Content uploaded by Kathleen Harriman
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kathleen Harriman on Apr 18, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Continuing Education examination available at
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/cme/conted_info.html#weekly.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
Weekly / Vol. 64 / No. 44 November 13, 2015
Great American Smokeout —
November 19, 2015
Sponsored by the American Cancer Society, the Great
American Smokeout is an annual event that encourages
smokers to make a plan to quit, or to plan in advance
and quit smoking on that day, in an effort to stop smok-
ing permanently (1). The 40th annual Great American
Smokeout will be held on November 19, 2015.
In the more than 50 years since the first Surgeon
General’s report on smoking and health, cigarette smoking
among U.S. adults has been reduced by half. However,
since 1964, an estimated 20 million persons have died
because of smoking, which is the leading preventable cause
of disease, disability, and death in the United States (2).
About two out of three adult smokers want to quit smok-
ing cigarettes, and more than half made a quit attempt in
the preceding year (2). However, in 2014, an estimated
16.8% (approximately 40 million) of U.S. adults still
smoke (3). Getting effective help through counseling
and medications can increase the chances of quitting by
as much as three-fold (4).
Additional information and support for quitting
smoking is available by telephone at 800-QUIT-NOW
(800-784-8669). CDC’s Tips from Former Smokers
campaign offers additional quit resources at http://www.
cdc.gov/tips.
References
1. American Cancer Society. The Great American Smokeout. Atlanta,
GA: American Cancer Society; 2015.
2. US Department of Health and Human Services. The health
consequences of smoking—50 years of progress: a report of the
Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and
Human Services, CDC; 2014.
3. Jamal A, Homa DM, O’Connor E, et al. Current cigarette smoking
among adults — United States, 2005–2014. MMWR Morb Mortal
Wkly Rep 2015;64:1233–40.
4. Fiore MC, Jaen CR, Baker TB, et al. Treating tobacco use and
dependence: 2008 update. Clinical practice guideline. Respir Care
2008;53:1217–22.
Current Cigarette Smoking Among
Adults — United States, 2005–2014
Ahmed Jamal, MBBS1; David M. Homa, PhD1; Erin O’Connor,
MS1; Stephen D. Babb, MPH1; Ralph S. Caraballo, PhD1;
Tushar Singh, PhD1; S. Sean Hu, DrPH1; Brian A. King, PhD1
Tobacco smoking is the leading cause of preventable disease
and death in the United States, resulting in approximately
480,000 premature deaths and more than $300 billion in
direct health care expenditures and productivity losses each
year (1). To assess progress toward achieving the Healthy People
2020 objective of reducing the percentage of U.S. adults who
smoke cigarettes to ≤12.0%,* CDC assessed the most recent
national estimates of smoking prevalence among adults aged
≥18 years using data from the 2014 National Health Interview
Survey (NHIS). The percentage of U.S. adults who smoke
cigarettes declined from 20.9% in 2005 to 16.8% in 2014.
Among daily cigarette smokers, declines were observed in the
percentage who smoked 20–29 cigarettes per day (from 34.9%
to 27.4%) or ≥30 cigarettes per day (from 12.7% to 6.9%). In
2014, prevalence of cigarette smoking was higher among males,
* Objective TU-1.1. Additional information available at https://www.
healthypeople.gov/2020/topics-objectives/topic/tobacco-use/objectives.
INSIDE
1241 Increase in Incidence of Congenital Syphilis —
United States, 2012–2014
1246 Progress Toward Regional Measles Elimination —
Worldwide, 2000–2014
1252 Global Routine Vaccination Coverage, 2014
1256 Notes from the Field: Meningococcal Disease
Among Men Who Have Sex with Men —
United States, January 2012–June 2015
1258 Announcements
1259 QuickStats
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
1234 MMWR / November 13, 2015 / Vol. 64 / No. 44
The MMWR series of publications is published by the Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, GA 30329-4027.
Suggested citation: [Author names; first three, then et al., if more than six.] [Report title]. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2015;64:[inclusive page numbers].
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Thomas R. Frieden, MD, MPH, Director
Harold W. Jaffe, MD, MA, Associate Director for Science
Joanne Cono, MD, ScM, Director, Office of Science Quality
Chesley L. Richards, MD, MPH, Deputy Director for Public Health Scientific Services
Michael F. Iademarco, MD, MPH, Director, Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services
MMWR Editorial and Production Staff (Weekly)
Sonja A. Rasmussen, MD, MS, Editor-in-Chief
Charlotte K. Kent, PhD, MPH, Executive Editor
Jacqueline Gindler, MD, Editor
Teresa F. Rutledge, Managing Editor
Douglas W. Weatherwax, Lead Technical Writer-Editor
Soumya Dunworth, PhD, Teresa M. Hood, MS, Writer-Editors
Martha F. Boyd, Lead Visual Information Specialist
Maureen A. Leahy, Julia C. Martinroe,
Stephen R. Spriggs, Moua Yang,
Visual Information Specialists
Quang M. Doan, MBA, Phyllis H. King,
Teresa C. Moreland, Terraye M. Starr,
Information Technology Specialists
MMWR Editorial Board
Timothy F. Jones, MD, Chairman
Matthew L. Boulton, MD, MPH
Virginia A. Caine, MD
Katherine Lyon Daniel, PhD
Jonathan E. Fielding, MD, MPH, MBA
David W. Fleming, MD
William E. Halperin, MD, DrPH, MPH
King K. Holmes, MD, PhD
Robin Ikeda, MD, MPH
Rima F. Khabbaz, MD
Phyllis Meadows, PhD, MSN, RN
Jewel Mullen, MD, MPH, MPA
Jeff Niederdeppe, PhD
Patricia Quinlisk, MD, MPH
Patrick L. Remington, MD, MPH
Carlos Roig, MS, MA
William L. Roper, MD, MPH
William Schaffner, MD
US Department of Health and Human Services/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
adults aged 25–44 years, multiracial persons and American
Indian/Alaska Natives, persons who have a General Education
Development certificate, live below the federal poverty level,
live in the Midwest, are insured through Medicaid or are
uninsured, have a disability or limitation, or are lesbian, gay,
or bisexual. Proven population-based interventions, includ-
ing tobacco price increases, comprehensive smoke-free laws,
high impact mass media campaigns, and barrier-free access
to quitting assistance, are critical to reduce cigarette smoking
and smoking-related disease and death among U.S. adults.†
NHIS is an annual, nationally representative, in-person
survey of the noninstitutionalized U.S. civilian population.
The NHIS core questionnaire is administered to a randomly
selected adult in each sampled family. The 2014 NHIS
included 36,697 respondents aged ≥18 years; the response
rate was 58.9%. Current cigarette smokers were respondents
who reported smoking ≥100 cigarettes during their lifetimes
and, at the time of interview, reported smoking every day or
some days. Former cigarette smokers were respondents who
reported smoking ≥100 cigarettes during their lifetime but
currently did not smoke.
Data were adjusted for differences in the probability of selection
and nonresponse, and weighted to provide nationally representa-
tive estimates. Current smoking was assessed overall and by sex, age,
race/ethnicity, education, poverty status,§ U.S. Census region,¶
† CDC. Best Practices for Comprehensive Tobacco Control Programs — 2014.
Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2014.
Available at http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/stateandcommunity/best_practices/
index.htm.
§ Based on reported family income; 2005 estimates are based on reported family
income and 2004 poverty thresholds published by the U.S. Census Bureau,
and 2014 estimates are based on reported family income and 2013 poverty
thresholds published by the U.S. Census Bureau.
¶ Northeast: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Midwest: Illinois, Indiana,
Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio,
South Dakota, and Wisconsin. South: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, District
of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi,
North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and
West Virginia. West: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho,
Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
MMWR / November 13, 2015 / Vol. 64 / No. 44 1235
US Department of Health and Human Services/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
health insurance coverage,** disability/limitation status,†† and
sexual orientation.§§ The mean number of cigarettes smoked
per day was calculated among daily smokers. Differences
between groups were assessed using a Wald F-test, with statisti-
cal significance defined as p<0.05. Logistic regression was used
to analyze trends using annual NHIS data from 2005 through
2014. Percentage changes in prevalence rates between 2005 and
2014 were calculated.
Current cigarette smoking among U.S. adults declined from
20.9% (45.1 million persons) in 2005 to 16.8% (40.0 million)
in 2014, representing a 19.8% decrease (p<0.05 for trend)
(Figure 1). Cigarette smoking was significantly lower in 2014
(16.8%) than in 2013 (17.8%) (p<0.05). In 2014, prevalence
was higher among males (18.8%) than females (14.8%), and
was highest among adults aged 25–44 years (20.0%) and lowest
among persons aged ≥65 years (8.5%) (Table). Among racial
and ethnic groups, smoking prevalence was highest among
American Indian/Alaska Natives (29.2%) and multiracial
adults (27.9%), and lowest among Asians (9.5%). Among
adults aged ≥25 years, prevalence was highest among persons
Summary
What is already known on this topic?
Smoking is the leading cause of preventable disease and death
in the United States, resulting in more than 480,000 premature
deaths and over $300 billion in direct health care expenditures
and productivity losses each year.
What is added by this report?
Cigarette smoking among U.S. adults declined from 20.9% in
2005 (45.1 million smokers) to 16.8% in 2014 (40.0 million);
cigarette smoking declined a full percentage point from 2013 to
2014 alone. However, disparities in smoking prevalence persist.
In 2014, cigarette smoking prevalence was higher among adults
on Medicaid (29.1%) and uninsured adults (27.9%) than among
adults with private health insurance (12.9%).
What are the implications for public health practice?
Proven population-based interventions, including tobacco price
increases, comprehensive smoke-free laws, high-impact tobacco
education mass media campaigns, and barrier-free access to
quitting assistance, are critical to reduce cigarette smoking and
smoking-related disease and death among U.S. adults..
** Medicaid only: Anyone reporting having Medicaid coverage, but no other
insurance coverage, at the time of the interview. Persons reporting both
Medicaid and “private insurance” were included in the “private insurance”
category. Medicare only: Anyone reporting having Medicare coverage, but no
other insurance coverage, at the time of the interview. Persons reporting both
Medicare and “private insurance” were included in the “private insurance”
category. Private insurance: Any comprehensive private insurance plan
(including health maintenance and preferred provider organizations), obtained
through an employer, purchased directly, or purchased through local or
community programs, and excludes plans that pay for only one type of service,
such as accidents or dental care. A small number of persons (132 respondents)
were covered by both “other public insurance” and private plans and were
included in both categories. For 2014, this group also included plans purchased
through the Health Insurance Marketplace or a state-based exchange. Other
public insurance: Includes Children’s Health Insurance Program, state-
sponsored or other government-sponsored health plan, and military plans. A
small number of persons (132 respondents) were covered by both “other public
insurance” and private plans and were included in both categories. This does
not include anyone reporting any Medicare or Medicaid coverage. Uninsured:
Having no private health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, Children’s Health
Insurance Program, state-sponsored or other government-sponsored health
plan, or military plan, or having only Indian Health Service coverage, or
having only a private plan that paid for one type of service, such as accidents
or dental care. Those who were dual eligible (enrolled in both Medicaid and
Medicare) or reported Medicaid or Medicare and any other coverage were
excluded unless they also had “private” insurance coverage.
†† Based on self–reported presence of selected impairments including vision,
hearing, cognition, and movement. Limitations in performing activities of
daily living defined based on response to the question, “Because of a physical,
mental, or emotional problem, does [person] need the help of other persons
with personal care needs, such as eating, bathing, dressing, or getting around
inside this home?” Limitations in performing instrumental activities of daily
living defined based on response to the question, “Because of a physical,
mental, or emotional problem, does [person] need the help of other persons
in handling routine needs, such as everyday household chores, doing necessary
business, shopping, or getting around for other purposes?” Any disability/
limitation was defined as a “yes” response pertaining to at least one of the
disabilities/limitations listed (i.e., vision, hearing, cognition, movement,
activities of daily living, or instrumental activities of daily living). In 2014,
the American Community Survey questions were asked of a random half of
the respondents from the 2014 Person File. For population estimates, the
specific adult disability weight was doubled to account for the half of
respondents who were not asked these questions.
§§ Starting in 2013, sexual orientation questions were added to NHIS. To
determine sexual orientation, adult respondents were asked, “Which of the
following best represents how you think of yourself?” with response options
of gay (“lesbian or gay” for female respondents), straight, that is, “not gay”
(“not lesbian or gay” for female respondents), bisexual, something else, and I
don’t know the answer.
FIGURE 1. Percentage of adults who were current cigarette smokers,*
overall and by sex — National Health Interview Survey, United States,
2005–2014
* Persons who reported smoking ≥100 cigarettes during their lifetime and who,
at the time of interview, reported smoking every day or some days.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Percentage
Year
Overall
Men
Women
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
1236 MMWR / November 13, 2015 / Vol. 64 / No. 44 US Department of Health and Human Services/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
with a General Education Development certificate (43.0%)
and lowest among those with a graduate degree (5.4%).
Persons living below the poverty level had a higher smoking
prevalence (26.3%) than persons at or above this level (15.2%).
By U.S. Census region, prevalence was highest in the Midwest
(20.7%) and lowest in the West (13.1%). Adults reporting
a disability or limitation had a higher smoking prevalence
(21.9%) than persons reporting no disability or limitation
(16.1%). Prevalence also was higher among lesbian, gay, or
bisexual adults (23.9%) than among straight adults (16.6%).
From 2005 to 2014, the percentage of adults who were former
cigarette smokers did not change significantly (21.5% and
21.9%, respectively).
TABLE. Percentage of adults who were current cigarette smokers,* by selected characteristics — National Health Interview Survey, United
States, 2005 and 2014
Characteristic
Men Women Total
2005
(n = 13,762)
2014
(n = 16,398)
%
decline
from
2005 to
2014
2005
(n = 17,666)
2014
(n =20,299)
%
decline
from
2005 to
2014
2005
(N = 31,428)
2014
(N = 36,697)
%
decline
from
2005 to
2014
Weighted %
(95% CI)
Weighted %
(95% CI)
Weighted %
(95% CI)
Weighted %
(95% CI)
Weighted %
(95% CI)
Weighted %
(95% CI)
Overall 23.9 (22.9–24.8) 18.8† (18.0–19.7) 21.1§18.1 (17.4–18.9) 14.8† (14.0–15.7) 18.2§20.9 (20.3–21.5) 16.8† (16.1–17.4) 19.8§
Age group (yrs)
18–24 28.0 (25.0–31.1) 18.5† (15.6–21.3) 34.2§20.7 (18.3–23.1) 14.8† (10.6–19.1) 28.4 24.4 (22.4–26.4) 16.7† (14.0–19.3) 31.6§
25–44 26.8 (25.4–28.2) 22.9† (21.4–24.4) 14.4§21.4 (20.2–22.6) 17.2† (16.0–18.5) 19.5§24.1 (23.1–25.1) 20.0† (19.1–21.0) 16.8§
45–64 25.2 (23.7–26.7) 19.4† (17.8–20.9) 23.2§18.8 (17.7–20.0) 16.8† (15.5–18.1) 10.9 21.9 (21.0–22.9) 18.0† (17.0–19.1) 17.7§
≥65 8.9 (7.6–10.2) 9.8 (8.5–11.0) (9.5)¶8.3 (7.3–9.3) 7.5 (6.4–8.5) 9.8 8.6 (7.8–9.3) 8.5 (7.7–9.3) 0.8
Race/Ethnicity**
White 24.0 (22.8–25.2) 19.3† (18.1–20.4) 19.8§20.0 (19.1–20.9) 17.2† (16.0–18.5) 13.7§21.9 (21.1–22.7) 18.2† (17.3–19.1) 16.9§
Black 26.7 (23.9–29.4) 22.1† (19.8–24.4) 17.1§17.3 (15.5–19.0) 13.7† (12.1–15.2) 20.9§21.5 (19.8–23.1) 17.5† (16.1–18.8) 18.6§
Hispanic 21.1 (19.3–23.0) 14.8† (13.2–16.4) 30.0§11.1 (9.8–12.4) 7.6† (6.5–8.6) 31.7§16.2 (15.1–17.4) 11.2† (10.2–12.2) 31.2§
AI/AN 37.5 (20.7–54.3) 25.6 (12.5–38.7) 31.7 26.8 (15.6–38.1) 32.5 (17.4–47.5) (20.9)¶32.0 (22.2–41.7) 29.2 (19.7–38.7) 8.6
Asian†† 20.6 (15.7–25.5) 14.5 (11.1–17.8) 29.8§6.1 (3.7–8.5) 5.1 (3.5–6.7) 16.5 13.3 (10.4–16.3) 9.5 (7.7–11.2) 29.1§
Multiple race 26.1 (16.3–36.0) 33.4 (23.4–43.3) (27.7)¶23.5 (14.8–32.2) 23.2 (15.6–30.8) 1.3 24.8 (17.7–31.8) 27.9 (21.7–34.1) (12.6)¶
Education level§§
0–12 yrs (no diploma) 29.5 (27.2–31.8) 26.6 (24.2–29.0) 9.9 21.9 (20.0–23.7) 19.5 (17.5–21.5) 11.0 25.5 (24.0–27.1) 22.9 (21.3–24.5) 10.1
8th grade or less 21.0 (17.7–24.3) 16.4 (13.2–19.6) 21.9 13.4 (11.1–15.6) 11.3 (8.9–13.8) 15.2 17.1 (15.1–19.0) 13.7 (11.6–15.7) 19.7
9th–11th grade 36.8 (33.3–40.2) 33.3 (29.4–37.3) 9.3 29.0 (26.1–31.8) 25.9 (22.5–29.4) 10.4 32.6 (30.4–34.9) 29.5 (26.9–32.2) 9.5
12th grade ( no diploma) 30.2 (23.5–36.9) 29.8 (23.2–36.3) 1.4 22.2 (16.9–27.5) 21.0 (15.1–26.8) 5.4 26.0 (21.8–30.2) 25.7 (21.4–30.1) 1.0
GED 47.5 (41.5–53.6) 46.6 (40.2–53.0) 2.0 38.8 (33.6–44.0) 38.9 (32.9–44.8) (0.1)¶43.2 (39.1–47.4) 43.0 (38.7–47.4) 0.5
High school graduate 28.8 (27.0–30.7) 24.7 (22.8–26.6) 14.4 20.7 (19.3–22.2) 18.8 (16.8–20.8) 9.4 24.6 (23.4–25.7) 21.7 (20.3–23.0) 11.8
Some college (no degree) 26.2 (24.0–28.4) 19.8† (17.7–21.9) 24.4§21.1 (19.2–22.9) 19.6 (17.6–21.5) 7.2 23.5 (22.1–24.9) 19.7† (18.3–21.1) 16.3§
Associate degree 26.1 (23.2–28.9) 21.2† (16.3–26.1) 18.5 17.1 (15.0–19.3) 13.7 (11.8–15.6) 20.1 20.9 (19.2–22.6) 17.1† (14.5–19.6) 18.4§
Undergraduate degree 11.9 (10.5–13.3) 9.1† (7.7–10.5) 23.6§9.6 (8.3–10.8) 6.9† (5.8–8.0) 28.1§10.7 (9.8–11.6) 7.9† (7.1–8.8) 26.0§
Graduate degree 6.9 (5.3–8.5) 5.8 (4.5–7.1) 16.1 7.4 (5.9–8.8) 5.0 (3.8–6.3) 31.6§7.1 (6.0–8.3) 5.4† (4.5–6.3) 24.0§
Poverty status¶¶
At or above poverty level 23.7 (22.6–24.7) 17.5† (16.5–18.4) 26.2§17.6 (16.8–18.5) 13.1† (12.2–14.0) 25.8§20.6 (19.9–21.3) 15.2† (14.6–15.9) 26.1§
Below poverty level 34.3 (31.0–37.5) 30.4 (27.5–33.2) 11.3 26.9 (24.5–29.3) 23.3† (21.3–25.4) 13.2§29.9 (27.9–31.9) 26.3† (24.6–28.1) 11.9§
Unspecified 21.2 (19.2–23.2) 14.9† (11.8–17.9) 29.8§16.1 (14.8–17.5) 17.7 (12.0–23.3) (9.6)¶18.4 (17.2–19.6) 16.4 (13.0–19.9) 10.8
U.S. Census region***
Northeast 20.7 (18.6–22.9) 17.1† (14.9–19.3) 17.5 17.9 (16.4–19.5) 13.6† (11.8–15.3) 24.3§19.2 (17.8–20.6) 15.3† (13.9–16.7) 20.5§
Midwest 27.3 (25.3–29.3) 21.7† (19.7–23.7) 20.5§21.3 (19.8–22.8) 19.7† (17.2–22.2) 7.2 24.2 (23.0–25.3) 20.7† (18.9–22.4) 14.4§
South 25.3 (23.6–27.0) 19.8† (18.5–21.0) 22.0§18.5 (17.3–19.7) 14.9† (13.6–16.3) 19.2§21.8 (20.6–23.0) 17.2† (16.3–18.1) 20.9§
West 20.1 (18.3–21.9) 15.8† (14.0–17.5) 21.4§13.9 (12.6–15.2) 10.6† (9.5–11.7) 24.0§17.0 (16.0–18.0) 13.1† (12.1–14.2) 22.7§
Health insurance coverage†††
Medicaid only 38.0 (32.7–43.2) 32.7 (28.5–36.8) 14.0 33.5 (30.2–36.7) 27.1† (24.6–29.5) 19.1§34.9 (32.1–37.8) 29.1† (27.0–31.2) 16.7§
Medicare only 13.8 (10.9–16.7) 15.5 (13.2–17.8) (12.6)¶11.6 (9.4–13.8) 10.1 (8.3–11.9) 12.8 12.5 (10.7–14.3) 12.5 (10.9–14.0) 0.2
Private insurance 19.7 (18.7–20.8) 14.3† (13.3–15.4) 27.4§15.1 (14.4–15.9) 11.6† (10.5–12.7) 23.3§17.3 (16.7–18.0) 12.9† (12.2–13.7) 25.4§
Other public insurance 32.8 (27.1–38.4) 26.0 (21.5–30.5) 20.5 24.2 (19.7–28.7) 16.1† (12.3–20.0) 33.4§28.2 (24.6–31.9) 21.1† (18.3–24.0) 25.1§
Uninsured 38.0 (35.5–40.5) 31.5† (28.8–34.2) 17.1§27.6 (25.4–29.7) 23.5 (21.2–25.9) 14.6 33.3 (31.5–35.0) 27.9† (26.0–29.7) 16.2§
Disability/Limitation§§§
Yes —¶¶¶ 25.2 (22.6–27.8) —¶¶¶ —¶¶¶ 19.3 (17.4–21.2) —¶¶¶ —¶¶¶ 21.9 (20.3–23.5) —¶¶¶
No —¶¶¶ 18.9 (17.8–20.1) —¶¶¶ —¶¶¶ 13.6 (12.5–14.7) —¶¶¶ —¶¶¶ 16.1 (15.2–16.9) —¶¶¶
Sexual orientation****
Straight —¶¶¶ 18.7 (17.8–19.6) —¶¶¶ —¶¶¶ 14.6 (13.7–15.6) —¶¶¶ —¶¶¶ 16.6 (15.9–17.3) —¶¶¶
Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual —¶¶¶ 23.1 (16.4–29.8) —¶¶¶ —¶¶¶ 24.5 (19.1–29.9) —¶¶¶ —¶¶¶ 23.9 (19.8–27.9) —¶¶¶
See table footnotes on next page.
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
MMWR / November 13, 2015 / Vol. 64 / No. 44 1237
US Department of Health and Human Services/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Overall in 2014, higher smoking prevalences were reported
among persons insured by Medicaid only (29.1%; 5.5 million)
and persons who were uninsured (27.9%; 8.8 million) than
among persons insured by private health insurance (12.9%;
19.6 million) or Medicare only (12.5%; 2.3 million). Among
those covered by Medicaid only, prevalences were higher among
adults aged 25–44 years (35.6%) and those aged 45–64 years
(29.7%) than among those aged 18–24 years (18.2%) (Figure 2).
Among current smokers during 2005–2014, the number of
daily smokers decreased from 36.4 million (80.8% of all smok-
ers) to 30.7 million (76.8%), while the number of some-days
smokers increased from 8.7 million (19.2%) to 9.3 million
(23.2%) (p<0.05 for trends). Among daily smokers, the mean
number of cigarettes smoked per day declined from 16.7 in
2005 to 13.8 in 2014 (p<0.05 for trend). During 2005–2014,
increases occurred in the percentage of daily smokers who
smoked 1–9 (16.4% to 26.9%) or 10–19 cigarettes per day
(36.0% to 38.8%), whereas declines occurred among those
who smoked 20–29 (34.9% to 27.4%) or ≥30 cigarettes per
day (12.7% to 6.9%) (Figure 3) (p<0.05 for trend).
Discussion
During 2005–2014, the prevalence of cigarette smoking
among U.S. adults declined from 20.9% to 16.8%, including
by a full percentage point during 2013–2014 alone, indicating
marked progress toward achieving the Healthy People 2020 goal
of reducing cigarette smoking prevalence to ≤12.0%. Adults
aged 18–24 years experienced the greatest decrease in cigarette
smoking prevalence; however, recent reports suggest that use
of noncigarette tobacco products, including e-cigarettes and
hookahs, is common among youth and young adults (2,3). The
extent to which emerging tobacco products, such as e-cigarettes,
might have contributed to the observed decline in cigarette
smoking in recent years is uncertain. E-cigarette use was first
assessed in NHIS in 2014, so it is not possible to assess long
term patterns of e-cigarette use relative to cigarette use with
TABLE. (Continued) Percentage of adults who were current cigarette smokers,* by selected characteristics — National Health Interview Survey,
United States, 2005 and 2014
Abbreviations: AI/AN = America Indian/Alaska Native; CI = confidence interval; GED = General Education Development certificate.
* Persons who reported smoking ≥100 cigarettes during their lifetime and who, at the time of interview, reported smoking every day or some days. Excludes 296
(2005) and 200 (2014) respondents whose smoking status was unknown.
† Denotes significant linear trend during 2005–2014 (p<0.05), adjusted for sex, age, and race/ethnicity as applicable. Although the table only presents data from
the surveys in 2005 and 2014, data from all the surveys for 2005 through 2014 were used in the trend analysis.
§ Denotes significant difference in prevalence (p <0.05) between 2005 and 2014.
¶ Indicates an increase in the relative percentage change from 2005 to 2014.
** Excludes 30 (2005) and 62 (2014) respondents of non-Hispanic unknown race. Unless indicated otherwise, all racial/ethnic groups are non-Hispanic; Hispanics
can be of any race.
†† Does not include Native Hawaiians or Other Pacific Islanders.
§§ Among persons aged ≥25 years. Excludes 339 (2005) and 162 (2014) persons whose education level was unknown.
¶¶ Family income is reported by the family respondent who might or might not be the same as the sample adult respondent from whom smoking information is
collected. 2005 estimates are based on reported family income and 2004 poverty thresholds published by the U.S. Census Bureau, and 2014 estimates are based
on reported family income and 2013 poverty thresholds published by the U.S. Census Bureau.
*** Northeast: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Midwest: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. South: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia,
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia. West: Alaska,
Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
††† Medicaid only: Anyone repor ting having Medicaid coverage, but no other insurance coverage, at the time of the interview. Persons reporting both Medicaid and
“private insurance” were included in the “private insurance” category. Medicare only: Anyone reporting having Medicare coverage, but no other insurance coverage,
at the time of the interview. Persons reporting both Medicare and “private insurance” were included in the “private insurance” category. Private insurance: Any
comprehensive private insurance plan (including health maintenance and preferred provider organizations), obtained through an employer, purchased directly,
or purchased through local or community programs, and excludes plans that pay for only one type of service, such as accidents or dental care. A small number
of persons (132 respondents) were covered by both “other public insurance” and private plans and were included in both categories. For 2014, this group also
included plans purchased through the Health Insurance Marketplace or a state-based exchange. Other public insurance: Includes Children’s Health Insurance
Program, state-sponsored or other government-sponsored health plan, and military plans. A small number of persons (132 respondents) were covered by both
“other public insurance” and private plans and were included in both categories. This does not include anyone reporting any Medicare or Medicaid coverage.
Uninsured: Having no private health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, Children’s Health Insurance Program, state-sponsored or other government-sponsored health
plan, or military plan, or having only Indian Health Service coverage, or having only a private plan that paid for one type of service, such as accidents or dental
care. Those who were dual eligible (enrolled in both Medicaid and Medicare) or reported Medicaid or Medicare and any other coverage were excluded unless
they also had “private” insurance coverage.
§§§ Based on self–reported presence of selected impairments including vision, hearing, cognition, and movement. Limitations in performing activities of daily living
defined based on response to the question, “Because of a physical, mental, or emotional problem, does [person] need the help of other persons with personal
care needs, such as eating, bathing, dressing, or getting around inside this home?” Limitations in performing instrumental activities of daily living defined based
on response to the question, “Because of a physical, mental, or emotional problem, does [person] need the help of other persons in handling routine needs, such
as everyday household chores, doing necessary business, shopping, or getting around for other purposes?” Any disability/limitation was defined as a “yes” response
pertaining to at least one of the disabilities/limitations listed (i.e., vision, hearing, cognition, movement, activities of daily living, or instrumental activities of daily
living). In 2014, the American Community Survey questions were asked of a random half of the respondents from the 2014 Person File. For population estimates,
the specific adult disability weight was doubled to account for the half of respondents who were not asked these questions.
¶¶¶ Questions pertaining to disabilities/limitations and sexual orientation were not included in the 2005 National Health Interview Survey.
**** Response options provided on the National Health Interview Survey were “straight, that is, not gay” for men, and “straight, that is, not gay or lesbian” for women.
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
1238 MMWR / November 13, 2015 / Vol. 64 / No. 44 US Department of Health and Human Services/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
this dataset; in 2014, 3.7% of adults currently used e-cigarettes
every day or some days, with use differing by age, race/ethnicity,
and cigarette smoking status (4). E-cigarettes have been pro-
moted for smoking cessation (1); however, the U.S. Preventive
Services Task Force has concluded that the current evidence is
insufficient to recommend e-cigarettes for tobacco cessation in
adults, including pregnant women.¶¶ No change occurred in
the percentage of former cigarette smokers over time, suggesting
that some of the decline in cigarette smoking might be driven
by overall reductions in smoking initiation.
Observed disparities in smoking prevalence are consistent
with previous studies (5). Differences by race/ethnicity might
be partly explained by sociocultural influences and norms
related to the acceptability of tobacco use (6). Differences
in prevalence among persons with different types of health
insurance coverage might be partly attributable to variations
in tobacco cessation treatment coverage and access to evidence-
based cessation treatments across health insurance types (7).
Higher prevalences among persons with disabilities and
limitations might be related, in part, to smoking-attributable
disability in smokers and possible higher stress associated with
disabilities (8). These disparities underscore the importance of
enhanced implementation of proven strategies to prevent and
reduce tobacco use.
Ongoing changes in the U.S. health care system offer
opportunities to improve the use of clinical preventive services
among adults. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
of 2010 (ACA) is increasing the number of Americans with
health insurance and is expected to improve tobacco cessation
coverage (7). The ACA requires most private insurers to cover
tobacco cessation (7); a guidance document issued in May 2014
further clarified this ACA provision.*** However, neither
private insurers nor state Medicaid programs consistently
provide comprehensive coverage of evidence-based cessation
treatments (7,9). In 2015, although all 50 state Medicaid
programs covered some tobacco cessation treatments for
some Medicaid enrollees, only nine states covered individual
¶¶ Additional information available at http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.
org/Page/Document/RecommendationStatementFinal/
tobacco-use-in-adults-and-pregnant-women-counseling-and-interventions1. *** Additional information available at http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq-aca19.html.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
18–24 yrs
25–44 yrs
45–64 yrs
≥65 yrs
Health insurance status
Percentage
Medicaid
only
Medicare
only
Private Other
public
Uninsured
FIGURE 2. Percentage of adults who were current cigarette smokers,* by health insurance status† and age group — National Health Inter view
Survey, United States, 2014
* Persons who reported smoking ≥100 cigarettes during their lifetime and who, at the time of interview, reported smoking every day or some days.
† Data not shown for Medicaid beneficiaries aged ≥65 years, Medicare beneficiaries aged 18–24 years, and uninsured persons aged ≥65 years because of unstable
estimates (relative standard error >30). Error bars represent the 95% confidence interval for each estimate.
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
MMWR / November 13, 2015 / Vol. 64 / No. 44 1239
US Department of Health and Human Services/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
and group counseling and all seven FDA-approved cessation
medications for all Medicaid enrollees (9). Cessation coverage
has the greatest impact when promoted to smokers and health
care providers (7,9).
The findings in this report are subject to at least five limita-
tions. First, smoking status was self-reported and not validated
by biochemical testing; however, self-reported smoking status
correlates highly with serum cotinine levels (10). Second,
because NHIS does not include institutionalized populations
and persons in the military, results are not generalizable to
these groups. Third, the NHIS response rate of 58.9% might
have resulted in nonresponse bias. Fourth, the questionnaire
did not assess gender identity; including transgender persons
might yield higher smoking estimates among sexual minori-
ties. Finally, these estimates might differ from other surveys
on tobacco use. These differences in estimates can be partially
explained by varying survey methodologies, types of surveys
administered, and definitions of current smoking; however,
trends in prevalence are comparable across surveys.
Sustained comprehensive state tobacco control programs
funded at CDC-recommended levels could accelerate progress
toward reducing the health and economic burden of tobacco-
related diseases in the United States (1). However, during
2015, states will spend only $490.4 million (1.9%) of com-
bined revenues of $25.6 billion from settlement payments and
tobacco taxes for all states on comprehensive tobacco control
programs,††† representing <15% of the CDC-recommended
level of funding for all states combined. Moreover, only two
states (Alaska and North Dakota) currently fund tobacco con-
trol programs at CDC-recommended levels. Implementation
of comprehensive tobacco control interventions can result in
substantial reductions in tobacco-related morbidity and mor-
tality and billions of dollars in savings from averted medical
costs (1). Additionally, states can work with health care sys-
tems, insurers, and purchasers of health insurance to improve
coverage and utilization of tobacco cessation treatments and to
implement health systems changes that make tobacco depen-
dence treatment a standard of clinical care (7,9).
††† Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Broken Promises to Our Children: a
State-by-State Look at the 1998 State Tobacco Settlement 16 Years Later. A
report on the states’ allocation of the tobacco settlement dollars. Princeton,
NJ: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; December 2014. Available at http://
www.tobaccofreekids.org/microsites/statereport2015/.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Percentage
Year
1–9 cigarettes per day
10–19 cigarettes per day
20–29 cigarettes per day
≥30 cigarettes per day
FIGURE 3. Percentage of daily smokers* aged ≥18 years, by number of cigarettes smoked per day — National Health Interview Survey, United
States, 2005–2014
* Persons who reported smoking ≥100 cigarettes during their lifetime and who, at the time of interview, reported smoking cigarettes every day.
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
1240 MMWR / November 13, 2015 / Vol. 64 / No. 44 US Department of Health and Human Services/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
1Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease
Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC.
Corresponding author: Ahmed Jamal, ajamal@cdc.gov, 770-488-5493.
References
1. US Department of Health and Human Services. The health consequences
of smoking—50 years of progress: a report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta,
GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2014.
Available at http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/50-years-of-
progress/full-report.pdf.
2. Agaku IT, King BA, Husten CG, et al. Tobacco product use among
adults—United States, 2012–2013. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep
2014;63:542–7.
3. Arrazola RA, Singh T, Corey CG, et al. Tobacco use among middle and
high school students—United States, 2011–2014. MMWR Morb Mortal
Wkly Rep 2015;64:381–5.
4. Schoenborn C, Gindi RM. Electronic cigarette use among adults: United
States, 2014. NCHS data brief no. 217. Hyattsville, MD: US
Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2015. Available at
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db217.pdf.
5. Jamal A, Agaku IT, O’Connor E, King BA, Kenemer JB, Neff L. Current
cigarette smoking among adults—United States, 2005–2013. MMWR
Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2014;63:1108–12.
6. Siahpush M, McNeill A, Hammond D, Fong GT. Socioeconomic and
country variations in knowledge of health risks of tobacco smoking and toxic
constituents of smoke: results from the 2002 International Tobacco Control
(ITC) Four Country Survey. Tob Control 2006;15(Suppl 3):iii65–70.
7. McAfee T, Babb S, McNabb S, Fiore MC. Helping smokers quit—
opportunities created by the Affordable Care Act. N Engl J Med
2015;372:5–7.
8. Borrelli B, Busch AM, Trotter DR. Methods used to quit smoking by
people with physical disabilities. Rehabil Psychol 2013;58:117–23.
9. Singleterry J, Jump Z, DiGiulio A, et al. State Medicaid coverage for
tobacco cessation treatments and barriers to coverage—United States,
2014–2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2015;64:1194–9.
10. Caraballo RS, Giovino GA, Pechacek TF, Mowery PD. Factors associated
with discrepancies between self-reports on cigarette smoking and
measured serum cotinine levels among persons aged 17 years or older:
Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988–1994.
Am J Epidemiol 2001;153:807–14.
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
MMWR / November 13, 2015 / Vol. 64 / No. 44 1241
US Department of Health and Human Services/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Congenital syphilis (CS) occurs when a mother infected with
syphilis transmits the infection to her child during pregnancy.
CS can cause severe illness, miscarriage, stillbirth, and early
infant death. However, among pregnant women with syphilis
who deliver after 20 weeks gestation, maternal treatment
with penicillin is 98% effective at preventing CS (1). In the
United States, the rate of CS decreased during 1991–2005 but
increased slightly during 2005–2008 (2). To assess recent trends
in CS, CDC analyzed national surveillance data reported dur-
ing 2008–2014, calculated rates, and described selected charac-
teristics of infants with CS and their mothers. The overall rate
of reported CS decreased from 10.5 to 8.4 cases per 100,000
live births during 2008–2012, and then increased to 11.6 cases
per 100,000 live births in 2014, the highest CS rate reported
since 2001. From 2012 to 2014, reported cases and rates of
CS increased across all regions of the United States. To reduce
CS, the timely identification of and response to increases in
syphilis among women of reproductive age and men who have
sex with women are essential. All women should have access to
quality prenatal care, including syphilis screening and adequate
treatment, during pregnancy (3).
CS is a nationally notifiable disease with case data reported
to CDC by all 50 states and the District of Columbia through
the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System.* For
surveillance purposes, the definition of a CS case includes both
stillbirths and infants with clinical evidence of CS, as well as
stillbirths and infants born to mothers with untreated or inad-
equately treated syphilis, regardless of the infant’s manifestation
of clinical disease. CDC analyzed cases of CS reported during
2008–2014, describing selected demographic and clinical
features of infants with CS and their mothers. CS rates were
calculated as cases per 100,000 live births by using U.S. natal-
ity data published by the National Center for Health Statistics
(4). Rates of primary and secondary (P&S) syphilis, a measure
that combines two stages of recently acquired infectious syphilis
to monitor incident disease, were calculated among women as
cases per 100,000 women by using U.S. Census population
estimates (5). Because 2014 natality and Census data were not
yet available, CS and P&S rates for 2014 were calculated by
using 2013 denominators.
Disease Trends
The number of CS cases declined in the United States dur-
ing 2008–2012 from 446 to 334 cases (10.5 to 8.4 cases per
100,000 live births), reflecting trends in rates of P&S syphilis
among women, which decreased from 1.5 to 0.9 cases per
100,000 women (Figure). During this period, all regions of
the United States experienced a decrease in CS rates except the
Midwest, where the rate increased 62% (from 4.2 to 6.8 cases
per 100,000 live births) (Table 1).† The increase in CS in the
Midwest was attributed primarily to increases in CS rates in
Illinois and Ohio, which occurred 1–2 years after observed
increases in P&S syphilis among women in these states (6).
Substantial declines occurred in all other regions (51% in the
Northeast, 46% in the West, and 16% in the South), leading
to an overall national decline in CS rates to the lowest level
since 2005.
Racial disparities in CS rates between non-Hispanic blacks
(blacks) and non-Hispanic whites (whites) increased during
2008–2012, because relative decreases in rates of CS were
greater among whites (21%) than blacks (11%). As has been
observed previously, the majority of CS cases (57%) in 2012
continued to be among infants whose mothers were black (2).
During 2012–2014, the number of reported CS cases in
the United States increased from 334 to 458, representing an
increase in rate from 8.4 to 11.6 cases per 100,000 live births.
Increase in Incidence of Congenital Syphilis — United States, 2012–2014
Virginia Bowen, PhD1,2; John Su, MD, PhD3; Elizabeth Torrone, PhD2; Sarah Kidd, MD2; Hillard Weinstock, MD2
* During 2008–2014, a case of congenital syphilis (CS) was defined as illness in
an infant from whom lesional, placental, umbilical cord, or autopsy material
specimens demonstrated Treponema pallidum by darkfield microscopy, fluorescent
antibody, or other specific stain; an infant whose mother had untreated or
inadequately treated syphilis at delivery; or an infant or child who has a reactive
treponemal test for syphilis and any of the following: 1) evidence of CS on physical
examination; 2) evidence of CS on radiographs of long bones; 3) a reactive
cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) venereal disease research laboratory test; 4) an elevated
CSF cell count or protein (without other causes); or 5) a reactive fluorescent
treponemal antibody absorbed-19S-immunoblobulin M (IgM) antibody test or
IgM enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. This definition includes fetal deaths
occurring after 20-weeks gestation or in which the fetus weighed >500 grams and
the mother had untreated or inadequately treated syphilis at delivery. Adequate
treatment was defined as completion of a penicillin-based regimen, in accordance
with CDC treatment guidelines, appropriate for the mother’s stage of infection,
and initiated ≥30 days before delivery. A slightly modified case definition took
effect in 2015 and can be accessed at http://wwwn.cdc.gov/nndss/conditions/
congenital-syphilis/case-definition/2015. These changes add polymerase chain
reaction as an acceptable method for demonstrating the presence of T. pallidum
in specimens; remove the use of IgM antibody testing and assays for defining
cases of CS; and add suggested parameters for defining abnormal CSF cell count
and protein levels in infants.
† Northeast: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont; Midwest: Illinois, Indiana,
Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio,
South Dakota, and Wisconsin; South: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, District
of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi,
North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and
West Virginia; West: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho,
Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
1242 MMWR / November 13, 2015 / Vol. 64 / No. 44 US Department of Health and Human Services/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
As has been observed with earlier CS trends (2), the increase
in CS rates during 2012–2014 reflected an increase in the
rate of P&S syphilis among women (22.2% increase, from
0.9 to 1.1 cases per 100,000 women) during the same period
(Figure). Increases in CS rates occurred in all regions but were
greatest in the West, where the rate more than doubled (from
5.5 to 12.8 cases per 100,000 live births) (Table 1). In total,
19 states reported an increase in number of CS cases and CS
rates during 2012–2014, including California (from 35 to
99 cases; 6.9 to 20.0 cases per 100,000 live births), Florida
(from 37 to 47 cases; 17.4 to 21.8 per 100,000 live births),
Louisiana (from 33 to 46 cases; 52.7 to 72.8 per 100,000 live
births), Michigan (from 7 to 15 cases; 6.2 to 13.2 per 100,000
live births), and New York (from 8 to 22 cases; 3.3 to 9.3 per
100,000 live births). Although there was an overall national
increase, the number of CS cases and CS rates decreased in
multiple large states, including Texas (from 78 to 74 cases;
20.4 to 19.1 per 100,000 live births) and Ohio (from 19 to
15 cases; 13.7 to 10.8 per 100,000 live births).
All racial/ethnic groups experienced an increase in case
counts and rates of CS during 2012–2014 (Table 1). The
CS rate among whites, blacks, and Hispanics increased 61%,
19%, and 39%, respectively. In 2014, the rate among blacks
remained approximately 10 times the rate among whites and
three times the rate among Hispanics.
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
P&S rate (cases per 100,000 women)
CS rate (cases per 100,000 live births)
Year
CS rate
P&S syphilis rate
among women
FIGURE. Congenital syphilis (CS) rate* among infants aged <1 year
and rate of primary and secondary (P&S) syphilis among
women† — United States, 2008–2014§
* CS rates during 2008–2013 were calculated by using annual live birth data as
denominators. Available at http://wonder.cdc.gov/natality-current.html.
† P&S syphilis rates during 2008–2013 were calculated by using bridged race
U.S. Census population estimates as denominators. Available at http://wonder.
cdc.gov/bridged-race-v2013.html.
§ The CS rate and P&S syphilis rate for 2014 were calculated by using 2014 case
counts and 2013 denominators.
TABLE 1. Number and rate* of congenital syphilis (CS) cases by race/ethnicity of mother and region of birth of infant — United States, 2008–2014†
Characteristic
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
No. Rate No. Rate N o. Rate No. Rate No. Rate No. Rate No. Rate
Race/ethnicity of mother
White, non-Hispanic 67 2.9 65 2.9 63 2.9 50 2.3 50 2.3 61 2.8 80 3.7
Black, non-Hispanic 226 35.9 216 35.1 216 36.3 211 35.9 189 32.1 185 31.4 225 38.2
Hispanic 135 13.0 128 12.8 91 9.6 73 8.0 80 8.8 92 10.2 110 12.2
Asian/Pacific Islander 7 2.9 11 4.6 9 3.8 14 5.7 6 2.3 9 3.5 18 7.0
American Indian/Alaska Native 6 13.8 5 11.8 1 2.5 2 5.0 2 5.1 5 12.8 5 12.8
Other 1 N/A 2 N/A 3 N/A 3 N/A 4 N/A 3 N/A 7 N/A
Unknown 4 N/A 4 N/A 4 N/A 5 N/A 3 N/A 4 N/A 13 N/A
Region of birth of infant§
Northeast 37 5.5 30 4.5 26 4.0 23 3.6 17 2.7 17 2.7 30 4.8
Midwest 37 4.2 41 4.7 45 5.3 41 4.9 57 6.8 53 6.4 71 8.5
South 265 16.4 263 16.7 253 16.6 234 15.5 206 13.7 213 14.1 234 15.5
West 107 10.1 97 9.5 63 6.4 60 6.2 54 5.5 76 7.9 123 12.8
Total 446 10.5 431 10.4 387 9.7 358 9.1 334 8.4 359 9.1 458 11.6
* CS rates during 2008–2013 were calculated as cases per 100,000 live births by using annual live birth data as denominators. Available at http://wonder.cdc.gov/
natality-current.html.
† The CS rates for 2014 were calculated by using 2014 case counts and 2013 denominators.
§ Northeast: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont; Midwest: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin; South: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia,
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia; West: Alaska,
Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
MMWR / November 13, 2015 / Vol. 64 / No. 44 1243
US Department of Health and Human Services/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Clinical Characteristics
The proportion of CS cases resulting in stillbirth and early
infant death increased slightly during 2008–2014 (Table 2)
from 24 (5.4%) stillbirths in 2008 to 25 (5.5%) in 2014, and
from three (0.7%) infant deaths within 30 days of delivery in
2008 to eight (1.7%) in 2014. No vital status was recorded
for five infants with CS (1.1%) in 2014.
Among 428 CS patients born alive in 2014, 28 (6.5%)
had one or more clinical sign or symptom of CS infection
(Table 3). The most commonly reported signs were syphilitic
rash (n = 8), jaundice (n = 8), and hepatosplenomegaly (n = 5).
An additional 49 (11.4%) had other evidence of CS infec-
tion, including long bone x-ray findings consistent with CS,
a reactive cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) venereal disease research
laboratory test, or an elevated CSF white blood cell count or
protein level in the absence of another etiology. Forty-two
infants (9.8%) did not have treatment recorded at the time
the case was reported to CDC.§
Among 458 mothers of infants with CS in 2014,
100 (21.8%) received no prenatal care, and no information
about prenatal care was available for 44 mothers (9.6%)
(Table 3). Among the 314 mothers with one or more prenatal
visit, 135 (43.0%) received no treatment for syphilis during
the course of their pregnancy and 94 (30.0%) received inad-
equate treatment. The 135 mothers who received no treatment
include 21 mothers who were never tested for syphilis during
pregnancy and 52 mothers who tested negative for syphilis
in early pregnancy and subsequently acquired syphilis before
delivery. The remaining 62 mothers tested positive, but were
not treated. Benzathine penicillin G is the only known effec-
tive treatment for preventing CS (3). Maternal treatment was
considered inadequate if it was initiated too late (<30 days
before delivery), if a nonpenicillin therapy was administered,
or if the dose of penicillin administered was inadequate for the
mother’s stage of syphilis.
Discussion
The rate of CS in the United States reached a low of 8.4 cases
per 100,000 live births in 2012, after 4 years of steady decline.
However, during 2012–2014, the national CS rate increased
38%. This rapid increase in the CS rate coincided with a 22%
national increase in the rate of P&S syphilis among women
during the same period.
In the United States, a case of CS is a sentinel event reflect-
ing numerous missed opportunities for prevention within
public health and health care systems (7). There are two major
opportunities to prevent CS: primary prevention of syphilis
among women of reproductive age and men who have sex
with women, and prevention of mother-to-infant transmis-
sion among pregnant women already infected with syphilis.
Preventing syphilis among women and their male partners
requires that sexually transmitted diseases (STD) prevention
programs quickly identify and respond to increases in syphi-
lis cases among women and men who have sex with women
in their jurisdictions. CS cases and cases of syphilis among
women should be reported to the local health department
within 24 hours of diagnosis, and STD programs should
review local syphilis case data each week to detect increases in
CS cases or cases of syphilis among women. In addition, CS
cases should be reported to CDC within 1 month of diagnosis.
STD programs should prioritize cases of infectious syphilis
among women of reproductive age and their male sex partners
for case investigation and partner services to reduce transmis-
sion and infection in these populations. STD programs might
also consider enhancing surveillance efforts by determining
pregnancy status on all reported syphilis cases in women and
by monitoring the screening and treatment practices among
prenatal care providers in communities at highest risk for
delivering an infant with CS.
Mother-to-infant transmission of syphilis can be prevented
or mother-to-infant transmission that has already occurred can
§ Newborn treatment for congenital syphilis might include either a 10-day course
of aqueous crystalline or procaine penicillin G or one intramuscular dose of
benzathine penicillin G, depending upon various factors related to 1) identification
of syphilis in the mother; 2) adequacy of maternal treatment; 3) presence of
clinical, laboratory, or radiographic evidence of syphilis in the neonate; and
4) comparison of maternal (at delivery) and neonatal serologic titers. Full guidance
is available at http://www.cdc.gov/std/tg2015/congenital.htm.
TABLE 2. Number and percentage* of congenital syphilis cases by vital status of infant — United States, 2008–2014
Vital status of infant
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%)
Alive 419 (94.0) 402 (93.3) 357 (92.3) 338 (94.7) 314 (94.0) 332 (92.5) 420 (91.7)
Born alive, then died†3 (0.7) 1 (0.2) 7 (1.8) 4 (1.1) 3 (0.9) 4 (1.1) 8 (1.7)
Stillborn 24 (5.4) 27 (6.3) 23 (5.9) 13 (3.6) 15 (4.5) 22 (6.1) 25 (5.5)
Unknown 0 (0) 1 (0.2) 0 (0) 3 (0.8) 2 (0.6) 1 (0.3) 5 (1.1)
Total 446 (100.0) 431 (100.0) 387 (100.0) 358 (100.0) 334 (100.0) 359 (100.0) 458 (100.0)
* Percentages might not add to 100% because of rounding.
† “Born alive, then died” includes live births that died <30 days after birth where death occurred before case investigation and case report were completed.
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
1244 MMWR / November 13, 2015 / Vol. 64 / No. 44 US Department of Health and Human Services/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
be treated when maternal syphilis is detected, and benzathine
penicillin G appropriate for the mother’s stage of infection¶
is initiated ≥30 days before delivery (3). CDC recommends
that all pregnant women be screened for syphilis at their first
prenatal visit (3). Women at increased risk for syphilis and
women living in high-morbidity geographic areas should also
be screened at the beginning of their third trimester and again
at delivery.** When access to prenatal care is not optimal, rapid
plasma reagin screening should be performed at the time that
a pregnancy is confirmed (performed onsite by using a rapid
plasma reagin card test, if possible, and the woman treated as
necessary). Newborn infants should not be discharged from
the hospital unless the syphilis serologic status of the mother
has been determined at least one time during pregnancy and
preferably again at delivery if the mother is determined to be
at increased risk. Any woman who delivers a stillborn infant
should be tested for syphilis.
A substantial percentage of CS cases are attributable to a lack
of prenatal care; even among those receiving some prenatal care,
the detection and treatment of maternal syphilis often occurs
too late to prevent CS. Health departments, in partnership
with prenatal care providers and other local organizations,
should work together to address barriers to obtaining early
and adequate prenatal care for the majority of vulnerable
pregnant women. Women who are uninsured or underinsured
and women with substance use issues have been found to be
at increased risk for receiving inadequate or no prenatal care,
placing them at increased risk for CS (8,9).
The findings in this report are subject to at least three
limitations. First, shortcomings in screening practices (e.g.,
inconsistent syphilis testing of mothers with stillborn infants)
or underreporting can lead to missed cases (10). Second, this
analysis only stratified data at the regional and state levels; the
observations reported here might not reflect more local (e.g.,
county- or city-level) epidemiology. Third, the use of 2013
natality data in the calculation of CS rates might overestimate
the rate of CS by a limited amount; preliminary data indicate
that births might have increased slightly in the United States
during 2013–2014.
Summary
What is already known on this topic?
The rate of congenital syphilis (CS) in the United States
decreased during 1991–2005 but increased slightly during
2005–2008.
What is added by this report?
Although the rate of CS steadily decreased during 2008–2012
(10.5 cases to 8.4 cases per 100,000 live births), the rate
increased during 2012–2014 (11.6 cases per 100,000 live births
in 2014), reflecting an increase in the national rate of primary
and secondary syphilis among women. The 2014 CS rate is
higher than seen in over a decade.
What are the implications for public health practice?
CS and its complications can be prevented by rapidly respond-
ing to syphilis increases among women of reproductive age and
men who have sex with women, and by quality prenatal care,
which includes screening and treatment for syphilis.
TABLE 3. Characteristics of infants with congenital syphilis (CS) and
their mothers — United States, 2008–2014
Characteristic
2014
(N = 458)
No. (%*)
Infant
Symptom status of infants born alive
Total born alive 428 (100.0)
Signs or symptoms of CS†28 (6.5)
Asymptomatic 343 (80.1)
Unknown 57 (13.3)
Treatment regimen of infants born alive
Total born alive 428 (100.0)
Aqueous or procaine penicillin (10 days) 301 (70.3)
Benzathine penicillin (1 dose) 50 (11.6)
Other 33 (7.7)
No treatment 42 (9.8)
Unknown 2 (0.5)
Mother
Mother received prenatal care
Yes 314 (68.6)
No 100 (21.8)
Unknown 44 (9.6)
Treatment status among mothers who received prenatal care
Total receiving prenatal care 314 (100.0)
Adequate treatment§43 (13.7)
Inadequate treatment: <30 days before delivery 78 (24.8)
Inadequate treatment: Nonpenicillin therapy 3 (1.0)
Inadequate treatment: Not enough penicillin for mother’s
stage of infection
13 (4.1)
No treatment 135 (43.0)
Unknown 42 (13.4)
* Percentages might not sum to 100% because of rounding.
† Signs and symptoms of CS in an infant or a child aged <2 years included
condyloma lata, snuffles, syphilitic rash, hepatosplenomegaly, jaundice/hepatitis,
pseudoparalysis, or edema (nephrotic syndrome, malnutrition, or both).
§ Treatment is considered adequate if mothers are treated with a course of
benzathine penicillin G appropriate for their stage of syphilis infection and
treatment is initiated ≥30 days before delivery. Syphilis treatment guidelines
are available at http://www.cdc.gov/std/tg2015/syphilis.htm.
¶ For mothers with primar y, secondary, or early latent syphilis, a single intramuscular
dose of 2.4 million units of benzathine penicillin G; for mothers with late latent
syphilis, 7.2 million units of benzathine penicillin G, administered as
3 intramuscular doses of 2.4 million units each at one-week intervals.
** Information about the incidence of syphilis among women is available at the
state- and county-level through the National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral
Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention Atlas and is available at http://gis.cdc.
gov/grasp/nchhstpatlas/main.html?value=atlas.
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
MMWR / November 13, 2015 / Vol. 64 / No. 44 1245
US Department of Health and Human Services/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Although the United States experienced an overall decline in
the rate of CS during 2008–2012, the rate increased substan-
tially during 2012–2014, to the highest level since 2001. Racial
and ethnic disparities persist, and CS prevention in the public
health and health care sectors remains paramount. Addressing
CS will depend upon health care providers and STD programs
being aware of infectious syphilis among women of reproduc-
tive age and men who have sex with women in their jurisdic-
tions; reporting cases of CS and cases of syphilis among women
of reproductive age and men who have sex with women in a
timely fashion; prioritizing STD partner services for syphilis
cases among women of reproductive age and their sex partners;
instituting more thorough prenatal screening practices when
warranted; ensuring timely treatment of identified cases with
benzathine penicillin G; and removing the barriers to timely
and high quality prenatal care.
1Epidemic Intelligence Service, CDC; 2Division of STD Prevention, National
Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, CDC;
3Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, National Center for Emerging
and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, CDC.
Corresponding author: Virginia B. Bowen, vbowen@cdc.gov, 404-639-5169.
References
1. Alexander JM, Sheffield JS, Sanchez PJ, Mayfield J, Wendel GD Jr. Efficacy
of treatment for syphilis in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 1999;93:5–8.
2. CDC. Congenital syphilis—United States, 2003–2008. MMWR Morb
Mortal Wkly Rep 2010;59:413–7.
3. Workowski KA, Bolan GA. Sexually transmitted diseases treatment
guidelines, 2015. MMWR Recomm Rep 2015; 64 (No. RR-3).
4. CDC Wonder. Natality data, 2007–2013. Atlanta, GA: US Department
of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2015. Available at http://wonder.
cdc.gov/natality-current.html.
5. CDC Wonder. Bridged-Race population estimates, 1990–2013. Atlanta,
GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2015.
Available at http://wonder.cdc.gov/bridged-race-v2013.html.
6. CDC. Sexually transmitted disease surveillance, 2013. Atlanta, GA: US
Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2014.
7. Patel SJ, Klinger EJ, O’Toole D, Schillinger JA. Missed opportunities
for preventing congenital syphilis infection in New York City. Obstet
Gynecol 2012;120:882–8.
8. Taylor MM, Mickey T, Browne K, Kenney K, England B, Blasini-Alcivar L.
Opportunities for the prevention of congenital syphilis in Maricopa
County, Arizona. Sex Transm Dis 2008;35:341–3.
9. Maupin R Jr, Lyman R, Fatsis J, et al. Characteristics of women
who deliver with no prenatal care. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med
2004;16:45–50.
10. Winscott M, Taylor MM, Kenney K. Identifying unreported and
undiagnosed cases of congenital syphilis in Arizona using live birth and
fetal death registries. Sex Transm Dis 2010;37:244–7.
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
1246 MMWR / November 13, 2015 / Vol. 64 / No. 44 US Department of Health and Human Services/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
In 2000, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the
Millennium Development Goals (MDG), with MDG4 being
a two-thirds reduction in child mortality by 2015, and with
measles vaccination coverage being one of the three indica-
tors of progress toward this goal.* In 2010, the World Health
Assembly established three milestones for measles control
by 2015: 1) increase routine coverage with the first dose of
measles-containing vaccine (MCV1) for children aged 1 year
to ≥90% nationally and ≥80% in every district; 2) reduce
global annual measles incidence to fewer than five cases per
million population; and 3) reduce global measles mortality
by 95% from the 2000 estimate (1).† In 2012, the World
Health Assembly endorsed the Global Vaccine Action Plan§
with the objective to eliminate measles in four World Health
Organization (WHO) regions by 2015. WHO member states
in all six WHO regions have adopted measles elimination goals.
This report updates the 2000–2013 report (2) and describes
progress toward global control and regional measles elimination
during 2000–2014. During this period, annual reported mea-
sles incidence declined 73% worldwide, from 146 to 40 cases
per million population, and annual estimated measles deaths
declined 79%, from 546,800 to 114,900. However, progress
toward the 2015 milestones and elimination goals has slowed
markedly since 2010. To resume progress toward milestones
and goals for measles elimination, a review of current strategies
and challenges to improving program performance is needed,
and countries and their partners need to raise the visibility of
measles elimination, address barriers to measles vaccination,
and make substantial and sustained additional investments in
strengthening health systems.
Immunization Activities
To estimate coverage with MCV1 and the second dose of
MCV (MCV2) through routine immunization services,¶ WHO
and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) use data
from administrative records and surveys reported annually by
the 194 WHO countries. From 2000 to 2010, estimated MCV1
coverage increased globally from 72% to 85%, and remained
at 85% through 2014 (Tables 1 and 2). The number of coun-
tries with ≥90% MCV1 coverage increased from 84 (44%) in
2000 to 131 (68%) in 2012, then decreased to 122 (63%) in
2014. Since 2003, countries also have reported the number of
districts with ≥80% MCV1 coverage. Among countries with
≥90% MCV1 coverage nationally, the percentage having ≥80%
MCV1 coverage in all districts increased from 1% (1 of 103)
in 2003 to 44% (57 of 131) in 2012, then declined to 40%
(49 of 122) in 2014. Among the estimated 20.6 million infants
who did not receive MCV1 through routine immunization
services in 2014, approximately 11.6 million (56%) were in six
countries: the Democratic Republic of the Congo (0.6 million),
Ethiopia (0.9 million), India (4.2 million), Indonesia (1 mil-
lion), Nigeria (3.3 million), and Pakistan (1.6 million).
During 2000–2014, the number of countries providing
MCV2 nationally through routine immunization services
increased from 97 (51%) to 154 (79%), with six countries
(Burkina Faso, Morocco, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania)
introducing MCV2 in 2014. Estimated global MCV2 coverage
increased from 15% in 2000 to 56% in 2014. During 2014,
approximately 221 million children received MCV during mass
immunization campaigns known as supplementary immu-
nization activities (SIAs)** conducted in 29 countries, with
23 countries (79%) providing one or more additional child
health interventions during the SIA (Figure). Based on doses
administered, SIA coverage was ≥95% in 16 (55%) countries;
Progress Toward Regional Measles Elimination — Worldwide, 2000–2014
Robert T. Perry, MD1; Jillian S. Murray, MSPH1; Marta Gacic-Dobo, MSc1; Alya Dabbagh, PhD1; Mick N. Mulders, PhD1; Peter M. Strebel, MBChB1;
Jean-Marie Okwo-Bele, MD1; Paul A. Rota, PhD2; James L. Goodson, MPH3
¶ For MCV1, among children aged 1 year or, if MCV1 is given at age ≥1 year,
among children aged 24 months. For MCV2, among children at the
recommended age of administration of MCV2, as per the national
immunization schedule. WHO/UNICEF estimates of national immunization
coverage are available at http://www.who.int/immunization/monitoring_
surveillance/data.
** Supplemental immunization activities (SIAs) generally are carried out using
two target age ranges. An initial, nationwide catch-up SIA focuses on all
children aged 9 months–14 years, with the goal of eliminating susceptibility
to measles in the general population. Periodic follow-up SIAs then focus on
all children born since the last SIA. Follow-up SIAs generally are conducted
nationwide every 2–4 years and focus on children aged 9–59 months; their
goal is to eliminate any measles susceptibility that has developed in recent
birth cohorts and to protect children who did not respond to MCV1.
* Additional information available at http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/goals/
gti.htm#goal4.
† Whereas the coverage milestone is to be met by every country, the incidence
and mortality reduction milestones are to be met globally.
§ The Global Vaccine Action Plan is the implementation plan of the Decade of
Vaccines, a collaboration between WHO, UNICEF, the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation, Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, the U.S. National Institute of Allergy
and Infectious Diseases, the African Leaders Malaria Alliance, and others to
extend the full benefit of immunization to all persons by 2020 and beyond.
Additional information is available at http://www.who.int/immunization/
global_vaccine_action_plan and at http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/
wha65/a65_22-en.pdf.
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
MMWR / November 13, 2015 / Vol. 64 / No. 44 1247
US Department of Health and Human Services/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
TABLE 1. Estimates of coverage with the first dose of measles-containing vaccine administered through routine immunization services among
children aged 1 year, reported measles cases and incidence, and estimated measles mortality,* by World Health Organization region —
worldwide, 2000
WHO region
2000
Coverage
with
1st dose
(%)†
Countries
with ≥90%
coverage
(%)
Coverage
with
2nd dose
(%)
Reported
cases
(No.) §Incidence¶,**
Countries
with
incidence
<5/million
(%) Estimated deaths (95% CI)
African 53 9 5 520,102 841 8 342,800 (225,400–574,200)
Americas 93 63 45 1,754 2.1 89 NA
Eastern Mediterranean 72 57 28 38,592 90 17 54,300 (32,200–91,100)
European 91 60 49 37,421 50 48 300 (100–2,200)
South-East Asia 63 30 3 78,558 51 0 138,500 (102,100–185,900)
South-East Asia (excluding India) 78 33 9 39,723 80 0 52,700 (32,700–81,300)
India 56 NA 0 38,835 37 0 85,800 (69,400–104,700)
Western Pacific 85 44 2 177,052 105 30 10,800 (5,400–53,600)
Total 72 44 15 853,479 146 38 546,800 (365,200–907,000)
Abbreviations: CI=confidence interval; NA=not applicable; WHO=World Health Organization.
* Mortality estimates for 2000 might be different from previous reports: when WHO and UNICEF rerun the model used to generate estimated measles deaths each
year using the new WHO/UNICEF Estimates of National Immunization Coverage (WUENIC) data, as well as updated surveillance data, adjusted results for each year,
including the baseline year, are also produced and updated.
† Coverage data: WUENIC. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2014 (update of July 15, 2015). Available at http://www.who.int/immunization/monitoring_surveillance/data.
§ Repor ted case data: measles cases from World Health Organization, 2014 (update of September 8, 2015); available at (http://apps.who.int/immunization_monitoring/
globalsummary/timeseries/tsincidencemeasles.html. Americas data for 2014 from Immunization in the Americas, 2015 Summary; available at http://www.paho.
org/hq/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&Itemid=270&gid=31828&lang=en.
¶ Cases per million population; population data from United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2013).
** Any country not reporting data on measles cases for that year was removed from both the numerator and denominator.
TABLE 2. Estimates of coverage with the first dose of measles-containing vaccine administered through routine immunization services among children
aged 1 year, reported measles cases and incidence, and estimated measles mortality, by World Health Organization region — worldwide, 2014
WHO Region
2014
Coverage
with
1st dose
(%)*
Countries
with ≥90%
coverage
(%)
Coverage
with
2nd dose
(%)
Reported
cases
(No.)†
Decline in
cases from
2000
(%) Incidence§,¶
Decline in
incidence
from 2000
(%)
Countries
with
incidence
<5/ million
(%)
Reported
genotypes**
Estimated
deaths
(95% CI)
Mortality
reduction
2000–
2014
(%)
African 73 30 11 73,914 86 78 91 51 B3 48,000
(15,400–145,600)
86
Americas 92 77 51 1,817 NA 1.9 11 97 B3 D4 D8
D9 H1
NA NA
Eastern Mediterranean 77 57 66 18,129 53 29 68 21 B3 D4 D8
H1
13,900
(9,500–38,400)
74
European 94 83 84 14,176 62 19 62 60 B3 D4 D8
H1
100 (0–1,800) 67
South-East Asia 84 45 59 28,403 64 18 64 56 B3 D4 D8 46,900
(27,900–80,800)
66
South-East Asia
(excluding India)
85 50 78 3,426 91 12 85 63 B3 D4 D8 8,100
(2,700–25,400)
85
India 83 NA 51 24,977 36 20 47 0 B3 38,800
(25,300–55,400)
55
Western Pacific 97 74 93 131,043 26 71 33 35 B3 D4 D8
D9 G3 H1
6,100
(800–63,300)
44
Total 85 63 56 267,482 69 40 73 58 114,900
(53,700–330,000)
79
Abbreviations: CI=confidence interval; NA=not applicable; WHO=World Health Organization.
* Coverage data: WUENIC. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2014 (update of July 15, 2015). Available at http://www.who.int/immunization/monitoring_surveillance/data.
† Repor ted case data: measles cases from World Health Organization, 2014 (update of September 8, 2015); available at http://apps.who.int/immunization_monitoring/
globalsummary/timeseries/tsincidencemeasles.html. Americas data for 2014 from Immunization in the Americas, 2015 Summary; available at http://www.paho.
org/hq/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&Itemid=270&gid=31828&lang=en.
§ Cases per million population; population data from United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2013).
¶ Any country not reporting data on measles cases for that year was removed from both the numerator and denominator.
** Data as of September 25, 2015, as reported to the Measles Nucleotide Surveillance (MeaNS) database, available at http://www.who-measles.org/Public/Web_Front/
main.php.
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
1248 MMWR / November 13, 2015 / Vol. 64 / No. 44 US Department of Health and Human Services/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
TABLE 3. Measles supplementary immunization activities* and the delivery of other child health interventions, by country and World Health
Organization region — worldwide, 2014
WHO region/country
Age group
targeted Extent of SIA
Children reached
No. (%)†Other interventions delivered
African
Angola 6 mos–9 yrs National 9,169,335 (117) Oral poliovirus vaccine, vitamin A
Benin 9 mos–9 yrs National 2,621,634 (100)
Burkina Faso 9 mos–14 yrs National 8,481,625 (106) Rubella vaccine
Chad 9 mos–9 yrs National 4,886,532 (103)
Cote d’Ivoire 6 mos–9 yrs National 9,640,512 (92) Vitamin A, deworming, medication
Democratic Republic of
the Congo
6 mos–9 yrs Rollover-national§18,539,883 (101) Oral poliovirus vaccine, vitamin A, deworming medication
Guinea 6 mos–9 yrs Outbreak response 1,411,043 (99)
Mauritania 9 mos–14 yrs National 1,489,563 (105)
South Sudan 6–59 mos;
6 mos–15 yrs
National 2,172,737 (91) Oral poliovirus vaccine, vitamin A
Tanzania 9 mos–14 yrs National 20,529,629 (97) Oral poliovirus and rubella vaccines, vitamin A, deworming
medication
Americas
Argentina 1–4 yrs National 2,347,019 (82) Oral poliovirus, rubella, and mumps vaccines
Brazil 1–4 yrs National 9,805,102 (89) Oral poliovirus, rubella, and mumps vaccines
Paraguay 1–5 yrs National 533,889 (72) Oral poliovirus, rubella, and mumps vaccines
Venezuela 1–5 yrs National 2,466,543 (99) Oral poliovirus, rubella, and mumps vaccines
Eastern Mediterranean
Afghanistan 9–59 mos;
6 mos–10 yrs
Subnational 842,134 (94)
Iraq 9–36 mos National 3,295,122 (96)
Lebanon 9 mos–18 yrs National 1,056,830 (72) Rubella vaccine
Pakistan 9 mos–9 yrs Rollover-national§25,091,751 (103) Oral poliovirus vaccine
Somalia 9–59 mos Subnational child
health days and SIAs in
newly accessible areas
1,251,090 (67) Oral poliovirus and tetanus toxoid vaccines, vitamin A,
deworming medication
Syria 7 mos–5 yrs;
≥15 yrs in
high-risk areas
Subnational 769,408 (74) Rubella and mumps vaccines
Yemen 9 mos–14 yrs National 11,368,968 (93) Oral poliovirus and rubella vaccines
European
Azerbaijan 10–14 yrs National 164,560 (96) Rubella and mumps vaccines
Georgia ≥14 yrs National 28,718 (106) Rubella and mumps vaccines
South-East Asia
Bangladesh 9 mos–14 yrs National 53,644,603 (102) Oral poliovirus and rubella vaccines
Western Pacific
Laos 9 mos–9 yrs National 1,569,224 (101) Oral poliovirus and rubella vaccines, deworming
medication
Micronesia 12 mos–49 yrs;
12 mos–57 yrs
National 71,388 (87) Rubella and mumps vaccines
Philippines 6–36 mos Outbreak response 12,098,419 (89) Oral poliovirus and rubella vaccines (only in national SIA)
9–59 mos National
Solomon Islands 6 mos–29 yrs National 394,584 (105) Rubella vaccine
Viet Nam 9 mos–10 yrs Subnational 15,147,961 (93) Rubella vaccine (only in national SIA)
1–14 yrs National
Total 220,889,806
Abbreviations: SIA=supplementary immunization activity; WHO=World Health Organization.
* SIAs typically are carried out using two approaches: 1) An initial, nationwide catch-up SIA targets all children aged 9 months–14 years, with the goal of eliminating
susceptibility to measles in the general population and periodic follow-up SIAs then target all children born since the last SIA. 2) Follow-up SIAs are typically conducted
nationwide every 2–4 years and typically target children aged 9–59 months; their goal is to eliminate any measles susceptibility that has developed in recent birth
cohorts and to protect children who did not respond to the first measles vaccination. The exact age range for follow-up SIAs depends on the age -specific incidence
of measles, coverage with 1 dose of measles-containing vaccine, and the time since the last SIA.
† When coverage >100% the intervention reached more persons than the estimated target population.
§ Rollover national campaigns started the previous year or will continue into the next year.
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
MMWR / November 13, 2015 / Vol. 64 / No. 44 1249
US Department of Health and Human Services/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
however, of the five countries conducting post-
SIA coverage surveys, only one estimated SIA
coverage at ≥95%.
Disease Incidence
Countries report the number of measles cases
from either case-based or aggregate surveillance
systems†† to WHO and UNICEF each year.
Effective measles surveillance includes case-
based surveillance with laboratory testing to
confirm cases. In 2014, 187 (96%)§§ countries
used case-based surveillance, and 191 (98%)¶¶
had access to standardized quality-controlled
testing through the WHO Global Measles and
Rubella Laboratory Network.
During 2000–2014, the number of annually
reported measles cases worldwide decreased
69%, from 853,479 to 267,482, and measles
incidence decreased 73%, from 146 to 40 cases
per million population (Tables 1 and 2). The
results for 2014 represent little change from those reported
in 2013 (280,795 cases and 40 cases per million population),
although fewer countries reported in 2014 (169) compared
with 2013 (175).*** The percentage of reporting countries with
<5 cases per million decreased from 65% (113 of 175) in 2013
to 58% (98 of 169) in 2014. During 2000–2014, the Region
of the Americas (AMR) maintained measles incidence at fewer
than 5 cases per million.
Measles incidence decreased in four of six WHO regions
from 2013 to 2014 (Table 2). In the African Region (AFR),
reported cases decreased 57%, from 171,178 cases in 2013 to
73,914 in 2014, largely because of decreases in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo (from 88,381 to 33,711) and Nigeria
(from 52,852 to 6,855). However, in 2014, outbreaks occurred
in Angola (11,699) and Ethiopia (12,739 cases). In the Eastern
Mediterranean Region (EMR), the European Region (EUR),
and the South-East Asia Region (SEAR), reported cases also
decreased in 2014, although large outbreaks were reported in
India (24,977), Somalia (10,278 cases), and Russia (4,711) in
2014. Increased numbers of cases were reported in 2014 from
AMR, largely because of outbreaks in Brazil (727 cases) and
the United States (667); and from the Western Pacific Region
(WPR), because of large outbreaks reported in China (52,628),
the Philippines (58,848 cases), and Vietnam (15,033).
Genotypes of viruses isolated from measles cases were
reported to WHO by 69 (41%) of the 169 countries report-
ing measles cases in 2014. Of the 24 recognized measles virus
genotypes, 11 were detected during 2005–2008 and eight
during 2009–2014, excluding those from vaccine reactions
and cases of subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (3). In 2014,
among 7,155 reported sequences,††† 1,328 (50 countries) were
genotype B3, 38 (eight countries) were D4, 1,083 (45 coun-
tries) were D8, 92 (12 countries) were D9, four (four countries)
were G3, and 4,610 (18 countries) were H1 (Table 2).
Mortality Estimates
WHO has developed a model to estimate measles mortality
in countries using numbers and age distribution of reported
cases, routine and SIA MCV coverage, and age- and country-
specific case-fatality ratios (4,5). New measles vaccination
coverage and case data for all countries during 2000–2014
†† Available at http://apps.who.int/immunization_monitoring/globalsummary/
timeseries/tsincidencemeasles.html.
§§ Countries without case-based measles surveillance in 2014 were Djibouti,
India, Mauritius, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, and South Sudan.
¶¶ Countries without access to standardized quality-controlled testing by the
WHO Measles and Rubella Laboratory Network in 2014 were Cape Verde,
Sao Tome and Principe, and Seychelles.
*** Countries not reporting in 2013 were Cuba (AMR); Bahrain, Libya, and
the United Arab Emirates (EMR); Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Italy,
Malta, Monaco, San Marino, and Ukraine (EUR); and Brunei Darussalam,
Cook Islands, Fiji, the Marshall Islands, Nauru, Samoa, Singapore, and
Tuvalu (WPR). In 2014, countries not reporting were Djibouti and Oman
(EMR); Albania, Andorra, Croatia, Finland, Italy, Luxembourg, Monaco,
Montenegro, Poland, San Marino, and Ukraine (EUR); Indonesia and
Thailand (SEAR); and Cook Islands, Fiji, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Niue,
Singapore, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Western Samoa (WPR).
††† Sequences were for the 450 nucleotide carboxy-terminal of the nucleocapsid
gene in the measles virus genome. Genotypes isolated from three cases of
subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (D3, D6, and D7) were excluded from
the total. Data (as of October 7, 2015) available from the Measles Nucleotide
Surveillance (MeaNS) database, available at http://www.who-measles.org/
Public/Web_Front/main.php.
20142000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Year
Estimated no. of measles deaths in absence of vaccination
Estimated no. of measles deaths with vaccination
95% condence limits for no. of measles deaths with vaccination
Estimated no. of deaths averted by measles vaccination
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Estimated no. of deaths (millions)
FIGURE. Estimated number of measles deaths and number of deaths averted by measles
vaccination — worldwide, 2000–2014
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
1250 MMWR / November 13, 2015 / Vol. 64 / No. 44 US Department of Health and Human Services/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
led to a new series of mortality estimates. During this period,
estimated measles deaths decreased 79%, from 546,800 to
114,900, and all regions had substantial reductions in esti-
mated measles mortality (Tables 1 and 2). Compared with
no measles vaccination, measles vaccination prevented an
estimated 17.1 million deaths during 2000–2014 (Figure).
Regional Verification of Measles Elimination
Since the last report, the AMR regional verification com-
mittee determined that AMR cannot be declared measles
free, because Brazil has had sustained transmission of a single
measles virus strain for >1 year. The WPR regional verification
committee verified absence of endemic measles in two mem-
ber states and one area, bringing the total to seven in WPR
(6); the EUR regional verification committee verified measles
elimination in 22 member states (7).
Discussion
During 2000–2014, increased coverage worldwide with both
(1st and 2nd) routine doses of MCV, combined with SIAs
in countries that lack high coverage with 2 doses of MCV,
contributed to a 73% decrease in reported measles incidence
and a 79% reduction in estimated measles mortality. During
this period, measles vaccination prevented an estimated
17.1 million deaths. However, on the basis of current trends
in measles vaccination coverage and incidence, the WHO
Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization con-
cluded that the 2015 global milestones and measles elimination
goals will not be achieved (8).
Measles can serve as an indicator of the strength and reach
of the health system, as measles outbreaks reveal populations
poorly served by health services. In high-burden, low-coverage
countries, outbreak investigations have also found low MCV1
coverage where long-standing policies and practices prevent
vaccination of children aged ≥12 months, discourage open-
ing a 10-dose vial when few children are present, and limit
measles vaccination to only one session per month (Global
Immunization Division, Center for Global Health, CDC,
unpublished data, 2015). Addressing these gaps, maximizing
how SIA planning and implementation can improve routine
services, and conducting high-quality SIAs should increase
coverage and equity for all vaccines and further reduce the
number of measles cases and deaths. As coverage improves,
establishing a visit during the second year of life integrating
MCV2 and other child health interventions should help to
further reduce measles burden.
The findings in this report are subject to at least three limita-
tions. First, MCV coverage estimates are affected by inclusion
of SIA doses administered to children outside the target group,
inaccurate estimates of the target population size, and inaccu-
rate reports of the number of doses delivered. Second, under-
ascertainment of measles cases through surveillance systems can
occur, because not all patients with measles seek care and not
all cases are reported. Third, some countries report aggregate
numbers of unconfirmed cases rather than case-based data.
The decrease in measles mortality is among three main
contributors (along with decreases in pneumonia and diarrhea)
to the decline in overall child mortality and progress toward
MDG4 (9). To assess the reasons for the slowing of progress
since 2010 and to modify current strategies as needed, the
Measles & Rubella Initiative§§§ partners have commissioned
a midterm strategy review. Countries and their partners need
to raise the visibility of measles elimination, and secure the
resources needed to implement strategies required to reach
measles control and elimination goals, taking into account the
results and recommendations from the review.
Summary
What is already known on this topic?
During 2000–2010, global vaccination coverage with the 1st
dose of measles-containing vaccine (MCV1) increased from
72% to 85%, and annual measles incidence decreased from
146 reported cases per million population in 2000 to 50 cases
per million in 2010. During 2010–2013, MCV1 coverage and
measles incidence did not significantly change.
What is added by this report?
During 2000–2014, an estimated 17.1 million deaths were
prevented by measles vaccination, and measles incidence
decreased 73%, from 146 to 40 cases per million population.
The number of countries providing the 2nd dose of measles-
containing vaccine (MCV2) nationally through routine immuni-
zation services increased to 154 (79%) in 2014, and global MCV2
coverage was 56%. During 2014, a total of 221 million children
were vaccinated against measles during supplementary immu-
nization activities.
What are the implications for public health practice?
Although measles vaccination has saved millions of lives since
2000, progress has slowed since 2010. Reaching measles control
and elimination goals will require addressing policy and prac-
tice gaps that prevent reaching larger numbers of children with
measles vaccination, increasing visibility of measles elimination
efforts, and ensuring adequate resources for strengthening
health systems.
§§§ The Measles & Rubella Initiative is a partnership established in 2001 as the
Measles Initiative, led by the American Red Cross, CDC, the United Nations
Foundation, UNICEF, and WHO. Additional information is available at
http://www.measlesrubellainitiative.org.
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
MMWR / November 13, 2015 / Vol. 64 / No. 44 1251
US Department of Health and Human Services/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
1Department of Immunization, Vaccines, and Biologicals, World Health
Organization; 2Division of Viral Diseases, National Center for Immunization
and Respiratory Diseases, CDC; 3Global Immunization Division, Center for
Global Health, CDC.
Corresponding author: James L. Goodson, jgoodson@cdc.gov, 404-639-8170.
References
1. World Health Organization. Global eradication of measles: report by
the Secretariat. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2010.
Available at http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/wha63/a63_18-en.pdf.
2. Perry RT, Gacic-Dobo M, Dabbagh A, et al. Progress toward regional
measles elimination—worldwide, 2000–2013. MMWR Morb Mortal
Wkly Rep 2014;63:1034–8.
3. World Health Organization. Genetic diversity of wild-type measles viruses
and the global measles nucleotide surveillance database (MeaNS). Wkly
Epidemiol Rec 2015;90:373–80.
4. Simons E, Ferrari M, Fricks J, et al. Assessment of the 2010 global measles
mortality reduction goal: results from a model of surveillance data. Lancet
2012;379:2173–8.
5. Chen S, Fricks J, Ferrari MJ. Tracking measles infection through non-
linear state space models. J R Stat Soc Ser C Appl Stat 2012;61:117–24.
6. World Health Organization. Report of the third annual meeting of
the Regional Verification Commission for Measles Elimination in the
Western Pacific, March 24–27, 2015; Macao SAR, China. Geneva,
Switzerland: World Health Organization, Regional Office for the
Western Pacific; 2015. Available at http://iris.wpro.who.int/bitstream/
handle/10665.1/11342/RS_2015_GE_03_MAC_eng.pdf;jsessionid=E
BCDBFAAD40BFBA72B07782AD9BF4E83?sequence=1.
7. WHO Regional Office for Europe. Third meeting of the European
Regional Verification Commission for Measles and Rubella Elimination
(RVC). Available at http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_
file/0011/275519/3rd-Meeting-European-RVC-Measles-Rubella-
Elimination.pdf?ua=1.
8. World Health Organization. Meeting report of the Strategic Advisory
Group of Experts (SAGE) on Immunization, October 2015. Geneva,
Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2015. Available at http://www.
who.int/immunization/global_vaccine_action_plan.
9. Liu L, Oza S, Hogan D, et al. Global, regional, and national causes of child
mortality in 2000–13, with projections to inform post-2015 priorities:
an updated systematic analysis. Lancet 2015;385:430–40.
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
1252 MMWR / November 13, 2015 / Vol. 64 / No. 44 US Department of Health and Human Services/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
The year 2014 marked the 40th anniversary of the World
Health Organization’s (WHO) Expanded Program on
Immunization, which was established to ensure equitable
access to routine immunization services (1). Since 1974,
global coverage with the four core vaccines (Bacille Calmette-
Guérin vaccine [BCG; for protection against tuberculosis],
diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis [DTP] vaccine, poliovirus vac-
cine, and measles vaccine) has increased from <5% to ≥85%,
and additional vaccines have been added to the recommended
schedule. Coverage with the 3rd dose of DTP vaccine (DTP3)
by age 12 months is an indicator of immunization program
performance because it reflects completion of the basic
infant immunization schedule; coverage with other vaccines,
including the 3rd dose of poliovirus vaccine (polio3); the 1st
dose of measles-containing vaccine (MCV1) is also assessed.
Estimated global DTP3 coverage has remained at 84%–86%
since 2009, with estimated 2014 coverage at 86%. Estimated
global coverage for the 2nd routine dose of measles-containing
vaccine (MCV2) was 38% by age 24 months and 56% when
older age groups were included, similar to levels reported in
2013 (36% and 55%, respectively). To reach and sustain high
immunization coverage in all countries, adequate vaccine stock
management and additional opportunities for immunization,
such as through routine visits in the second year of life, are
integral components to strengthening immunization programs
and reducing morbidity and mortality from vaccine prevent-
able diseases.
Vaccination coverage represents the percentage of persons in
a target age group that received a vaccine dose. Administrative
coverage is calculated by dividing the number of vaccine doses
administered to those in a specified target age group by the
estimated target population. Countries report administrative
coverage annually to WHO and the United Nations Children’s
Fund (UNICEF) through the Joint Reporting Form (JRF).*
Vaccine stock management information, including availabil-
ity and supply, is also reported through the JRF. Vaccination
coverage surveys estimate vaccination coverage by visiting a
representative sample of households with children in a speci-
fied target age group to obtain information on vaccination
status. WHO and UNICEF derive national coverage estimates
through an annual country-by-country review of all available
data, including administrative and survey-based coverage. As
new data are incorporated, revisions of past coverage estimates
(2,3) and updates are published on the WHO and UNICEF
websites (4,5). The WHO/UNICEF estimates of national
immunization coverage, on which this report is based, are
revised annually and include retrospective changes in estimates
if new data become available.
In 2014, estimated DTP3 coverage was 86% worldwide
among infants aged ≤12 months, ranging from 77% in the
WHO African Region to 96% in the Western Pacific Region,
and representing 115.2 million vaccinated children (Table 1).
Approximately 18.7 million eligible children did not complete
the 3-dose series; among whom 11.5 million (61%) did not
receive the 1st DTP dose, and 7.2 million (39%) started,
but did not complete the 3-dose series. Estimated global
coverage with BCG, polio3, and MCV1 was 91%, 86%,
and 85%, respectively. During 2014, a total of 129 (66%) of
194 WHO countries achieved ≥90% national DTP3 cover-
age; and 57 (29%) achieved ≥80% DTP3 coverage in every
district. National DTP3 coverage was 80%–89% in 30 coun-
tries, 70%–79% in 20 countries, and <70% in 15 countries.
Among the 18.7 million children who did not receive 3 DTP
doses during the first year of life, 9.3 million (50%) lived in
five countries (India [22%], Nigeria [12%], Pakistan [6%],
Indonesia [5%] and Ethiopia [4%]); 11.4 million (61%) lived
in 10 countries (Figure).
Additional vaccines are increasingly being introduced
into national immunization schedules. By the end of 2014,
hepatitis B vaccine was included in the routine immunization
schedule in 184 (95%) countries, 96 (49%) of which included a
dose administered within 24 hours of birth to prevent perinatal
hepatitis B virus transmission. Worldwide (including countries
that have not introduced the vaccine) coverage with 3 doses
of hepatitis B vaccine in 2014 was 82%, and hepatitis B vac-
cine birth-dose coverage was 38% (Table 1). Rubella vaccine
has been introduced into the routine immunization schedule
in 140 (72%) countries, with an estimated coverage of 46%
globally. Coverage with 3 doses of Haemophilus influenzae
type b vaccine, which had been introduced in 192 (99%)
countries† by 2014, was 56%. By 2014, rotavirus vaccine had
been introduced in 74 (38%) countries, and pneumococcal
conjugate vaccine (PCV) in 117 (60%) countries. Coverage
with the completed rotavirus vaccination series (2 or 3 doses,
depending on the vaccine used) was 19% globally, and coverage
with 3 doses of PCV was 31%. MCV2 was included in the
* Administrative data reported to WHO and UNICEF annually are available at
http://www.who.int/immunization/monitoring_surveillance/data/
administrative_coverage.xls. † Includes parts of Belarus, India and Russian Federation.
Global Routine Vaccination Coverage, 2014
Saleena Subaiya, MD1,2; Laure Dumolard, PhD3; Patrick Lydon, MPH3; Marta Gacic-Dobo, MSc3; Rudolf Eggers, MMed(Civ)3; Laura Conklin, MD1
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
MMWR / November 13, 2015 / Vol. 64 / No. 44 1253
US Department of Health and Human Services/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
routine immunization schedule in 154 (79%) countries, with
global coverage reaching 56% in 2014. In general, coverage
for all vaccines varied greatly by WHO region.
MCV2 and booster doses for DTP and poliovirus vaccine
are administered after the first year of life in 163 countries. A
total of 159 (82%) countries now have at least one routinely
scheduled vaccination during the second year of life. The most
common vaccines administered during the second year of life are
MCV2 (66 countries), rubella-containing vaccine (69 countries),
diphtheria-tetanus–containing boosters (107 countries), and
poliovirus vaccine boosters (100 countries) (Table 2).
During 2014, a total of 50 (26%) of the 194 WHO countries
reported experiencing a national level stockout, or shortage of
supply, of at least one vaccine lasting at least 1 month. Overall
110 national stockout events were reported in 2014, with a
mean of 2.2 events per country and a maximum of six events
per country. DTP-containing vaccine shortages represented
40% of the reported stockout events, followed by BCG (25%),
and MCV (14%). At the subnational level, 88% of countries
with a national level stockout experienced a district level stock-
out. In 38 (86%) countries with a district level stockout, the
primary cause identified was a national level stockout.
TABLE 1. Vaccination coverage by vaccine and World Health Organization (WHO) region — worldwide, 2014*
WHO region
Vaccination coverage (%)
BCG HepB BD HepB3 DTP3 Hib3 Polio3 Rota last PCV3 Rubella MCV1 MCV2
Total (worldwide) 91 38 82 86 56 86 19 31 46 85 56
African 84 10 77 77 77 77 30 50 10 73 11
Americas 95 69 88 90 90 90 71 83 92 92 51
Eastern Mediterranean 89 24 83 82 72 82 22 45 42 77 66
European 94 39 82 95 85 95 7 44 94 94 84
South-East Asia 92 29 75 84 30 83 0 0 12 84 59
Western Pacific 97 80 92 96 21 97 1 2 91 97 93
Abbreviations: BCG = Bacille Calmette-Guérin; HepB BD = birth dose of hepatitis B vaccine; HepB3 = 3 doses of hepatitis B vaccine; DTP3 = 3 doses of diphtheria-
tetanus-pertussis vaccine; Hib3 = 3 doses of Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine; Polio3 = 3 doses of poliovirus vaccine; Rota last = last dose of rotavirus series;
PCV3 = 3 doses of pneumococcal conjugate vaccine; MCV1 = 1st dose of measles-containing vaccine; MCV2 = 2nd dose of measles-containing vaccine.
* Weighted regional average.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Number of unvaccinated children (in millions)
Cumulative % of all incompletely vaccinated children
India Nigeria Pakistan Indonesia Ethiopia DR
Congo
Country
Phillippines Iraq Uganda South
Africa
Rest
of the world
Never received DTP1
Dropped out before DTP3
Cumulative % of all incompletely vaccinated children
FIGURE. Estimated number of children who did not receive 3 doses of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine (DTP3) during the first year of life
among 10 countries with the largest number of incompletely vaccinated children and cumulative percentage of all incompletely vaccinated
children worldwide accounted for by these 10 countries, 2014
Abbreviations: DTP1 = 1st dose of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine; DTP3 = 3 doses of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine; DR Congo = Democratic Republic
of the Congo.
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
1254 MMWR / November 13, 2015 / Vol. 64 / No. 44 US Department of Health and Human Services/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Discussion
The Global Vaccine Action Plan, 2011–2020 (GVAP),
endorsed by the World Health Assembly in 2012, is a frame-
work to provide more equitable access to vaccines. The plan
calls on all countries to reach a target of 90% national coverage
for all vaccines and 80% coverage in all districts by 2015, with
sustained coverage levels for 3 years by 2020 (6). The number
of children who had not received a 3rd dose of DTP vaccine
reached an all-time low of 18.7 million in 2014. However,
global DTP3 coverage has remained unchanged at 86% since
2013, with 65 (34%) countries having not yet met the GVAP
target of 90% national coverage. In 18% of countries, national
DTP3 coverage is <80%. The same six countries (India,
Nigeria, Pakistan, Indonesia, Ethiopia, and the Democratic
Republic of the Congo) have been home to more than half
the world’s population of unvaccinated children for the past
19 years. GVAP highlights the need to identify barriers to
vaccine delivery and to ensure accountability through annual
reporting of actions taken to improve immunization programs
for countries experiencing stagnation in coverage.
One key element to addressing the progress toward achieving
global vaccination coverage goals is improving vaccine stock
management, which is a critical component to ensuring vaccine
access. The large proportion of countries experiencing district
level stockouts as a result of a national level stockout provides
evidence that shortage of vaccines at the national level can
affect the supply chain and interrupt immunization services.
Improved and timely demand forecasts to the vaccine industry
are integral to help secure sufficient supplies of vaccines.
Delivering vaccination services during the second year of life
provides an opportunity to fully protect children by providing
booster doses, as well as vaccinating children who were missed
during the first year of life. These missed opportunities leave
children insufficiently protected against vaccine-preventable
diseases such as diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, and measles into
adolescence and adulthood. Establishing a routine visit for
administering vaccines during the second year of life requires
appropriate training of health care workers to implement
new policies, ongoing support to ensure adequate reporting
TABLE 2. Number and percentage of countries with ≥1 vaccination recommended during the second year of life, by vaccine and World Health
Organization (WHO) region — worldwide, 2014
WHO region
No. of countries (%)
Total no.
countries
≥1 vaccination
during second
year*
Measles-containing vaccine†Rubella-
containing
vaccine†
DT-containing
vaccine†
Polio-
containing
vaccine†,§ PCV Other¶
1st dose 2nd dose
Total (worldwide) 194 159 (82) 32 (16) 66 (34) 69 (36) 107 (55) 100 (52) 28 (14) 49 (25)
African 47 22 (47) 1 (2) 17 (36) 3 (6) 11 (23) 11 (23) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Americas 35 34 (97) 3 (9) 6 (26) 9 (26) 33 (94) 29 (83) 7 (20) 17 (49)
Eastern Mediterranean 21 21 (100) 0 (0) 16 (76) 11 (52) 16 (76) 17 (81) 4 (19) 4 (19)
European 53 50 (94) 24 (45) 8 (15) 29 (55) 35 (66) 35 (66) 11 (21) 20 (38)
South-East Asia 11 9 (82) 0 (0) 7 (64) 2 (18) 4 (36) 3 (27) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Western Pacific 27 23 (85) 4 (15) 12 (44) 15 (56) 8 (22) 5 (19) 6 (22) 8 (30)
Abbreviations: DT = diphtheria-tetanus; PCV = pneumococcal conjugate vaccine.
* Excludes Vitamin A supplementation.
† These vaccines might contain more than 1 antigen; thus these columns are not mutually exclusive.
§ Including diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis–containing combinations.
¶ Hepatitis A, Haemophilus influenzae type b, varicella, meningococcal, yellow fever, pneumococcal polysaccharide, and Japanese encephalitis.
Summary
What is already known on this topic?
In 1974, the World Health Organization established the
Expanded Program on Immunization to ensure that all children
have access to routinely recommended vaccines. Since then,
global coverage with vaccines to prevent tuberculosis, diphthe-
ria, tetanus, pertussis, poliomyelitis, and measles has increased
from <5% to ≥85%, and additional vaccines have been added to
the recommended schedule. Coverage with the 3rd dose of
diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine by age 12 months is an
indicator of immunization program performance.
What is added by this report?
The number of countries offering vaccination in the second year
of life is increasing. However, substantial barriers to improving
coverage still remain, including national vaccine stockouts, or
shortage of supplies.
What are the implications for public health practice?
Administering vaccines during the second year of life is a critical
opportunity to provide catch up vaccinations and allows
countries to progress toward a life course immunization
strategy. Establishing a routine visit for administering vaccines
during the second year of life requires appropriate training of
health care workers to implement new policies, ongoing
support to ensure adequate reporting practices, and careful
communication and social mobilization efforts to inform
caregivers of the need for additional vaccines beyond infancy.
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
MMWR / November 13, 2015 / Vol. 64 / No. 44 1255
US Department of Health and Human Services/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
practices, and careful communication and social mobilization
efforts to inform caregivers of the need for additional vaccines
beyond infancy. Countries that already have an established
health intervention visit during the second year of life might
be better poised to introduce or add vaccines because of the
opportunity to synergize between programs while minimizing
the burden on health care workers and systems (7).
Strategies that promote vaccination beyond infancy can help
create a safety net to improve coverage after service interrup-
tions. Additionally, countries with established health care visits
in the second year of life have an opportunity to work more
broadly toward a life course vaccination strategy, whereby all
persons are protected through routine immunization visits
from infancy through adulthood, and important vaccine and
health messages are reinforced at each visit.
1Global Immunization Division, CDC; 2Epidemic Intelligence Service, CDC;
3Department of Immunization, Vaccines and Biologicals, World Health
Organization.
Corresponding author: Saleena Subaiya, yzv3@cdc.gov, 404-718-6596.
References
1. Uwizihiwe JP, Block H. 40th anniversary of introduction of Expanded
Immunization Program (EPI): a literature review of introduction of new
vaccines for routine childhood immunization in Sub-Saharan Africa. Int.
J Vaccines Vaccin 2015;1:00004.
2. Burton A, Monasch R, Lautenbach B, et al. WHO and UNICEF estimates
of national infant immunization coverage: methods and processes. Bull
World Health Organ 2009;87:535–41.
3. Burton A, Kowalski R, Gacic-Dobo M, Karimov R, Brown D. A formal
representation of the WHO and UNICEF estimates of national immunization
coverage: a computational logic approach. PLoS One 2012;7:e47806.
4. World Health Organization. WHO/UNICEF coverage estimates. Available
at http://www.who.int/immunization/monitoring_surveillance/en.
5. United Nations Children’s Fund. Statistics by topic (child/health/
immunization). Available at http://data.unicef.org/child-health/
immunization.html.
6. Global Vaccine Action Plan. Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on
Immunization. 2014 assessment report of the Global Vaccine Action Plan.
Available at http://www.who.int/immunization/global_vaccine_action_
plan/SAGE_DoV_GVAP_Assessment_report_2014_English.pdf?ua=1.
7. Sodha SV, Dietz V. Strengthening routine immunization systems to
improve global vaccination coverage. Br Med Bull 2015;113:5–14.
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
1256 MMWR / November 13, 2015 / Vol. 64 / No. 44 US Department of Health and Human Services/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Meningococcal Disease Among Men Who Have
Sex with Men — United States, January 2012–
June 2015
Hajime Kamiya, MD, PhD1; Jessica MacNeil, MPH2;
Amy Blain, MPH2; Manisha Patel, MD2; Stacey Martin, MS2;
Don Weiss, MD3; Stephanie Ngai, MPH3; Ifeoma Ezeoke, MPH3;
Laurene Mascola, MD4; Rachel Civen, MD4; Van Ngo, MPH4;
Stephanie Black, MD5; Sarah Kemble, MD5; Rashmi Chugh, MD6;
Elizabeth Murphy, MPH6; Colette Petit6; Kathleen Harriman, PhD7;
Kathleen Winter, MPH7; Andrew Beron, MPH8; Whitney Clegg, MD8;
Craig Conover MD8; Lara Misegades, PhD2
Since 2012, three clusters of serogroup C meningococcal
disease among men who have sex with men (MSM) have
been reported in the United States. During 2012, 13 cases
of meningococcal disease among MSM were reported by the
New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene
(1); over a 5-month period during 2012–2013, the Los
Angeles County Department of Public Health reported four
cases among MSM; and during May–June 2015, the Chicago
Department of Public Health reported seven cases of menin-
gococcal disease among MSM in the greater Chicago area.
MSM have not previously been considered at increased risk
for meningococcal disease. Determining outbreak thresholds*
for special populations of unknown size (such as MSM) can
be difficult. The New York City health department declared
an outbreak based on an estimated increased risk for menin-
gococcal infection in 2012 among MSM and human immu-
nodeficiency virus (HIV)–infected MSM compared with city
residents who were not MSM or for whom MSM status was
unknown (1). The Chicago Department of Public Health also
declared an outbreak based on an increase in case counts and
thresholds calculated using population estimates of MSM and
HIV-infected MSM. Local public health response included
increasing awareness among MSM, conducting contact trac-
ing and providing chemoprophylaxis to close contacts, and
offering vaccination to the population at risk (1–3). To better
understand the epidemiology and burden of meningococcal
disease in MSM populations in the United States and to inform
recommendations, CDC analyzed data from a retrospective
review of reported cases from January 2012 through June 2015.
In May 2013 and again in August 2015, CDC requested that
health departments review all cases of probable or confirmed
meningococcal disease caused by any serogroup and reported
among males during January 2012–June 2015 to the National
Notifiable Disease Surveillance System and, if possible, deter-
mine MSM status. The requests were made through Epi-X,
a secure communications network for public health officials,
and follow-up with each state health department occurred
through individual e-mail correspondence. All 50 state health
departments and the health departments of New York City,
Los Angeles County, Chicago, and the District of Columbia
responded to CDC’s request for information. Analysis of
the data was restricted to cases occurring among MSM aged
18–64 years.
During the case review period, 527 meningococcal disease
cases among males aged 18–64 years were reported. Although
MSM status is not routinely collected as part of national
meningococcal case reporting and might be underreported,
74 cases were identified among MSM: 23 from New York
City, 14 from Los Angeles County, 11 from Chicago, and 26
sporadic cases occurring in states or geographic areas where
fewer than three cases of the same meningococcal serogroup
were reported among MSM during a 3-month period (4)
(Table). MSM status could not be verified for the other 453
meningococcal disease cases among men aged 18–64 years
using available data, nor could CDC distinguish between
health departments reporting zero cases in MSM and those
that had no data on MSM status.
Among the 74 reported cases among MSM aged 18–64 years,
the median age was 31 years (range=20–59 years). Thirty-
seven (52%) of 71 patients with known race were white, 29
(41%) were black, two (3%) were Asian, and three (4%) were
other race. Neisseria meningitidis serogroup C accounted for 62
(84%) cases; serogroups B, W, and Y accounted for five, two,
and three cases, respectively; and the serogroup for two patients
was unknown. Overall, 24 (32%) cases were fatal, including
six of the New York City cases (26%), five (36%) of the Los
Angeles County cases, three (27%) of the Chicago cases, and
10 (38%) of the sporadic cases. Among 63 patients for whom
HIV status was reported, 37 (59%) were HIV-positive; among
these, 11 (30%) died. Meningococcal vaccination status was
known for 41 patients; among these, six (15%) were vaccinated
with a quadrivalent meningococcal vaccine. Five of the six
vaccinated patients had serogroup C meningococcal disease,
and two of the five died. Further analysis of meningococcal
disease rates, risk factors, and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis
data from all cases identified among MSM is ongoing.
Notes from the Field
* Occurrence of three or more confirmed or probable cases during a period of
≤3 months among persons who are not close contacts of each other and who
do not share a common affiliation, with a primary attack rate of at least 10 cases
per 100,000 population.
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
MMWR / November 13, 2015 / Vol. 64 / No. 44 1257
US Department of Health and Human Services/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Information on MSM and HIV status of men reported
with meningococcal disease is not currently noted on most
meningococcal case report forms. However, representative and
complete data on MSM and HIV status are needed to better
understand the epidemiology of and potential risk factors for
meningococcal disease among MSM in the United States and
to inform prevention and control recommendations.
Health departments are encouraged to attempt to determine
MSM and HIV status during investigations of meningococcal
disease cases caused by any serogroup occurring among
males aged ≥16 years. If permitted by state law, state health
departments are asked to complete a supplemental case
report form (available at http://www.cdc.gov/meningococcal/
surveillance/index.html) for all cases of meningococcal disease
occurring among MSM and submit the forms to CDC via
e-mail (meningnet@cdc.gov) or via fax (404-315-4681).
Acknowledgments
Local and state health departments that have contributed to
meningococcal surveillance among MSM.
1Epidemic Intelligence Service, CDC; 2Division of Bacterial Diseases, National
Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, CDC; 3New York City
Department of Health and Mental Hygiene; 4Los Angeles County Department
of Public Health; 5Chicago Department of Health; 6DuPage County Health
Department, Wheaton, Illinois; 7California Department of Health; 8Illinois
Department of Public Health.
Corresponding author: Jessica MacNeil, jmacneil@cdc.gov.
References
1. Kratz MM, Weiss D, Ridpath A, et al. Community-based outbreak of
Neisseria meningitidis serogroup C infection in men who have sex with
men, New York City, New York, USA, 2010–2013. Emerg Infect Dis
2015;21:1379–86.
2. Civen R, Nelson El Amin A, Ngo V. Los Angeles County Department
of Public Health. Preventing invasive meningococcal disease: routine and
special vaccination recommendations. Rx for Prevention 2015;6(1).
3. Chicago Department of Public Health. Health alert: invasive
meningococcal disease in men who have sex with men. Chicago, IL:
Chicago Department of Public Health; 2015. Available at https://www.
chicagohan.org/c/document_library/get_file?p_l_id=18130&folderId=9
3622&name=DLFE-677.pdf.
4. Cohn AC, MacNeil JR, Clark TA, et al. Prevention and control of
meningococcal disease: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on
Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR Recomm Rep 2013;62(No. RR-2).
TABLE. Number of reported cases of meningococcal disease among men who have sex with men, by serogroup and reporting jurisdiction —
United States, January 2012–June 2015
Jurisdiction Total
Serogroup
HIV-positive* Died†
C B W Y Unknown
No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%)
New York City 23 22 (96) 1 (4) 0 — 0 — 0 — 15 (65) 6 (26)
Los Angeles County 14 10 (71) 3 (21) 0 — 1 (7) 0 — 5 (42) 5 (36)
Chicago 11 11 (100) 0 — 0 — 0 — 0 — 5 (50) 3 (27)
Other§26 19 (73) 1 (4) 2 (8) 2 (8) 2 (8) 12 (67) 10 (38)
Total 74 62 (84) 5 (1) 2 (3) 3 (4) 2 (3) 37 (59) 24 (32)
Abbreviation: HIV=human immunodeficiency virus.
* Among 63 patients with known HIV status.
† 11 of the patients who died were HIV-positive.
§ Other jurisdic tions reporting at least one sporadic case were Arizona, California, Connec ticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, I llinois, Maryland, Massachusetts,
New Jersey, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah.
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
1258 MMWR / November 13, 2015 / Vol. 64 / No. 44 US Department of Health and Human Services/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Get Smart About Antibiotics Week —
November 16–22, 2015
Every year, more than 2 million persons in the United States
are infected with antibiotic-resistant bacteria and approxi-
mately 23,000 persons die as a result of these infections (1).
The rise of antibiotic resistance continues to represent a seri-
ous threat to human and animal health, national security, and
economies worldwide. November 16–22, 2015, is Get Smart
About Antibiotics Week, an annual observance to raise aware-
ness of the threat of antibiotic resistance and the importance
of appropriate antibiotic prescribing and use.
The use of antibiotics is the single most important factor
leading to antibiotic resistance around the world. Earlier this
year, the White House released the National Action Plan to
Combat Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria, a roadmap to guide
activities like stewardship programs. In addition, stakeholders
joined a White House Forum on Antibiotic Stewardship to
raise awareness and encourage partners to commit to focusing
on stewardship activities in the coming years. The commit-
ments made by those invested in this issue will set the course
to help the nation make measurable progress on this important
public health threat.
Get Smart About Antibiotics Week is a key component
of CDC’s efforts to improve antibiotic stewardship in com-
munities, health care facilities, nursing homes, and on farms
in collaboration with state-based programs and nonprofit
and for-profit partners. Get Smart About Antibiotics Week
coincides with the World Health Organization’s first World
Antibiotic Awareness Week and many other global antibiotic
resistance observances, including those in Europe, Australia,
and Canada. Information on scheduled activities and how to
get involved in combating antibiotic resistance is available at
http://www.cdc.gov/getsmart/week/index.html.
Reference
1. CDC. Antibiotic resistance threats in the United States, 2013. Atlanta,
GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2013.
Available at http://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/threat-report-2013.
Announcements
World Day of Remembrance for Road Traffic
Victims — November 15, 2015
In October 2005, the United Nations (UN) General Assembly
adopted a resolution (1) calling for governments and nongovern-
mental organizations to mark the third Sunday in November each
year as World Day of Remembrance for Road Traffic Victims.
The theme of this year’s World Day of Remembrance is “From
Global Remembrance to Global Action Across the Decade.”
Road traffic crashes kill approximately 3,500 persons each day
and injure or disable approximately 20 million each year around
the world (2). Road traffic crashes are the leading cause of death
among persons aged 10–24 years worldwide, and the leading cause
of death to those in the first 3 decades of life in the United States.
CDC has declared motor vehicle injuries a “winnable battle”
and supports UN and World Health Organization (WHO)
efforts to dedicate 2011–2020 as the Decade of Action for
Road Safety (3). The Decade of Action was launched in May
2011 in more than 100 countries with the goal of preventing
five million road traffic deaths globally by 2020. The UN
General Assembly is also committed to efforts to halve the
number of global road traffic deaths and injuries by 2020 as
part of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (4).
World Remembrance Day is dedicated to remembering the
many millions killed or injured in road crashes as well as their
families and communities, and also pays tribute to the dedi-
cated emergency crews, police and medical professionals who
deal with the traumatic aftermath of road death and injury.
Ancillary materials are available to provide organizations with
action strategies to support victims and survivors (5). Additional
information about the World Day of Remembrance is available
at http://www.worlddayofremembrance.org. Additional infor-
mation about CDC’s motor vehicle injury prevention activities
is available at http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety.
References
1. United Nations. Improving global road safety. Resolution 60/5. New
York, NY: United Nations General Assembly; 2005.
2. World Health Organization. Global status report on road safety 2015.
Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2015. Available at http://
www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/road_safety_status/2015.
3. CDC. Launch of Decade of Action for Global Road Safety—May 11,
2011. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2011;60:554.
4. United Nations. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development. UN Resolution A/70/1. New York, NY: United Nations
General Assembly; 2015.
5. World Health Organization. Advocating for road safety and road traffic
injury victims: a guide for nongovernmental organizations. Geneva,
Switzerland: World Health Organization and Global Alliance of NGOs
for Road Safety; 2012. Available at http://www.who.int/violence_injury_
prevention/publications/road_traffic/ngo_guide.
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
MMWR / November 13, 2015 / Vol. 64 / No. 44 1259
US Department of Health and Human Services/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
* With 95% confidence interval.
† Based on family member’s responses to the question “During the past 12 months, was there any time when
a person needed medical care, but did not get it because the person couldn’t afford it?” and to a question
asking if, during the past 12 months, the person delayed seeking or obtaining medical care because of worry
about the cost.
§ Counties were classified into urbanization levels based on a classification scheme developed by NCHS that
considers metropolitan/nonmetropolitan status, population, and other factors.
¶ Estimates are based on household interviews of a sample of the civilian, noninstitutionalized U.S. population,
and are derived from the National Health Interview Survey family core questionnaire.
During 2012–2014, the percentage of adults aged 18–64 years who did not get or who delayed medical care during the last
12 months because of cost was higher in nonmetropolitan counties (14.6%) compared with metropolitan counties (10.6%–13.0%).
Among adults residing in metropolitan counties, those in large fringe metropolitan counties were less likely to repor t not getting
or delaying medical care (10.6%) compared to those in large central metropolitan counties (12.1%), medium metropolitan
counties (12.6%), and small metropolitan counties (13.0%).
Sources: National Health Interview Survey. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis.htm. NCHS urban-rural classication scheme for counties.
Available at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_02/sr02_154.pdf.
Reported by: Deborah D. Ingram, PhD, ddingram@cdc.gov, 301-458-4733; Shilpa Bengeri.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Large
central
Large
fringe
Medium Small
Percentage
Metropolitan
Nonmetropolitan
Locality
QuickStats
FROM THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS
Percentage* of Adults Aged 18–64 Years
Who Did Not Get or Delayed Medical Care in the Past Year Because of Cost,†
by Type of Locality§ — National Health Interview Survey, 2012–2014¶
ISSN: 0149-2195 (Print)
The Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) Series is prepared by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and is available free of
charge in electronic format. To receive an electronic copy each week, visit MMWR’s free subscription page at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/mmwrsubscribe.html.
Paper copy subscriptions are available through the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402; telephone
202-512-1800.
Readers who have difficulty accessing this PDF file may access the HTML file at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/index2015.html. Address all inquiries about the
MMWR Series, including material to be considered for publication, to Executive Editor, MMWR Series, Mailstop E-90, CDC, 1600 Clifton Rd., N.E.,
Atlanta, GA 30329-4027 or to mmwrq@cdc.gov.
All material in the MMWR Series is in the public domain and may be used and reprinted without permission; citation as to source, however, is appreciated.
Use of trade names and commercial sources is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
References to non-CDC sites on the Internet are provided as a service to MMWR readers and do not constitute or imply endorsement of these organizations
or their programs by CDC or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. CDC is not responsible for the content of these sites. URL addresses
listed in MMWR were current as of the date of publication.
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
