immediately.

This report updates and combines into one document earlier versions of guidelines for preventing and treating opportunistic infections (OIs) among HIV-exposed and HIV-infected children, last published in 2002 and 2004, respectively. These guidelines are intended for use by clinicians and other health-care workers providing medical care for HIV-exposed and HIV-infected children in the United States. The guidelines discuss opportunistic pathogens that occur in the United States and one that might be acquired during international travel (i.e., malaria). Topic areas covered for each OI include a brief description of the epidemiology, clinical presentation, and diagnosis of the OI in children; prevention of exposure; prevention of disease by chemoprophylaxis and/or vaccination; discontinuation of primary prophylaxis after immune reconstitution; treatment of disease; monitoring for adverse effects during treatment; management of treatment failure; prevention of disease recurrence; and discontinuation of secondary prophylaxis after immune reconstitution. A separate document about preventing and treating of OIs among HIV-infected adults and postpubertal adolescents (Guidelines for the Prevention and Treatment of Opportunistic Infections in HIV-Infected Adults and Adolescents) was prepared by a working group of adult HIV and infectious disease specialists. The guidelines were developed by a panel of specialists in pediatric HIV infection and infectious diseases (the Pediatric Opportunistic Infections Working Group) from the U.S. government and academic institutions. For each OI, a pediatric specialist with content-matter expertise reviewed the literature for new information since the last guidelines were published; they then proposed revised recommendations at a meeting at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in June 2007. After these presentations and discussions, the guidelines underwent further revision, with review and approval by the Working Group, and final endorsement by NIH, CDC, the HIV Medicine Association (HIVMA) of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), the Pediatric Infectious Disease Society (PIDS), and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). The recommendations are rated by a letter that indicates the strength of the recommendation and a Roman numeral that indicates the quality of the evidence supporting the recommendation so readers can ascertain how best to apply the recommendations in their practice environments. An important mode of acquisition of OIs, as well as HIV infection among children, is from their infected mother; HIV-infected women coinfected with opportunistic pathogens might be more likely than women without HIV infection to transmit these infections to their infants. In addition, HIV-infected women or HIV-infected family members coinfected with certain opportunistic pathogens might be more likely to transmit these infections horizontally to their children, resulting in increased likelihood of primary acquisition of such infections in the young child. Therefore, infections with opportunistic pathogens might affect not just HIV-infected infants but also HIV-exposed but uninfected infants who become infected by the pathogen because of transmission from HIV-infected mothers or family members with coinfections. These guidelines for treating OIs in children therefore consider treatment of infections among all children, both HIV-infected and uninfected, born to HIV-infected women. Additionally, HIV infection is increasingly seen among adolescents with perinatal infection now surviving into their teens and among youth with behaviorally acquired HIV infection. Although guidelines for postpubertal adolescents can be found in the adult OI guidelines, drug pharmacokinetics and response to treatment may differ for younger prepubertal or pubertal adolescents. Therefore, these guidelines also apply to treatment of HIV-infected youth who have not yet completed pubertal development. Major changes in the guidelines include 1) greater emphasis on the importance of antiretroviral therapy for preventing and treating OIs, especially those OIs for which no specific therapy exists; 2) information about the diagnosis and management of immune reconstitution inflammatory syndromes; 3) information about managing antiretroviral therapy in children with OIs, including potential drug--drug interactions; 4) new guidance on diagnosing of HIV infection and presumptively excluding HIV infection in infants that affect the need for initiation of prophylaxis to prevent Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (PCP) in neonates; 5) updated immunization recommendations for HIV-exposed and HIV-infected children, including hepatitis A, human papillomavirus, meningococcal, and rotavirus vaccines; 6) addition of sections on aspergillosis; bartonella; human herpes virus-6, -7, and -8; malaria; and progressive multifocal leukodystrophy (PML); and 7) new recommendations on discontinuation of OI prophylaxis after immune reconstitution in children. The report includes six tables pertinent to preventing and treating OIs in children and two figures describing immunization recommendations for children aged 0--6 years and 7--18 years. Because treatment of OIs is an evolving science, and availability of new agents or clinical data on existing agents might change therapeutic options and preferences, these recommendations will be periodically updated and will be available at http://AIDSInfo.nih.gov.

These guidelines for the treatment of persons who have sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) were developed by CDC after consultation with a group of professionals knowledgeable in the field of STDs who met in Atlanta, Georgia, during April 19-21, 2005. The information in this report updates the Sexually Transmitted Diseases Treatment Guidelines, 2002 (MMWR 2002;51[No. RR-6]). Included in these updated guidelines are an expanded diagnostic evaluation for cervicitis and trichomoniasis; new antimicrobial recommendations for trichomoniasis; additional data on the clinical efficacy of azithromycin for chlamydial infections in pregnancy; discussion of the role of Mycoplasma genitalium and trichomoniasis in urethritis/cervicitis and treatment-related implications; emergence of lymphogranuloma venereum protocolitis among men who have sex with men (MSM); expanded discussion of the criteria for spinal fluid examination to evaluate for neurosyphilis; the emergence of azithromycin- resistant Treponema pallidum; increasing prevalence of quinolone-resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae in MSM; revised discussion concerning the sexual transmission of hepatitis C; postexposure prophylaxis after sexual assault; and an expanded discussion of STD prevention approaches.

Routine vaccination of children is an effective way to reduce hepatitis A incidence in the United States. Since licensure of hepatitis A vaccine during 1995-1996, the hepatitis A childhood immunization strategy has been implemented incrementally, starting with the recommendation of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) in 1996 to vaccinate children living in communities with the highest disease rates and continuing in 1999 with ACIP's recommendations for vaccination of children living in states, counties, and communities with consistently elevated hepatitis A rates. These updated recommendations represent the final step in the childhood hepatitis A immunization strategy, routine hepatitis A vaccination of children nationwide. Implementation of these recommendations will reinforce existing vaccination programs, extend the benefits associated with hepatitis A vaccination to the rest of the country, and create the foundation for eventual consideration of elimination of indigenous hepatitis A virus transmission. This report updates ACIP's 1999 recommendations concerning the prevention of hepatitis A through immunization (CDC. Prevention of hepatitis A through active or passive immunization: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP]. MMWR 1999:48[No. RR-12]:1-37) and includes 1) new data on the epidemiology of hepatitis A in the era of hepatitis A vaccination of children in selected U.S. areas, 2) results of analyses of the economics of nationwide routine vaccination of children, and 3) recommendations for the routine vaccination of children in the United States. Previous recommendations for vaccination of persons in groups at increased risk for hepatitis A or its adverse consequences and recommendations regarding the use of immune globulin for protection against hepatitis A are unchanged from the 1999 recommendations.

In February 2006, a live, oral, human-bovine reassortant rotavirus vaccine (RotaTeq) was licensed for use among U.S. infants. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends routine vaccination of U.S. infants with 3 doses of this rotavirus vaccine administered orally at ages 2, 4, and 6 months. The first dose should be administered between ages 6-12 weeks. Subsequent doses should be administered at 4-10 week intervals, and all 3 doses should be administered by age 32 weeks. Rotavirus vaccine can be co-administered with other childhood vaccines. Rotavirus vaccine is contraindicated for infants with a serious allergic reaction to any vaccine component or to a previous dose of vaccine.

On February 24, 2010, a 13-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide-protein conjugate vaccine (PCV13 [Prevnar 13, Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Inc., marketed by Pfizer Inc.]) was licensed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for prevention of invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) caused among infants and young children by the 13 pneumococcal serotypes covered by the vaccine and for prevention of otitis media caused by serotypes also covered by the 7-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine formulation (PCV7 [Prevnar, Wyeth]). PCV13 contains the seven serotypes included in PCV7 (serotypes 4, 6B, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F, and 23F) and six additional serotypes (serotypes 1, 3, 5, 6A, 7F, and 19A). PCV13 is approved for use among children aged 6 weeks-71 months and supersedes PCV7, which was licensed by FDA in 2000. This report summarizes recommendations approved by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) on February 24, 2010, for the use of PCV13 to prevent pneumococcal disease in infants and young children aged <6 years. Recommendations include 1) routine vaccination of all children aged 2-59 months, 2) vaccination of children aged 60-71 months with underlying medical conditions, and 3) vaccination of children who received ≥1 dose of PCV7 previously (CDC. Licensure of a 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine [PCV13] and recommendations for use among children-Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP], 2010. MMWR 2010;59:258-61). Recommendations also are provided for targeted use of the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23, formerly PPV23) in children aged 2-18 years with underlying medical conditions that increase their risk for contracting pneumococcal disease or experiencing complications of pneumococcal disease if infected. The ACIP recommendation for routine vaccination with PCV13 and the immunization schedules for children aged ≤59 months who have not received any previous PCV7 or PCV13 doses are the same as those published previously for PCV7 (CDC. Preventing pneumococcal disease among infants and young children: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP]. MMWR 2000;49[No. RR-9]; CDC. Updated recommendation from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP] for use of 7-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine [PCV7] in children aged 24-59 months who are not completely vaccinated. MMWR 2008;57:343-4), with PCV13 replacing PCV7 for all doses. For routine immunization of infants, PCV13 is recommended as a 4-dose series at ages 2, 4, 6, and 12-15 months. Infants and children who have received ≥1 dose of PCV7 should complete the immunization series with PCV13. A single supplemental dose of PCV13 is recommended for all children aged 14-59 months who have received 4 doses of PCV7 or another age-appropriate, complete PCV7 schedule. For children who have underlying medical conditions, a supplemental PCV13 dose is recommended through age 71 months. Children aged 2-18 years with underlying medical conditions also should receive PPSV23 after completing all recommended doses of PCV13.

This report supplements the 2001 statement by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) (CDC. Vaccinia [smallpox] vaccine: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP], 2001. MMWR 2001;50[No. RR-10]:1-25). This supplemental report provides recommendations for using smallpox vaccine in the pre-event vaccination program in the United States. To facilitate preparedness and response, smallpox vaccination is recommended for persons designated by public health authorities to conduct investigation and follow-up of initial smallpox cases that might necessitate direct patient contact. ACIP recommends that each state and territory establish and maintain > or = 1 smallpox response team. ACIP and the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC) recommend that each acute-care hospital identify health-care workers who can be vaccinated and trained to provide direct medical care for the first smallpox patients requiring hospital admission and to evaluate and manage patients who are suspected as having smallpox. When feasible, the first-stage vaccination program should include previously vaccinated health-care personnel to decrease the potential for adverse events. Additionally persons administering smallpox vaccine in this pre-event vaccination program should be vaccinated. Smallpox vaccine is administered by using the multiple-puncture technique with a bifurcated needle, packaged with the vaccine and diluent. According to the product labeling, 2-3 punctures are recommended for primary vaccination and 15 punctures for revaccination. A trace of blood should appear at the vaccination site after 15-20 seconds; if no trace of blood is visible, an additional 3 insertions should be made by using the same bifurcated needle without reinserting the needle into the vaccine vial. If no evidence of vaccine take is apparent after 7 days, the person can be vaccinated again. Optimal infection-control practices and appropriate site care should prevent transmission of vaccinia virus from vaccinated health-care workers to patients. Health-care personnel providing direct patient care should keep their vaccination sites covered with gauze in combination with a semipermeable membrane dressing to absorb exudates and to provide a barrier for containment of vaccinia virus to minimize the risk of transmission; the dressing should also be covered by a layer of clothing. Dressings used to cover the site should be changed frequently to prevent accumulation of exudates and consequent maceration. The most critical measure in preventing contact transmission is consistent hand hygiene. Hospitals should designate staff to assess dressings for all vaccinated health-care workers. When feasible, staff responsible for dressing changes for smallpox health-care teams should be vaccinated, all persons handling dressings should observe contact precautions. Administrative leave is not required routinely for newly vaccinated health-care personnel unless they are physically unable to work as a result of systemic signs and symptoms of illness; have extensive skin lesions that cannot be adequately covered or if they are unable to adhere to the recommended infection-control precautions. Persons outside the patient-care setting can keep their vaccination sites covered with a porous dressing hand hygiene remains key to preventing inadvertent inoculation. FDA has recommended that recipients of smallpox vaccine be deferred from donating blood for 21 days or until the scab has separated. Contacts of vaccinees, who have inadvertently contracted vaccinia, also should be deferred from donating blood for 14 days after complete resolution of their complication. In the pre-event vaccination program, smallpox vaccination is contraindicated for persons with a history or presence of eczema or atopic dermatitis; who have other acute, chronic, or exfoliative skin conditions; who have conditions associated with immunosuppression; are aged < 1 year; who have a serious allergy to any component of the vaccine; or who are pregnant or breastfeeding. ACIP does not recommend smallpox vaccination for children and adolescents aged < 18 years during the pre-event vaccination program. Pre-event vaccination also is contraindicated among persons with household contacts who have a history or presence of eczema or atopic dermatitis; who have other acute, chronic, or exfoliative skin conditions; who have conditions associated with immunosuppression; or who are pregnant. For purposes of screening for contraindications for pre-event vaccination, household contacts include persons with prolonged intimate contact (e.g., sexual contacts) with the potential vaccinee and others who might have direct contact with the vaccination site. Persons with inflammatory eye disease might be at increased risk for inadvertent inoculation as a result of touching or rubbing the eye. Therefore, deferring vaccination is prudent for persons with inflammatory eye diseases requiring steroid treatment until the condition resolves and the course of therapy is complete. Eczema vaccinatum, a serious form of disseminated vaccinia infection, can occur among persons with atopic dermatitis and other dermatologic conditions. Potential vaccinees should be queried regarding the diagnosis of atopic dermatitis or eczema in themselves or any member of their household, or regarding the presence of chronic or recurrent rashes consistent with these diagnoses. Persons reporting such a rash in themselves or household members should not be vaccinated, unless a health-care provider determines that the rash is not eczema or atopic dermatitis. Before vaccination, women of childbearing age should be asked if they are pregnant or intend to become pregnant during the next 4 weeks; women who respond positively should not be vaccinated. Any woman who thinks she might be pregnant or who wants additional assurance that she is not pregnant should perform a urine pregnancy test on the day scheduled for vaccination. If a pregnant woman is inadvertently vaccinated or if she becomes pregnant within 4 weeks after smallpox vaccination, she should be counseled regarding concerns for the fetus. Vaccination during pregnancy should not ordinarily be a reason to terminate pregnancy. CDC has established a pregnancy registry to prospectively follow the outcome of such pregnancies and facilitate the investigation of any adverse pregnancy outcome among pregnant women who were inadvertently vaccinated. For enrollment in the registry, contact CDC at 404-639-8253. Smallpox vaccine should not be administered to persons with human immunodeficiency virus infection (HIV) or acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) as part of a pre-event program because of their increased risk for progressive vaccinia. HIV testing is recommended for persons who have any history of a risk factor for HIV infection or for anyone who is concerned that he or she might have HIV infection. HIV testing should be available in a confidential or anonymous setting, in accordance with local laws and regulations, with results communicated to the potential vaccinee before the planned date of vaccination. Smallpox vaccine can be administered simultaneously with any inactivated vaccine. With the exception of varicella vaccine, smallpox vaccine can be administered simultaneously with other live-virus vaccines. To avoid confusion in ascertaining which vaccine might have caused postvaccination skin lesions or other adverse events, varicella vaccine and smallpox vaccine should be administered >4 weeks apart. Health-care workers scheduled to receive an annual purified protein derivative (PPD) skin test for tuberculosis screening should not receive the skin test until >1 month after smallpox vaccination. Persons with progressive vaccinia, eczema vaccinatum, and severe generalized vaccinia or inadvertent inoculation might benefit from therapy with VIG or cidofovir, although the latter has not been approved by FDA for this indication. Suspected cases of these illnesses or other severe adverse events after smallpox vaccination should be reported immediately to state health departments. VIG and cidofovir are available from CDC under Investigational New Drug protocols. Clinically severe adverse events after smallpox vaccination should be reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. Reports can be made online at https://secure.vaers.org/VaersDataEntryintro.htm, or by postage-paid form, which is available by calling 800-822-7967 (toll-free). ACIP will review these recommendations periodically as new information becomes available related to smallpox disease, smallpox vaccines, the risk of smallpox attack, smallpox vaccine adverse events, and the experience gained as recent recommendations are implemented. Revised recommendations will be developed as needed.

Acute gastroenteritis remains a common illness among infants and children throughout the world. Among children in the United States, acute diarrhea accounts for >1.5 million outpatient visits, 200,000 hospitalizations, and approximately 300 deaths/year. In developing countries, diarrhea is a common cause of mortality among children aged <5 years, with an estimated 2 million deaths annually. Oral rehydration therapy (ORT) includes rehydration and maintenance fluids with oral rehydration solutions (ORS), combined with continued age-appropriate nutrition. Although ORT has been instrumental in improving health outcomes among children in developing countries, its use has lagged behind in the United States. This report provides a review of the historical background and physiologic basis for using ORT and provides recommendations for assessing and managing children with acute diarrhea, including those who have become dehydrated. Recent developments in the science of gastroenteritis management have substantially altered case management. Physicians now recognize that zinc supplementation can reduce the incidence and severity of diarrheal disease, and an ORS of reduced osmolarity (i.e., proportionally reduced concentrations of sodium and glucose) has been developed for global use. The combination of oral rehydration and early nutritional support has proven effective throughout the world in treating acute diarrhea. In 1992, CDC prepared the first national guidelines for managing childhood diarrhea (CDC. The management of acute diarrhea in children: oral rehydration, maintenance, and nutritional therapy. MMWR 1992;41[No. RR-16]), and this report updates those recommendations. This report reviews the historical background and scientific basis of ORT and provides a framework for assessing and treating infants and children who have acute diarrhea. The discussion focuses on common clinical scenarios and traditional practices, especially regarding continued feeding. Limitations of ORT, ongoing research in the areas of micronutrient supplements, and functional foods are reviewed as well. These updated recommendations were developed by specialists in managing gastroenteritis, in consultation with CDC and external consultants. Relevant literature was identified through an extensive MEDLINE search by using related terms. Articles were then reviewed for their relevance to pediatric practice, with emphasis on U.S. populations. Unpublished references were sought from the external consultants and other researchers. In the United States, adoption of these updated recommendations could substantially reduce medical costs and childhood hospitalizations and deaths caused by diarrhea.

Under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA), simple, low-risk tests can be waived and performed with no routine regulatory oversight in physicians' offices and various other locations. Since CLIA was implemented, waived testing has steadily increased in the United States. Surveys conducted during 1999-2004 by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and studies funded by CDC during 1999-2003 evaluated testing practices in sites holding a CLIA Certificate of Waiver (CW). Although study findings indicate CW sites generally take measures to perform testing correctly, they raise quality concerns about practices that could lead to errors in testing and poor patient outcomes. These issues are probably caused, in part, by high personnel turnover rates, lack of understanding about good laboratory practices, and inadequate training. This report summarizes study findings and provides recommendations developed by the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Advisory Committee for conducting quality waived testing. These recommendations include considerations before introducing waived testing, such as management responsibility for testing, regulatory requirements, safety, physical and environmental requirements, benefits and costs, staffing, and documentation. They also cover good laboratory practices for the three phases of testing: 1) before testing (test ordering and specimen collection), 2) during testing (control testing, test performance, and result interpretation and recording), and 3) after testing (result reporting, documentation, confirmatory testing, and biohazard waste disposal). They are intended to be used by those who would benefit from improving their knowledge of good laboratory practices. Continued monitoring of waived testing, with a focus on personnel education and training, is needed to improve practices and enhance patient safety as waived testing continues to increase.

Spina bifida and anencephaly are serious birth defects. To reduce the occurrence of these birth defects, the Food and Drug Administration authorized the fortification of all enriched cereal grain products with folic acid in March 1996, with compliance mandatory by January 1998. This report reviews data reported to CDC's National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) regarding spina bifida and anencephaly prevalence for live births in the United States during 1991-2001. Since 1989, NCHS has compiled birth defect data from checkboxes that appear on birth certificates. For consistency in trends, this report uses data for 1991-2001 from all U.S. reporting areas except Maryland, New Mexico, and New York. Data for 2001 are preliminary. During 1996-2001, a 23% decline occurred in neural tube defects (spina bifida and anencephaly combined). Spina bifida declined 24% during this period, and anencephaly declined 21%. The United States has experienced declines in spina bifida and anencephaly cases since folic acid fortification of all enriched cereal grain products. The observed declines have translated into approximately 920 infants being born without these serious defects each year. Continued monitoring of the occurrence of spina bifida and anencephaly will be necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of folic acid fortification.

This report presents projections of the number of persons who will initially be diagnosed with a condition included in the 1987 surveillance definition for acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) in the United States during the period 1992-1994. The report also presents estimates and projections of the prevalence of persons infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) who have CD4+ T-lymphocyte (T-cell) counts < 200/microL and who have not been diagnosed with a condition listed in the 1987 AIDS surveillance definition. These estimates and projections are used to predict the effect of expanding the AIDS surveillance definition to include all HIV-infected persons with a CD4+ T-cell count < 200/microL. Approximately 58,000 persons were diagnosed with AIDS in the United States during 1991. During the period 1992-1994, the number of persons newly diagnosed with AIDS is expected to increase by at most a few percent annually, with approximately 60,000-70,000 persons diagnosed per year. Although AIDS diagnoses among homosexual and bisexual men and among injecting drug users are projected to reach a plateau during this period, the number of AIDS diagnoses among persons whose HIV infection is attributed to heterosexual transmission of HIV is likely to continue to increase through 1994. The number of living persons who have been diagnosed with AIDS is expected to increase from approximately 90,000 in January 1992 to approximately 120,000 in January 1995. There is, however, considerable uncertainty in these projections. For example, the plausible range for the number of persons initially diagnosed with AIDS in 1994 is 43,000-93,000. CDC estimates that, as of January 1992, 115,000-170,000 U.S. residents had severe immunosuppression (a CD4+ T-cell count < 200 cells/microL without a diagnosis of AIDS in an HIV-infected person). Only about 50,000 of these persons were receiving medical care for HIV-related conditions and were known to have a CD4+ T-cell count < 200 cells/microL. The number of persons with severe immunosuppression is expected to increase to 130,000-205,000 by January 1995, with the actual number more likely to be in the lower half of this range than the upper half. The expanded AIDS surveillance definition, which includes severe immunosuppression, is predicted to result in an increase of approximately 75% in the number of persons reported during 1993, but an increase of < 20% in 1994 compared with the number of persons who would have been reported had the definition not been changed.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Previous studies have documented a decline in neural tube defects (NTDs) in the United States after the addition of folic acid to enriched grain products and other folic acid initiatives. The decrease generally has been greater for spina bifida than for other NTDs. However, the extent to which the decline varies by maternal sociodemographic characteristics has not been examined. In this study data from the North Carolina Birth Defects Monitoring Program, a statewide, population-based birth defect surveillance program, were used to assess the impact that folic acid public health initiatives have had on spina bifida rates among various sociodemographic subpopulations in North Carolina. This report covers data from 1995 through 1999. The overall prevalence of spina bifida decreased by 27.2% during 1995-1996 and 1998-1999 (p = 0.014). The magnitude of the decline varied considerably by sociodemographic characteristics of the mother. The decline was greatest among mothers who were aged > or = 30 years (prevalence ratio [PR] = 0.53), who had more than a high school education (PR = 0.57), whose prenatal care was not paid by Medicaid (PR = 0.67), and who were non-Hispanic white (PR = 0.72). Geographically the decrease in the western and Piedmont regions of the state was almost threefold that occurring in the eastern region. The decline in spina bifida after fortification varied considerably by sociodemographic subpopulations. More effort is needed to target folic acid education programs at disadvantaged populations.

The use of folic acid is a critical component in preventing birth defects. Health-care providers should take advantage of all health-care visits to counsel not only women at high risk (i.e., those with a history of having an infant with a neural tube defect [NTD]) but all women regarding the importance of folic acid use. A study conducted in Texas confirmed that white and Hispanic mothers were equally likely to recall receiving postpartum advice to use folic acid; however, Hispanic women were much less likely to use folic acid, compared with white women. This report covers data from May 2000 through November 2001. A study was conducted in Texas to determine whether women at high risk recall and follow recommendations to use folic acid. The study included 195 women at high risk and 223 control mothers who gave birth to infants without birth defects. These women participated in a telephone interview for a population-based case-control study of NTDs. Approximately 56.4% (110 of 195) of mothers who had infants affected by an NTD recalled receiving postpartum advice to use folic acid, compared with 25.6% (57 of 223) of control mothers (p < 0.01). Among nonpregnant case mothers, 54 (32.7%) of 165 reported regular use of supplements containing folic acid, and 53 (25.2%) of 210 nonpregnant control mothers reported this behavior (p = 0.11). Among case mothers, use of folic acid was significantly higher for whites (64.7%) versus Hispanics (16.5%) (p < 0.001); for women with some college education (57.1%) versus no college education (20.2%; p < 0.001); for women who were trying to get pregnant (66.7%) versus those using birth control (38.3%) or reporting using no contraceptive method (18.8%) (p = 0.001); and for women who reported receiving advice to use folic acid (40.9%) versus those who did not (22.2%; p = 0.01). Findings from this study support the need to implement NTD recurrence prevention activities in Texas. Data also identify a need for educational strategies in Texas that target Hispanic women at high risk, especially those who primarily speak Spanish. Further efforts should be made to determine why Hispanic women have low rates of folic acid use (e.g., the cost of vitamins and language and cultural barriers). On the basis of a review of research and current practice, recommendations developed by the Public Health Service include 1) women at risk for a recurrent NTD-affected pregnancy should take 0.4 mg of folic acidper day; and 2) if a woman at high risk is planning a pregnancy, she should consult her physician regarding taking the higher dose of 4.0 mg per day.

Since 1998, serum folate levels have increased nationally after mandatory fortification of cereal grain products with folic acid. Whether serum folate levels have increased among all women has not been well-studied. Identifying characteristics of women with lower serum folate levels would also be helpful in designing educational campaigns. Data for this report were collected during January 2000-January 2001. During 2000, blood samples were collected from 1,059 women aged 18-45 years who attended six family planning clinics in Georgia and analyzed for serum folate levels. This sample included women aged 18-25 years (60%), black women (41%), and women who had a high school education or less (49%). The median serum folate level (8.9 ng/mL) among this population was lower than the median of women of childbearing age (13.0 ng/mL) who participated in the 1999-2000 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). In logistic regression analysis, women who were black (odds ratio [OR] = 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.48, 3.96), who smoked (OR = 2.1; 95% CI = 1.26, 3.43), or who used Depo-Provera contraceptive injection (manufactured by Pharmacia Corporation, Peapack, New Jersey) (OR = 2.3; 95% CI = 1.15, 4.62) were more likely to be ranked in the lowest quartile (< or = 62 ng/mL) of serum folate concentrations when compared with the highest quartile (> 12.4 ng/mL). Women who consumed cereal regularly (OR = 0.4; 95% CI = 0.26, 0.62) or folic acid supplements (OR = 0.2; 95% CI = 0.09, 0.30) were the least likely to be in the lowest serum folate quartile. This study indicates that certain women are at greater risk for having lower serum folate levels, including women who are black, smokers, Depo-Provera users, and those less likely to eat cereal regularly or to take folic acid supplements. In Georgia, these data are useful in defining target populations (e.g., black women and smokers) for folic acid education campaigns because public health officials can develop contextually appropriate messages and outreach approaches for targeting women for folic acid interventions. Ongoing surveillance of serum folate status among women can guide future intervention efforts.

These revised recommendations regarding vaccinia (smallpox) vaccine update the previous Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommendations (MMWR 1991;40; No. RR-14:1-10) and include current information regarding the nonemergency use of vaccinia vaccine among laboratory and health-care workers occupationally exposed to vaccinia virus, recombinant vaccinia viruses, and other Orthopoxviruses that can infect humans. In addition, this report contains ACIP's recommendations for the use of vaccinia vaccine if smallpox (variola) virus were used as an agent of biological terrorism or if a smallpox outbreak were to occur for another unforeseen reason.

This report updates CDC's recommendations for using yellow fever vaccine (CDC. Yellow Fever Vaccine: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunizations Practices: MMWR 1990;39[No. RR-6]1-6). The 2002 recommendations include new or updated information regarding 1) reports of yellow fever vaccine-associated viscerotropic disease (previously reported as febrile multiple organ system failure); 2) use ofyellow fever vaccine for pregnant women and persons infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV); and 3) concurrent use of yellow fever vaccine with other vaccines. A link to this report and other information related to yellow fever can be accessed at the website for Travelers' Health, Division of Global Migration and Quarantine, National Center for Infectious Diseases, CDC, at http://www.cdc.gov/travel/index.htm, and through the website for the Division of Vector-Borne Infectious Diseases, National Center for Infectious Diseases, CDC, at http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/ dvbid/yellowfever/index.htm.

In 1995, the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) developed guidelines for preventing opportunistic infections (OIs) among persons infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV); these guidelines were updated in 1997 and 1999. This fourth edition of the guidelines, made available on the Internet in 2001, is intended for clinicians and other health-care providers who care for HIV-infected persons. The goal of these guidelines is to provide evidence-based guidelines for preventing OIs among HIV-infected adults and adolescents, including pregnant women, and HIV-exposed or infected children. Nineteen OIs, or groups of OIs, are addressed, and recommendations are included for preventing exposure to opportunistic pathogens, preventing first episodes of disease by chemoprophylaxis or vaccination (primary prophylaxis), and preventing disease recurrence (secondary prophylaxis). Major changes since the last edition of the guidelines include 1) updated recommendations for discontinuing primary and secondary OI prophylaxis among persons whose CD4+ T lymphocyte counts have increased in response to antiretroviral therapy; 2) emphasis on screening all HIV-infected persons for infection with hepatitis C virus; 3) new information regarding transmission of human herpesvirus 8 infection; 4) new information regarding drug interactions, chiefly related to rifamycins and antiretroviral drugs; and 5) revised recommendations for immunizing HIV-infected adults and adolescents and HIV-exposed or infected children.

Since publication of CDC's 1993 guidelines (CDC, Recommendations for the prevention and management of Chlamydia trachomatis infections, 1993. MMWR 1993;42[No. RR-12]:1-39), nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) have been introduced as critical new tools to diagnose and treat C. trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae infections. NAATs for C. trachomatis are substantially more sensitive than previous tests. When using a NAAT, any sacrifice in performance when urine is substituted for a traditional swab specimen is limited, thus reducing dependence on invasive procedures and expanding the venues where specimens can be obtained. NAATs can also detect both C. trachomatis and N. gonorrhoeae organisms in the same specimen. However, NAATs are usually more expensive than previous tests, making test performance from an economic perspective a key consideration. This report updates the 1993 guidelines for selecting laboratory tests for C. trachomatis with an emphasis on screening men and women in the United States. (In this report, screening refers to testing persons in the absence of symptoms or signs indicating C. trachomatis or N. gonorrhoeae infection.) In addition, these guidelines consider tests from an economic perspective and expand the previous guidelines to address detection of N. gonorrhoeae as well as C. trachomatis infections. Because of the increased cost of NAATs, certain laboratories are modifying manufacturers' procedures to improve test sensitivity without incurring the full cost associated with screening with a NAAT. Such approaches addressed in these guidelines are pooling of specimens before testing with a NAAT and additional testing of specimens whose non-NAAT test result is within a gray zone. This report also addresses the need for additional testing after a positive screening test to improve the specificity of a final diagnosis. To prepare these guidelines, CDC staff identified pertinent concerns, compiled the related literature published during 1990 or later, prepared tables of evidence, and drafted recommendations. Consultants, selected for their expertise or disciplinary and organizational affiliations, reviewed the draft recommendations. These final guidelines are the recommendations of CDC staff who considered contributions from scientific consultants. These guidelines are intended for laboratorians, clinicians, and managers who must choose among the multiple available tests, establish standard operating procedures for collecting and processing specimens, interpret test results for laboratory reporting, and counsel and treat patients.

This report provides updated recommendations for prevention and control of hantavirus infections associated with rodents in the United States. It supersedes the previous report (CDC. Hantavirus infection--southwestern United States: interim recommendations for risk reduction. MMWR 1993; 42[No. RR-11]: 1-13). These recommendations are based on principles of rodent and infection control, and accumulating evidence that most infections result from exposure, in closed spaces, to active infestations of infected rodents. The recommendations contain updated specific measures and precautions for limiting household, recreational, and occupational exposure to rodents, eliminating rodent infestations, rodent-proofing human dwellings, cleaning up rodent-contaminated areas and dead rodents, and working in homes of persons with confirmed hantavirus infection or buildings with heavy rodent infestations.

This report updates, expands, and replaces the previously published CDC "Guideline for Prevention of Nosocomial Pneumonia". The new guidelines are designed to reduce the incidence of pneumonia and other severe, acute lower respiratory tract infections in acute-care hospitals and in other health-care settings (e.g., ambulatory and long-term care institutions) and other facilities where health care is provided. Among the changes in the recommendations to prevent bacterial pneumonia, especially ventilator-associated pneumonia, are the preferential use of oro-tracheal rather than naso-tracheal tubes in patients who receive mechanically assisted ventilation, the use of noninvasive ventilation to reduce the need for and duration of endotracheal intubation, changing the breathing circuits of ventilators when they malfunction or are visibly contaminated, and (when feasible) the use of an endotracheal tube with a dorsal lumen to allow drainage of respiratory secretions; no recommendations were made about the use of sucralfate, histamine-2 receptor antagonists, or antacids for stress-bleeding prophylaxis. For prevention of health-care--associated Legionnaires disease, the changes include maintaining potable hot water at temperatures not suitable for amplification of Legionella spp., considering routine culturing of water samples from the potable water system of a facility's organ-transplant unit when it is done as part of the facility's comprehensive program to prevent and control health-care--associated Legionnaires disease, and initiating an investigation for the source of Legionella spp. when one definite or one possible case of laboratory-confirmed health-care--associated Legionnaires disease is identified in an inpatient hemopoietic stem-cell transplant (HSCT) recipient or in two or more HSCT recipients who had visited an outpatient HSCT unit during all or part of the 2-10 day period before illness onset. In the section on aspergillosis, the revised recommendations include the use of a room with high-efficiency particulate air filters rather than laminar airflow as the protective environment for allogeneic HSCT recipients and the use of high-efficiency respiratory-protection devices (e.g., N95 respirators) by severely immunocompromised patients when they leave their rooms when dust-generating activities are ongoing in the facility. In the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) section, the new recommendation is to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether to administer monoclonal antibody (palivizumab) to certain infants and children aged <24 months who were born prematurely and are at high risk for RSV infection. In the section on influenza, the new recommendations include the addition of oseltamivir (to amantadine and rimantadine) for prophylaxis of all patients without influenza illness and oseltamivir and zanamivir (to amantadine and rimantadine) as treatment for patients who are acutely ill with influenza in a unit where an influenza outbreak is recognized. In addition to the revised recommendations, the guideline contains new sections on pertussis and lower respiratory tract infections caused by adenovirus and human parainfluenza viruses and refers readers to the source of updated information about prevention and control of severe acute respiratory syndrome.

This report updates the 2005 recommendations by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) regarding the use of influenza vaccine and antiviral agents (CDC. Prevention and control of influenza: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP]. MMWR 2005;54[No. RR-8]:1--44). The 2006 recommendations include new and updated information. Principal changes include 1) recommending vaccination of children aged 24-59 months and their household contacts and out-of-home caregivers against influenza; 2) highlighting the importance of administering 2 doses of influenza vaccine for children aged 6 months--<9 years who were previously unvaccinated; 3) advising health-care providers, those planning organized campaigns, and state and local public health agencies to a) develop plans for expanding outreach and infrastructure to vaccinate more persons than the previous year and b) develop contingency plans for the timing and prioritization of administering influenza vaccine, if the supply of vaccine is delayed and/or reduced; 4) reminding providers that they should routinely offer influenza vaccine to patients throughout the influenza season; 5) recommending that neither amantadine nor rimantadine be used for the treatment or chemoprophylaxis of influenza A in the United States until evidence of susceptibility to these antiviral medications has been re-established among circulating influenza A viruses; and 6) using the 2006-07 trivalent influenza vaccine virus strains: A/New Caledonia/20/1999 (H1N1)-like, A/Wisconsin/67/2005 (H3N2)-like, and B/Malaysia/2506/2004-like antigens. For the A/Wisconsin/67/2005 (H3N2)-like antigen, manufacturers may use the antigenically equivalent A/Hiroshima/52/2005 virus; for the B/Malaysia/2506/2004-like antigen, manufacturers may use the antigenically equivalent B/Ohio/1/2005 virus. A link to this report and other information can be accessed at http://www.cdc.gov/flu.

The recommendations in this report were developed to broaden the spectrum of antimicrobial agents that are available for treatment and postexposure prophylaxis of pertussis. They include updated information on macrolide agents other than erythromycin (azithromycin and clarithromycin) and their dosing schedule by age group.

In 1994, CDC published the Guidelines for Preventing the Transmission of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in HealthCare Facilities, 1994. The guidelines were issued in response to 1) a resurgence of tuberculosis (TB) disease that occurred in the United States in the mid-1980s and early 1990s, 2) the documentation of several high-profile health-care--associated (previously termed "nosocomial") outbreaks related to an increase in the prevalence of TB disease and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) coinfection, 3) lapses in infection control practices, 4) delays in the diagnosis and treatment of persons with infectious TB disease, and 5) the appearance and transmission of multidrug-resistant (MDR) TB strains. The 1994 guidelines, which followed statements issued in 1982 and 1990, presented recommendations for TB infection control based on a risk assessment process that classified health-care facilities according to categories of TB risk, with a corresponding series of administrative, environmental, and respiratory protection control measures. The TB infection control measures recommended by CDC in 1994 were implemented widely in health-care facilities in the United States. The result has been a decrease in the number of TB outbreaks in health-care settings reported to CDC and a reduction in health-care-associated transmission of Mycobacterium tuberculosis to patients and health-care workers (HCWs). Concurrent with this success, mobilization of the nation's TB control programs succeeded in reversing the upsurge in reported cases of TB disease, and case rates have declined in the subsequent 10 years. Findings indicate that although the 2004 TB rate was the lowest recorded in the United States since national reporting began in 1953, the declines in rates for 2003 (2.3%) and 2004 (3.2%) were the smallest since 1993. In addition, TB infection rates greater than the U.S. average continue to be reported in certain racial/ethnic populations. The threat of MDR TB is decreasing, and the transmission of M. tuberculosis in health-care settings continues to decrease because of implementation of infection-control measures and reductions in community rates of TB. Given the changes in epidemiology and a request by the Advisory Council for the Elimination of Tuberculosis (ACET) for review and update of the 1994 TB infection control document, CDC has reassessed the TB infection control guidelines for health-care settings. This report updates TB control recommendations reflecting shifts in the epidemiology of TB, advances in scientific understanding, and changes in health-care practice that have occurred in the United States during the preceding decade. In the context of diminished risk for health-care-associated transmission of M. tuberculosis, this document places emphasis on actions to maintain momentum and expertise needed to avert another TB resurgence and to eliminate the lingering threat to HCWs, which is mainly from patients or others with unsuspected and undiagnosed infectious TB disease. CDC prepared the current guidelines in consultation with experts in TB, infection control, environmental control, respiratory protection, and occupational health. The new guidelines have been expanded to address a broader concept; health-care--associated settings go beyond the previously defined facilities. The term "health-care setting" includes many types, such as inpatient settings, outpatient settings, TB clinics, settings in correctional facilities in which health care is delivered, settings in which home-based health-care and emergency medical services are provided, and laboratories handling clinical specimens that might contain M. tuberculosis. The term "setting" has been chosen over the term "facility," used in the previous guidelines, to broaden the potential places for which these guidelines apply.

This report is a revision of General Recommendations on Immunization and updates the 2002 statement by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) (CDC. General recommendations on immunization: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and the American Academy of Family Physicians. MMWR 2002;51[No. RR-2]). This report is intended to serve as a general reference on vaccines and immunization. The principal changes include 1) expansion of the discussion of vaccination spacing and timing; 2) an increased emphasis on the importance of injection technique/age/body mass in determining appropriate needle length; 3) expansion of the discussion of storage and handling of vaccines, with a table defining the appropriate storage temperature range for inactivated and live vaccines; 4) expansion of the discussion of altered immunocompetence, including new recommendations about use of live-attenuated vaccines with therapeutic monoclonal antibodies; and 5) minor changes to the recommendations about vaccination during pregnancy and vaccination of internationally adopted children, in accordance with new ACIP vaccine-specific recommendations for use of inactivated influenza vaccine and hepatitis B vaccine. The most recent ACIP recommendations for each specific vaccine should be consulted for comprehensive discussion. This report, ACIP recommendations for each vaccine, and other information about vaccination can be accessed at CDC's National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (proposed) (formerly known as the National Immunization Program) website at http//:www.cdc.gov/nip.

This report updates the 2006 recommendations by CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) regarding the use of influenza vaccine and antiviral agents (CDC. Prevention and control of influenza: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP]. MMWR 2006;55[No. RR-10]). The groups of persons for whom vaccination is recommended and the antiviral medications recommended for chemoprophylaxis or treatment (oseltamivir or zanamivir) have not changed. Estimated vaccination coverage remains <50% among certain groups for whom routine annual vaccination is recommended, including young children and adults with risk factors for influenza complications, health-care personnel (HCP), and pregnant women. Strategies to improve vaccination coverage, including use of reminder/recall systems and standing orders programs, should be implemented or expanded. The 2007 recommendations include new and updated information. Principal updates and changes include 1) reemphasizing the importance of administering 2 doses of vaccine to all children aged 6 months--8 years if they have not been vaccinated previously at any time with either live, attenuated influenza vaccine (doses separated by > or =6 weeks) or trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (doses separated by > or =4 weeks), with single annual doses in subsequent years; 2) recommending that children aged 6 months--8 years who received only 1 dose in their first year of vaccination receive 2 doses the following year, with single annual doses in subsequent years; 3) highlighting a previous recommendation that all persons, including school-aged children, who want to reduce the risk of becoming ill with influenza or of transmitting influenza to others should be vaccinated; 4) emphasizing that immunization providers should offer influenza vaccine and schedule immunization clinics throughout the influenza season; 5) recommending that health-care facilities consider the level of vaccination coverage among HCP to be one measure of a patient safety quality program and implement policies to encourage HCP vaccination (e.g., obtaining signed statements from HCP who decline influenza vaccination); and 6) using the 2007--2008 trivalent vaccine virus strains A/Solomon Islands/3/2006 (H1N1)-like (new for this season), A/Wisconsin/67/2005 (H3N2)-like, and B/Malaysia/2506/2004-like antigens. This report and other information are available at CDC's influenza website (http://www.cdc.gov/flu). Updates or supplements to these recommendations (e.g., expanded age or risk group indications for currently licensed vaccines) might be required. Immunization providers should be alert to announcements of recommendation updates and should check the CDC influenza website periodically for additional information.

This report updates the 2004 recommendations by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) regarding the use of influenza vaccine and antiviral agents (CDC. Prevention and control of influenza: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP]. MMWR 2004;53[No. RR-6]:1-40). The 2005 recommendations include new or updated information regarding 1) vaccination of persons with conditions leading to compromise of the respiratory system; 2) vaccination of health-care workers; 3) clarification of the role of live, attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) in vaccine shortage situations; 4) the 2005-06 trivalent vaccine virus strains: A/California/7/2004 (H3N2)-like, A/New Caledonia/20/99 (H1N1)-like, and B/Shanghai/361/2002-like antigens (for the A/California/7/2004 [H3N2]-like antigen, manufacturers may use the antigenically equivalent A/New York/55/2004 virus, and for the B/Shanghai/361/2002-like antigen, manufacturers may use the antigenically equivalent B/Jilin/20/2003 virus or B/Jiangsu/10/2003 virus); and 5) the assessment of vaccine supply, timing of influenza vaccination, and prioritization of inactivated vaccine in shortage situations. A link to this report and other information can be accessed at http://www.cdc.gov/flu.

These recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) update the previous recommendations on human rabies prevention (CDC. Human rabies prevention--United States, 1999: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. MMWR 1999;48 [No. RR-1]) and reflect the status of rabies and antirabies biologics in the United States. This statement 1) provides updated information on human and animal rabies epidemiology; 2) summarizes the evidence regarding the effectiveness/efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of rabies biologics; 3) presents new information on the cost-effectiveness of rabies postexposure prophylaxis; 4) presents recommendations for rabies postexposure and pre-exposure prophylaxis; and 5) presents information regarding treatment considerations for human rabies patients. These recommendations involve no substantial changes to the recommended approach for rabies postexposure or pre-exposure prophylaxis. ACIP recommends that prophylaxis for the prevention of rabies in humans exposed to rabies virus should include prompt and thorough wound cleansing followed by passive rabies immunization with human rabies immune globulin (HRIG) and vaccination with a cell culture rabies vaccine. For persons who have never been vaccinated against rabies, postexposure antirabies vaccination should always include administration of both passive antibody (HRIG) and vaccine (human diploid cell vaccine [HDCV] or purified chick embryo cell vaccine [PCECV]). Persons who have ever previously received complete vaccination regimens (pre-exposure or postexposure) with a cell culture vaccine or persons who have been vaccinated with other types of vaccines and have previously had a documented rabies virus neutralizing antibody titer should receive only 2 doses of vaccine: one on day 0 (as soon as the exposure is recognized and administration of vaccine can be arranged) and the second on day 3. HRIG is administered only once (i.e., at the beginning of antirabies prophylaxis) to previously unvaccinated persons to provide immediate, passive, rabies virus neutralizing antibody coverage until the patient responds to HDCV or PCECV by actively producing antibodies. A regimen of 5 1-mL doses of HDCV or PCECV should be administered intramuscularly to previously unvaccinated persons. The first dose of the 5-dose course should be administered as soon as possible after exposure (day 0). Additional doses should then be administered on days 3, 7, 14, and 28 after the first vaccination. Rabies pre-exposure vaccination should include three 1.0-mL injections of HDCV or PCECV administered intramuscularly (one injection per day on days 0, 7, and 21 or 28). Modifications were made to the language of the guidelines to clarify the recommendations and better specify the situations in which rabies post- and pre-exposure prophylaxis should be administered. No new rabies biologics are presented, and no changes were made to the vaccination schedules. However, rabies vaccine adsorbed (RVA, Bioport Corporation) is no longer available for rabies postexposure or pre-exposure prophylaxis, and intradermal pre-exposure prophylaxis is no longer recommended because it is not available in the United States.

This report outlines recommendations for postexposure interventions to prevent infection with hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus, or human immunodeficiency virus, and tetanus in persons wounded during bombings or other events resulting in mass casualties. Persons wounded during such events or in conjunction with the resulting emergency response might be exposed to blood, body fluids, or tissue from other injured persons and thus be at risk for bloodborne infections. This report adapts existing general recommendations on the use of immunization and postexposure prophylaxis for tetanus and for occupational and nonoccupational exposures to bloodborne pathogens to the specific situation of a mass-casualty event. Decisions regarding the implementation of prophylaxis are complex, and drawing parallels from existing guidelines is difficult. For any prophylactic intervention to be implemented effectively, guidance must be simple, straightforward, and logistically undemanding. Critical review during development of this guidance was provided by representatives of the National Association of County and City Health Officials, the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, and representatives of the acute injury care, trauma and emergency response medical communities participating in CDC's Terrorism Injuries: Information, Dissemination and Exchange (TIIDE) project. The recommendations contained in this report represent the consensus of U.S. federal public health officials and reflect the experience and input of public health officials at all levels of government and the acute injury response community.

This report updates the 2007 recommendations by CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) regarding the use of influenza vaccine and antiviral agents (CDC. Prevention and control of influenza: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP]. MMWR 2007;56[No. RR-6]). The 2008 recommendations include new and updated information. Principal updates and changes include 1) a new recommendation that annual vaccination be administered to all children aged 5--18 years, beginning in the 2008--09 influenza season, if feasible, but no later than the 2009--10 influenza season; 2) a recommendation that annual vaccination of all children aged 6 months through 4 years (59 months) continue to be a primary focus of vaccination efforts because these children are at higher risk for influenza complications compared with older children; 3) a new recommendation that either trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine or live, attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) be used when vaccinating healthy persons aged 2 through 49 years (the previous recommendation was to administer LAIV to person aged 5--49 years); 4) a recommendation that vaccines containing the 2008--09 trivalent vaccine virus strains A/Brisbane/59/2007 (H1N1)-like, A/Brisbane/10/2007 (H3N2)-like, and B/Florida/4/2006-like antigens be used; and, 5) new information on antiviral resistance among influenza viruses in the United States. Persons for whom vaccination is recommended are listed in boxes 1 and 2. These recommendations also include a summary of safety data for U.S. licensed influenza vaccines. This report and other information are available at CDC's influenza website (http://www.cdc.gov/flu), including any updates or supplements to these recommendations that might be required during the 2008--09 influenza season. Vaccination and health-care providers should be alert to announcements of recommendation updates and should check the CDC influenza website periodically for additional information.

This report updates the 2008 recommendations by CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) regarding the use of influenza vaccine for the prevention and control of seasonal influenza (CDC. Prevention and control of influenza: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP]. MMWR 2008;57[No. RR-7]). Information on vaccination issues related to the recently identified novel influenza A H1N1 virus will be published later in 2009. The 2009 seasonal influenza recommendations include new and updated information. Highlights of the 2009 recommendations include 1) a recommendation that annual vaccination be administered to all children aged 6 months-18 years for the 2009-10 influenza season; 2) a recommendation that vaccines containing the 2009-10 trivalent vaccine virus strains A/Brisbane/59/2007 (H1N1)-like, A/Brisbane/10/2007 (H3N2)-like, and B/Brisbane/60/2008-like antigens be used; and 3) a notice that recommendations for influenza diagnosis and antiviral use will be published before the start of the 2009-10 influenza season. Vaccination efforts should begin as soon as vaccine is available and continue through the influenza season. Approximately 83% of the United States population is specifically recommended for annual vaccination against seasonal influenza; however, <40% of the U.S. population received the 2008-09 influenza vaccine. These recommendations also include a summary of safety data for U.S. licensed influenza vaccines. These recommendations and other information are available at CDC's influenza website (http://www.cdc.gov/flu); any updates or supplements that might be required during the 2009-10 influenza season also can be found at this website. Vaccination and health-care providers should be alert to announcements of recommendation updates and should check the CDC influenza website periodically for additional information.

n 2005, CDC published guidelines for using the QuantiFERON-TB Gold test (QFT-G) (Cellestis Limited, Carnegie, Victoria, Australia) (CDC. Guidelines for using the QuantiFERON-TB Gold test for detecting Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection, United States. MMWR;54[No. RR-15]:49-55). Subsequently, two new interferon gamma (IFN- gamma) release assays (IGRAs) were approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as aids in diagnosing M. tuberculosis infection, both latent infection and infection manifesting as active tuberculosis. These tests are the QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube test (QFT-GIT) (Cellestis Limited, Carnegie, Victoria, Australia) and the T-SPOT.TB test (T-Spot) (Oxford Immunotec Limited, Abingdon, United Kingdom). The antigens, methods, and interpretation criteria for these assays differ from those for IGRAs approved previously by FDA. For assistance in developing recommendations related to IGRA use, CDC convened a group of experts to review the scientific evidence and provide opinions regarding use of IGRAs. Data submitted to FDA, published reports, and expert opinion related to IGRAs were used in preparing these guidelines. Results of studies examining sensitivity, specificity, and agreement for IGRAs and TST vary with respect to which test is better. Although data on the accuracy of IGRAs and their ability to predict subsequent active tuberculosis are limited, to date, no major deficiencies have been reported in studies involving various populations. This report provides guidance to U.S. public health officials, health-care providers, and laboratory workers for use of FDA-approved IGRAs in the diagnosis of M. tuberculosis infection in adults and children. In brief, TSTs and IGRAs (QFT-G, QFT-GIT, and T-Spot) may be used as aids in diagnosing M. tuberculosis infection. They may be used for surveillance purposes and to identify persons likely to benefit from treatment. Multiple additional recommendations are provided that address quality control, test selection, and medical management after testing. Although substantial progress has been made in documenting the utility of IGRAs, additional research is needed that focuses on the value and limitations of IGRAs in situations of importance to medical care or tuberculosis control. Specific areas needing additional research are listed.

CDC created U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2010, from guidance developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) and finalized the recommendations after consultation with a group of health professionals who met in Atlanta, Georgia, during February 2009. This guidance comprises recommendations for the use of specific contraceptive methods by women and men who have certain characteristics or medical conditions. The majority of the U.S. guidance does not differ from the WHO guidance and covers >60 characteristics or medical conditions. However, some WHO recommendations were modified for use in the United States, including recommendations about contraceptive use for women with venous thromboembolism, valvular heart disease, ovarian cancer, and uterine fibroids and for postpartum and breastfeeding women. Recommendations were added to the U.S. guidance for women with rheumatoid arthritis, history of bariatric surgery, peripartum cardiomyopathy, endometrial hyperplasia, inflammatory bowel disease, and solid organ transplantation. The recommendations in this document 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.

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 18-30, 2009. The information in this report updates the 2006 Guidelines for Treatment of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (MMWR 2006;55[No. RR-11]). Included in these updated guidelines is new information regarding 1) the expanded diagnostic evaluation for cervicitis and trichomoniasis; 2) new treatment recommendations for bacterial vaginosis and genital warts; 3) the clinical efficacy of azithromycin for chlamydial infections in pregnancy; 4) the role of Mycoplasma genitalium and trichomoniasis in urethritis/cervicitis and treatment-related implications; 5) lymphogranuloma venereum proctocolitis among men who have sex with men; 6) the criteria for spinal fluid examination to evaluate for neurosyphilis; 7) the emergence of azithromycin-resistant Treponema pallidum; 8) the increasing prevalence of antimicrobial-resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae; 9) the sexual transmission of hepatitis C; 10) diagnostic evaluation after sexual assault; and 11) STD prevention approaches.

Despite substantial progress in prevention of perinatal group B streptococcal (GBS) disease since the 1990s, GBS remains the leading cause of early-onset neonatal sepsis in the United States. In 1996, CDC, in collaboration with relevant professional societies, published guidelines for the prevention of perinatal group B streptococcal disease (CDC. Prevention of perinatal group B streptococcal disease: a public health perspective. MMWR 1996;45[No. RR-7]); those guidelines were updated and republished in 2002 (CDC. Prevention of perinatal group B streptococcal disease: revised guidelines from CDC. MMWR 2002;51[No. RR-11]). In June 2009, a meeting of clinical and public health representatives was held to reevaluate prevention strategies on the basis of data collected after the issuance of the 2002 guidelines. This report presents CDC's updated guidelines, which have been endorsed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Nurse-Midwives, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American Society for Microbiology. The recommendations were made on the basis of available evidence when such evidence was sufficient and on expert opinion when available evidence was insufficient. The key changes in the 2010 guidelines include the following: • expanded recommendations on laboratory methods for the identification of GBS, • clarification of the colony-count threshold required for reporting GBS detected in the urine of pregnant women, • updated algorithms for GBS screening and intrapartum chemoprophylaxis for women with preterm labor or preterm premature rupture of membranes, • a change in the recommended dose of penicillin-G for chemoprophylaxis, • updated prophylaxis regimens for women with penicillin allergy, and • a revised algorithm for management of newborns with respect to risk for early-onset GBS disease. Universal screening at 35-37 weeks' gestation for maternal GBS colonization and use of intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis has resulted in substantial reductions in the burden of early-onset GBS disease among newborns. Although early-onset GBS disease has become relatively uncommon in recent years, the rates of maternal GBS colonization (and therefore the risk for early-onset GBS disease in the absence of intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis) remain unchanged since the 1970s. Continued efforts are needed to sustain and improve on the progress achieved in the prevention of GBS disease. There also is a need to monitor for potential adverse consequences of intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (e.g., emergence of bacterial antimicrobial resistance or increased incidence or severity of non-GBS neonatal pathogens). In the absence of a licensed GBS vaccine, universal screening and intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis continue to be the cornerstones of early-onset GBS disease prevention.

This report updates the 2001 recommendations by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) regarding the use of influenza vaccine and antiviral agents (MMWR 2001;50 [No. RR-4]:1-44). The 2002 recommendations include new or updated information regarding 1) the timing of influenza vaccination by risk group; 2) influenza vaccine for children aged 6-23 months; 3) the 2002-2003 trivalent vaccine virus strains: A/Moscow/10/99 (H3N2)-like, A/New Caledonia/20/99 (H1N1)-like, and B/Hong Kong/330/2001-like strains; and 4) availability of certain influenza vaccine doses with reduced thimerosal content. A link to this report and other information related to influenza can be accessed at the website for the Influenza Branch, Division of Viral and Rickettsial Diseases, National Center for Infectious Diseases, CDC, at http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/flu/fluvirus.htm.

In the United States, injury is the leading cause of death for persons aged 1-44 years. In 2008, approximately 30 million injuries were serious enough to require the injured person to visit a hospital emergency department (ED); 5.4 million (18%) of these injured patients were transported by Emergency Medical Services (EMS). On arrival at the scene of an injury, the EMS provider must determine the severity of injury, initiate management of the patient's injuries, and decide the most appropriate destination hospital for the individual patient. These destination decisions are made through a process known as "field triage," which involves an assessment not only of the physiology and anatomy of injury but also of the mechanism of the injury and special patient and system considerations. Since 1986, the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACS-COT) has provided guidance for the field triage process through its "Field Triage Decision Scheme." This guidance was updated with each version of the decision scheme (published in 1986, 1990, 1993, and 1999). In 2005, CDC, with financial support from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, collaborated with ACS-COT to convene the initial meetings of the National Expert Panel on Field Triage (the Panel) to revise the decision scheme; the revised version was published in 2006 by ACS-COT (American College of Surgeons. Resources for the optimal care of the injured patient: 2006. Chicago, IL: American College of Surgeons; 2006). In 2009, CDC published a detailed description of the scientific rationale for revising the field triage criteria (CDC. Guidelines for field triage of injured patients: recommendations of the National Expert Panel on Field Triage. MMWR 2009;58[No. RR-1]). In 2011, CDC reconvened the Panel to review the 2006 Guidelines in the context of recently published literature, assess the experiences of states and local communities working to implement the Guidelines, and recommend any needed changes or modifications to the Guidelines. This report describes the dissemination and impact of the 2006 Guidelines; outlines the methodology used by the Panel for its 2011 review; explains the revisions and modifications to the physiologic, anatomic, mechanism-of-injury, and special considerations criteria; updates the schematic of the 2006 Guidelines; and provides the rationale used by the Panel for these changes. This report is intended to help prehospital-care providers in their daily duties recognize individual injured patients who are most likely to benefit from specialized trauma center resources and is not intended as a mass casualty or disaster triage tool. The Panel anticipates a review of these Guidelines approximately every 5 years.

Chronic diseases are an important public health problem, which can result in morbidity, mortality, disability, and decreased quality of life. Chronic diseases represented seven of the top 10 causes of death in the United States in 2010 (Murphy SL, Xu J, Kochanek KD. Deaths: final data for 2010. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2013;6. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_04.pdf Adobe PDF file). Chronic diseases and risk factors vary by geographic area such as state and county, where essential public health interventions are implemented. The chronic disease indicators (CDIs) were established in the late 1990s through collaboration among CDC, the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, and the Association of State and Territorial Chronic Disease Program Directors (now the National Association of Chronic Disease Directors) to enable public health professionals and policymakers to retrieve data for chronic diseases and risk factors that have a substantial impact on public health. This report describes the latest revisions to the CDIs, which were developed on the basis of a comprehensive review during 2011-2013. The number of indicators is increasing from 97 to 124, with major additions in systems and environmental indicators and additional emphasis on high-impact diseases and conditions as well as emerging topics.

This report updates CDC's 2002 recommendations regarding screening tests to detect Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae infections (CDC. Screening tests to detect Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae infections-2002. MMWR 2002;51[No. RR-15]) and provides new recommendations regarding optimal specimen types, the use of tests to detect rectal and oropharyngeal C. trachomatis and N. gonorrhoeae infections, and circumstances when supplemental testing is indicated. The recommendations in this report are intended for use by clinical laboratory directors, laboratory staff, clinicians, and disease control personnel who must choose among the multiple available tests, establish standard operating procedures for collecting and processing specimens, interpret test results for laboratory reporting, and counsel and treat patients. The performance of nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) with respect to overall sensitivity, specificity, and ease of specimen transport is better than that of any of the other tests available for the diagnosis of chlamydial and gonococcal infections. Laboratories should use NAATs to detect chlamydia and gonorrhea except in cases of child sexual assault involving boys and rectal and oropharyngeal infections in prepubescent girls and when evaluating a potential gonorrhea treatment failure, in which case culture and susceptibility testing might be required. NAATs that have been cleared by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the detection of C. trachomatis and N. gonorrhoeae infections are recommended as screening or diagnostic tests because they have been evaluated in patients with and without symptoms. Maintaining the capability to culture for both N. gonorrhoeae and C. trachomatis in laboratories throughout the country is important because data are insufficient to recommend nonculture tests in cases of sexual assault in prepubescent boys and extragenital anatomic site exposure in prepubescent girls. N. gonorrhoeae culture is required to evaluate suspected cases of gonorrhea treatment failure and to monitor developing resistance to current treatment regimens. Chlamydia culture also should be maintained in some laboratories to monitor future changes in antibiotic susceptibility and to support surveillance and research activities such as detection of lymphogranuloma venereum or rare infections caused by variant or mutated C. trachomatis.

Following extensive consultation and peer review, CDC and the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists have revised and combined the surveillance case definitions for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection into a single case definition for persons of all ages (i.e., adults and adolescents aged ≥13 years and children aged <13 years). The revisions were made to address multiple issues, the most important of which was the need to adapt to recent changes in diagnostic criteria. Laboratory criteria for defining a confirmed case now accommodate new multitest algorithms, including criteria for differentiating between HIV-1 and HIV-2 infection and for recognizing early HIV infection. A confirmed case can be classified in one of five HIV infection stages (0, 1, 2, 3, or unknown); early infection, recognized by a negative HIV test within 6 months of HIV diagnosis, is classified as stage 0, and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) is classified as stage 3. Criteria for stage 3 have been simplified by eliminating the need to differentiate between definitive and presumptive diagnoses of opportunistic illnesses. Clinical (nonlaboratory) criteria for defining a case for surveillance purposes have been made more practical by eliminating the requirement for information about laboratory tests. The surveillance case definition is intended primarily for monitoring the HIV infection burden and planning for prevention and care on a population level, not as a basis for clinical decisions for individual patients. CDC and the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists recommend that all states and territories conduct case surveillance of HIV infection using this revised surveillance case definition.

These recommendations represent the first statement by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) on the use of a quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine licensed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on June 8, 2006. This report summarizes the epidemiology of HPV and associated diseases, describes the licensed HPV vaccine, and provides recommendations for its use for vaccination among females aged 9-26 years in the United States. Genital HPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the United States; an estimated 6.2 million persons are newly infected every year. Although the majority of infections cause no clinical symptoms and are self-limited, persistent infection with oncogenic types can cause cervical cancer in women. HPV infection also is the cause of genital warts and is associated with other anogenital cancers. Cervical cancer rates have decreased in the United States because of widespread use of Papanicolaou testing, which can detect precancerous lesions of the cervix before they develop into cancer; nevertheless, during 2007, an estimated 11,100 new cases will be diagnosed and approximately 3,700 women will die from cervical cancer. In certain countries where cervical cancer screening is not routine, cervical cancer is a common cancer in women. The licensed HPV vaccine is composed of the HPV L1 protein, the major capsid protein of HPV. Expression of the L1 protein in yeast using recombinant DNA technology produces noninfectious virus-like particles (VLP) that resemble HPV virions. The quadrivalent HPV vaccine is a mixture of four HPV type-specific VLPs prepared from the L1 proteins of HPV 6, 11, 16, and 18 combined with an aluminum adjuvant. Clinical trials indicate that the vaccine has high efficacy in preventing persistent HPV infection, cervical cancer precursor lesions, vaginal and vulvar cancer precursor lesions, and genital warts caused by HPV types 6, 11, 16, or 18 among females who have not already been infected with the respective HPV type. No evidence exists of protection against disease caused by HPV types with which females are infected at the time of vaccination. However, females infected with one or more vaccine HPV types before vaccination would be protected against disease caused by the other vaccine HPV types. The vaccine is administered by intramuscular injection, and the recommended schedule is a 3-dose series with the second and third doses administered 2 and 6 months after the first dose. The recommended age for vaccination of females is 11-12 years. Vaccine can be administered as young as age 9 years. Catch-up vaccination is recommended for females aged 13--26 years who have not been previously vaccinated. Vaccination is not a substitute for routine cervical cancer screening, and vaccinated females should have cervical cancer screening as recommended.

The guidance in this report is for evaluation and treatment of patients with complications from smallpox vaccination in the preoutbreak setting. Information is also included related to reporting adverse events and seeking specialized consultation and therapies for these events. The frequencies of smallpox vaccine-associated adverse events were identified in studies of the 1960s. Because of the unknown prevalence of risk factors among today's population, precise predictions of adverse reaction rates after smallpox vaccination are unavailable. The majority of adverse events are minor, but the less-frequent serious adverse reactions require immediate evaluation for diagnosis and treatment. Agents for treatment of certain vaccine-associated severe adverse reactions are vaccinia immune globulin (VIG), the first-line therapy, and cidofovir, the second-line therapy. These agents will be available under Investigational New Drug (IND) protocols from CDC and the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). Smallpox vaccination in the preoutbreak setting is contraindicated for persons who have the following conditions or have a close contact with the following conditions: 1) a history of atopic dermatitis (commonly referred to as eczema), irrespective of disease severity or activity; 2) active acute, chronic, or exfoliative skin conditions that disrupt the epidermis; 3) pregnant women or women who desire to become pregnant in the 28 days after vaccination; and 4) persons who are immunocompromised as a result of human immunodeficiency virus or acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, autoimmune conditions, cancer, radiation treatment, immunosuppressive medications, or other immunodeficiencies. Additional contraindications that apply only to vaccination candidates but do not include their close contacts are persons with smallpox vaccine-component allergies, women who are breastfeeding, those taking topical ocular steroid medications, those with moderate-to-severe intercurrent illness, and persons aged < 18 years. In addition, history of Darier disease is a contraindication in a potential vaccinee and a contraindication if a household contact has active disease. In the event of a smallpox outbreak, outbreak-specific guidance will be disseminated by CDC regarding populations to be vaccinated and specific contraindications to vaccination. Vaccinia can be transmitted from a vaccinee's unhealed vaccination site to other persons by close contact and can lead to the same adverse events as in the vaccinee. To avoid transmission of vaccinia virus (found in the smallpox vaccine) from vaccinees to their close contacts, vaccinees should wash their hands with warm soapy water or hand rubs containing > or = 60% alcohol immediately after they touch their vaccination site or change their vaccination site bandages. Used bandages should be placed in sealed plastic bags and can be disposed of in household trash. Smallpox vaccine adverse reactions are diagnosed on the basis of clinical examination and history, and certain reactions can be managed by observation and supportive care. Adverse reactions that are usually self-limited include fever, headache, fatigue, myalgia, chills, local skin reactions, nonspecific rashes, erythema multiforme, lymphadenopathy, and pain at the vaccination site. Other reactions are most often diagnosed through a complete history and physical and might require additional therapies (e.g., VIG, a first-line therapy and cidofovir, a second-line therapy). Adverse reactions that might require further evaluation or therapy include inadvertent inoculation, generalized vaccinia (GV), eczema vaccinatum (EV), progressive vaccinia (PV), postvaccinial central nervous system disease, and fetal vaccinia. Inadvertent inoculation occurs when vaccinia virus is transferred from a vaccination site to a second location on the vaccinee or to a close contact. Usually, this condition is self-limited and no additional care is needed. Inoculations of the eye and eyelid require evaluation by an ophthalmologist and might require therapy with topical antiviral or antibacterial medications, VIG, or topical steroids. GV is characterized by a disseminated maculopapular or vesicular rash, frequently on an erythematous base, which usually occurs 6-9 days after first-time vaccination. This condition is usually self-limited and benign, although treatment with VIG might be required when the patient is systemically ill or found to have an underlying immunocompromising condition. Infection-control precautions should be used to prevent secondary transmission and nosocomial infection. EV occurs among persons with a history of atopic dermatitis (eczema), irrespective of disease severity or activity, and is a localized or generalized papular, vesicular, or pustular rash, which can occur anywhere on the body, with a predilection for areas of previous atopic dermatitis lesions. Patients with EV are often systemically ill and usually require VIG. Infection-control precautions should be used to prevent secondary transmission and nosocomial infection. PV is a rare, severe, and often fatal complication among persons with immunodeficiencies, characterized by painless progressive necrosis at the vaccination site with or without metastases to distant sites (e.g., skin, bones, and other viscera). This disease carries a high mortality rate, and management of PV should include aggressive therapy with VIG, intensive monitoring, and tertiary-level supportive care. Anecdotal experience suggests that, despite treatment with VIG, persons with cell-mediated immune deficits have a poorer prognosis than those with humoral deficits. Infection-control precautions should be used to prevent secondary transmission and nosocomial infection. Central nervous system disease, which includes postvaccinial encephalopathy (PVE) and postvaccinial encephalomyelitis (or encephalitis) (PVEM), occur after smallpox vaccination. PVE is most common among infants aged < 12 months. Clinical symptoms of central nervous system disease indicate cerebral or cerebellar dysfunction with headache, fever, vomiting, altered mental status, lethargy, seizures, and coma. PVE and PVEM are not believed to be a result of replicating vaccinia virus and are diagnoses of exclusion. Although no specific therapy exists for PVE or PVEM, supportive care, anticonvulsants, and intensive care might be required. Fetal vaccinia, resulting from vaccinial transmission from mother to fetus, is a rare, but serious, complication of smallpox vaccination during pregnancy or shortly before conception. It is manifested by skin lesions and organ involvement, and often results in fetal or neonatal death. No known reliable intrauterine diagnostic test is available to confirm fetal infection. Given the rarity of congenital vaccinia among live-born infants, vaccination during pregnancy should not ordinarily be a reason to consider termination of pregnancy. No known indication exists for routine, prophylactic use of VIG in an unintentionally vaccinated pregnant woman; however, VIG should not be withheld if a pregnant woman develops a condition where VIG is needed. Other less-common adverse events after smallpox vaccination have been reported to occur in temporal association with smallpox vaccination, but causality has not been established. Prophylactic treatment with VIG is not recommended for persons or close contacts with contraindications to smallpox vaccination who are inadvertently inoculated or exposed. These persons should be followed closely for early recognition of adverse reactions that might develop, and clinicians are encouraged to enroll these persons in the CDC registry by calling the Clinician Information Line at 877-554-4625. To request clinical consultation and IND therapies for vaccinia-related adverse reactions for civilians, contact your state health department or CDC's Clinician Information Line (877-554-4625). Clinical evaluation tools are available at http.//www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/vaccination/clineval. Clinical specimen-collection guidance is available at http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/vaccination/vaccinia-specimen-collection.asp. Physicians at military medical facilities can request VIG or cidofovir by calling the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) at 301-619-2257 or 888-USA-RIID.

This report updates the 2002 recommendations by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) on the use of influenza vaccine and antiviral agents (CDC. Prevention and Control of Influenza: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP]. MMWR 2002;51 [No. RR-3]:1-31). The 2003 recommendations include new or updated information regarding 1) the timing of influenza vaccination by age and risk group; 2) influenza vaccine for children aged 6-23 months; 3) the 2003-2004 trivalent inactivated vaccine virus strains: A/Moscow/10/99 (H3N2)-like, A/New Caledonia/20/99 (H1N1)-like, and B/Hong Kong/330/2001-like antigens (for the A/Moscow/10/99 [H3N2]-like antigen, manufacturers will use the antigenically equivalent A/Panama/2007/99 [H3N2] virus, and for the B/Hong Kong/330/2001-like antigen, manufacturers will use either B/Hong Kong/330/2001 or the antigenically equivalent B/Hong Kong/1434/2002); 4) availability of certain influenza vaccine doses with reduced thimerosal content, including single 0.25 mL-dose syringes; and 5) manufacturers of influenza vaccine for the U.S. market. Although the optimal time to vaccinate against influenza is October and November, vaccination in December and later continues to be strongly recommended A link to this report and other information regarding influenza can be accessed at http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/flu/fluvirus.htm.

These revised recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) on measles, mumps, and rubella prevention supersede recommendations published in 1989 and 1990. This statement summarizes the goals and current strategies for measles, rubella, and congenital rubella syndrome (CRS) elimination and for mumps reduction in the United States. Changes from previous recommendations include: Emphasis on the use of combined MMR vaccine for most indications; A change in the recommended age for routine vaccination to 12-15 months for the first dose of MMR, and to 4-6 years for the second dose of MMR; A recommendation that all states take immediate steps to implement a two dose MMR requirement for school entry and any additional measures needed to ensure that all school-aged children are vaccinated with two doses of MMR by 2001; A clarification of the role of serologic screening to determine immunity; A change in the criteria for determining acceptable evidence of rubella immunity; A recommendation that all persons who work in health-care facilities have acceptable evidence of measles and rubella immunity; Changes in the recommended interval between administration of immune globulin and measles vaccination; and Updated information on adverse events and contraindications, particularly for persons with severe HIV infection, persons with a history of egg allergy or gelatin allergy, persons with a history of thrombocytopenia, and persons receiving steroid therapy.

The availability of an increasing number of antiretroviral agents and the rapid evolution of new information has introduced substantial complexity into treatment regimens for persons infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). In 1996, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation convened the Panel on Clinical Practices for the Treatment of HIV to develop guidelines for clinical management of HIV-infected adults and adolescents (CDC. Report of the NIH Panel To Define Principles of Therapy of HIV Infection and Guidelines for the use of antiretroviral agents in HIV-infected adults and adolescents. MMWR 1998;47[RR-5]:1-41). This report, which updates the 1998 guidelines, addresses 1) using testing for plasma HIV ribonucleic acid levels (i.e., viral load) and CD4+ T cell count; 2) using testing for antiretroviral drug resistance; 3) considerations for when to initiate therapy; 4) adherence to antiretroviral therapy; 5) considerations for therapy among patients with advanced disease; 6) therapy-related adverse events; 7) interruption of therapy; 8) considerations for changing therapy and available therapeutic options; 9) treatment for acute HIV infection; 10) considerations for antiretroviral therapy among adolescents; 11) considerations for antiretroviral therapy among pregnant women; and 12) concerns related to transmission of HIV to others. Antiretroviral regimens are complex, have serious side effects, pose difficulty with adherence, and carry serious potential consequences from the development of viral resistance because of nonadherence to the drug regimen or suboptimal levels of antiretroviral agents. Patient education and involvement in therapeutic decisions is critical. Treatment should usually be offered to all patients with symptoms ascribed to HIV infection. Recommendations for offering antiretroviral therapy among asymptomatic patients require analysis of real and potential risks and benefits. Treatment should be offered to persons who have <350 CD4+ T cells/mm3 or plasma HIV ribonucleic acid (RNA) levels of >55,000 copies/mL (by b-deoxyribonucleic acid [bDNA] or reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction [RT-PCR] assays). The recommendation to treat asymptomatic patients should be based on the willingness and readiness of the person to begin therapy; the degree of existing immunodeficiency as determined by the CD4+ T cell count; the risk for disease progression as determined by the CD4+ T cell count and level of plasma HIV RNA; the potential benefits and risks of initiating therapy in an asymptomatic person; and the likelihood, after counseling and education, of adherence to the prescribed treatment regimen. Treatment goals should be maximal and durable suppression of viral load, restoration and preservation of immunologic function, improvement of quality of life, and reduction of HIV-related morbidity and mortality. Results of therapy are evaluated through plasma HIV RNA levels, which are expected to indicate a 1.0 log10 decrease at 2-8 weeks and no detectable virus (<50 copies/mL) at 4-6 months after treatment initiation. Failure of therapy at 4-6 months might be ascribed to nonadherence, inadequate potency of drugs or suboptimal levels of antiretroviral agents, viral resistance, and other factors that are poorly understood. Patients whose therapy fails in spite of a high level of adherence to the regimen should have their regimen changed; this change should be guided by a thorough drug treatment history and the results of drug-resistance testing. Because of limitations in the available alternative antiretroviral regimens that have documented efficacy, optimal changes in therapy might be difficult to achieve for patients in whom the preferred regimen has failed. These decisions are further confounded by problems with adherence, toxicity, and resistance. For certain patients, participating in a clinical trial with or without access to new drugs or using a regimen that might not achieve complete suppression of viral replication might be preferable. Because concepts regarding HIV management are evolving rapidly, readers should check regularly for additional information and updates at the HIV/AIDS Treatment Information Service website (http://www.hivatis.org).

The Task Force on Community Preventive Services conducted systematic reviews to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to improve targeted vaccination coverage (i.e., coverage with vaccines recommended for some but not all persons in an age range on the basis of risk for exposure or disease) among adults aged <65 years at high risk when implemented alone (single-component interventions) and in combination with other interventions (multicomponent interventions). A 1999 report by the Task Force examined the effectiveness of interventions to increase coverage with universally recommended vaccinations (i.e., vaccines recommended for all persons in particular age groups). Three targeted vaccinations recommended for populations at risk are addressed in this review: influenza, pneumococcal polysaccharide, and hepatitis B. The Task Force identified evidence that certain combinations of interventions have improved vaccination coverage. To increase targeted vaccination coverage, the Task Force recommends a combination of interventions that include selected interventions from two or three categories of interventions (i.e., increasing community demand for vaccinations, enhancing access to vaccination services, and provider- or system-based interventions). The Task Force also recommends provider reminders, when implemented alone, to improve targeted vaccination coverage. This report provides additional information about population-based interventions to improve the coverage of influenza, pneumococcal polysaccharide, and hepatitis B vaccines among populations at risk, briefly describes how the reviews were conducted, and provides information that can help in applying the interventions locally.

This report is a revision of General Recommendations on Immunization and updates the 1994 statement by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) (CDC. General recommendations on immunization: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP]. MMWR 1994;43[No. RR-1]:1-38). The principal changes include expansion of the discussion of vaccination spacing and timing, recommendations for vaccinations administered by an incorrect route, information regarding needle-free injection technology, vaccination of children adopted from countries outside the United States, timing of live-virus vaccination and tuberculosis screening, expansion of the discussion and tables of contraindications and precautions regarding vaccinations, and addition of a directory of immunization resources. These recommendations are not comprehensive for each vaccine. The most recent ACIP recommendations for each specific vaccine should be consulted for additional details. This report, ACIP recommendations for each vaccine, and other information regarding immunization can be accessed at CDCs National Immunization Program website at http.//www.cdc.gov/nip (accessed October 11, 2001).

These guidelines were developed by CDC for laboratorians who perform immunophenotyping for detection and enumeration of CD4+ T-cells and other lymphocyte subsets in persons infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). The guidelines describe single-platform technology (SPT), a process in which absolute counts of lymphocyte subsets are measured from a single tube by a single instrument. SPT incorporates internal calibrator beads of known quantity in the analysis of specimens by three- or four-color flow cytometry. With CD45 gating, the relative numbers of beads and lymphocyte subsets are enumerated, and their absolute numbers and percentage values are calculated. This report supplements previous recommendations published in 1997 (CDC. 1997 revised guidelines for performing CD4+ T-cell determinations in persons infected with human immunodeficiency virus [HIV]. MMWR 1997;46[No. RR-2]) that describe dual-platform technology, a method in which absolute counts are derived from measurements obtained from two instruments--a flow cytometer and hematology analyzer. The new recommendations address concerns specific to the implementation of SPT as well as other general topics such as laboratory safety and specimen handling.

During spring 2005, two tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid and acellular pertussis vaccine (Tdap) products formulated for use in adolescents (and, for one product, use in adults) were licensed in the United States (BOOSTRIX, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals, Rixensart, Belgium [licensed May 3, 2005, for use in persons aged 10-18 years], and ADACEL, sanofi pasteur, Toronto, Ontario, Canada [licensed June 10, 2005, for use in persons aged 11-64 years]). Prelicensure studies demonstrated safety and efficacy against tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis when Tdap was administered as a single booster dose to adolescents. To reduce pertussis morbidity in adolescents and maintain the standard of care for tetanus and diphtheria protection, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends that: 1) adolescents aged 11-18 years should receive a single dose of Tdap instead of tetanus and diphtheria toxoids vaccine (Td) for booster immunization against tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis if they have completed the recommended childhood diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and whole cell pertussis vaccine (DTP)/ diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis vaccine (DTaP) vaccination series (five doses of pediatric DTP/DTaP before the seventh birthday; if the fourth dose was administered on or after the fourth birthday, the fifth dose is not needed) and have not received Td or Tdap. The preferred age for Tdap vaccination is 11-12 years; 2) adolescents aged 11-18 years who received Td, but not Tdap, are encouraged to receive a single dose of Tdap to provide protection against pertussis if they have completed the recommended childhood DTP/DTaP vaccination series. An interval of at least 5 years between Td and Tdap is encouraged to reduce the risk for local and systemic reactions after Tdap vaccination. However, an interval less than 5 years between Td and Tdap can be used; and 3) vaccine providers should administer Tdap and tetravalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine (Menactra, sanofi pasteur, Swiftwater, Pennsylvania) to adolescents aged 11-18 years during the same visit if both vaccines are indicated and available. This statement 1) reviews tetanus, diphtheria and pertussis vaccination policy in the United States, with emphasis on adolescents; 2) describes the clinical features and epidemiology of pertussis among adolescents; 3) summarizes the immunogenicity, efficacy, and safety data of the two Tdap vaccines licensed for use among adolescents; and 4) presents recommendations for tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis vaccination among adolescents aged 11-18 years.

On June 10, 2005, a tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid and acellular pertussis vaccine (Tdap) formulated for use in adults and adolescents was licensed in the United States for persons aged 11-64 years (ADACEL, manufactured by sanofi pasteur, Toronto, Ontario, Canada). Prelicensure studies demonstrated safety and efficacy, inferred through immunogenicity, against tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis when Tdap was administered as a single booster dose to adults. To reduce pertussis morbidity among adults and maintain the standard of care for tetanus and diphtheria prevention and to reduce the transmission of pertussis to infants and in health-care settings, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends that: 1) adults aged 19-64 years should receive a single dose of Tdap to replace tetanus and diphtheria toxoids vaccine (Td) for booster immunization against tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis if they received their last dose of Td >or=10 years earlier and they have not previously received Tdap; 2) intervals shorter than 10 years since the last Td may be used for booster protection against pertussis; 3) adults who have or who anticipate having close contact with an infant aged <12 months (e.g., parents, grandparents aged <65 years, child-care providers, and health-care personnel) should receive a single dose of Tdap to reduce the risk for transmitting pertussis. An interval as short as 2 years from the last Td is suggested; shorter intervals can be used. When possible, women should receive Tdap before becoming pregnant. Women who have not previously received Tdap should receive a dose of Tdap in the immediate postpartum period; 4) health-care personnel who work in hospitals or ambulatory care settings and have direct patient contact should receive a single dose of Tdap as soon as feasible if they have not previously received Tdap. An interval as short as 2 years from the last dose of Td is recommended; shorter intervals may be used. These recommendations for use of Tdap in health-care personnel are supported by the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). This statement 1) reviews pertussis, tetanus and diphtheria vaccination policy in the United States; 2) describes the clinical features and epidemiology of pertussis among adults; 3) summarizes the immunogenicity, efficacy, and safety data of Tdap; and 4) presents recommendations for the use of Tdap among adults aged 19-64 years.

These recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) for poliomyelitis prevention replace those issued in 1997. As of January 1, 2000, ACIP recommends exclusive use of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) for routine childhood polio vaccination in the United States. All children should receive four doses of IPV at ages 2, 4, and 6-18 months and 4-6 years. Oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) should be used only in certain circumstances, which are detailed in these recommendations. Since 1979, the only indigenous cases of polio reported in the United States have been associated with the use of the live OPV. Until recently, the benefits of OPV use (i.e., intestinal immunity, secondary spread) outweighed the risk for vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP) (i.e., one case among 2.4 million vaccine doses distributed). In 1997, to decrease the risk for VAPP but maintain the benefits of OPV, ACIP recommended replacing the all-OPV schedule with a sequential schedule of IPV followed by OPV. Since 1997, the global polio eradication initiative has progressed rapidly, and the likelihood of poliovirus importation into the United States has decreased substantially. In addition, the sequential schedule has been well accepted. No declines in childhood immunization coverage were observed, despite the need for additional injections. On the basis of these data, ACIP recommended on June 17, 1999, an all-IPV schedule for routine childhood polio vaccination in the United States to eliminate the risk for VAPP. ACIP reaffirms its support for the global polio eradication initiative and the use of OPV as the only vaccine recommended to eradicate polio from the remaining countries where polio is endemic.