Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Infectious disease forecasting aims to predict characteristics of both seasonal epidemics and future pandemics. Accurate and timely infectious disease forecasts could aid public health responses by informing key preparation and mitigation efforts. Main body For forecasts to be fully integrated into public health decision-making, federal, state, and local officials must understand how forecasts were made, how to interpret forecasts, and how well the forecasts have performed in the past. Since the 2013–14 influenza season, the Influenza Division at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has hosted collaborative challenges to forecast the timing, intensity, and short-term trajectory of influenza-like illness in the United States. Additional efforts to advance forecasting science have included influenza initiatives focused on state-level and hospitalization forecasts, as well as other infectious diseases. Using CDC influenza forecasting challenges as an example, this paper provides an overview of infectious disease forecasting; applications of forecasting to public health; and current work to develop best practices for forecast methodology, applications, and communication. Conclusions These efforts, along with other infectious disease forecasting initiatives, can foster the continued advancement of forecasting science.

Background As countries move towards or achieve measles elimination status, serosurveillance is an important public health tool. However, a major challenge of serosurveillance is finding a feasible, accurate, cost-effective, and high throughput assay to measure measles antibody concentrations and estimate susceptibility in a population. We conducted a systematic review to assess, characterize, and – to the extent possible – quantify the performance of measles IgG enzyme-linked assays (EIAs) compared to the gold standard, plaque reduction neutralization tests (PRNT). Methods We followed the PRISMA statement for a systematic literature search and methods for conducting and reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses recommended by the Cochrane Screening and Diagnostic Tests Methods Group. We identified studies through PubMed and Embase electronic databases and included serologic studies detecting measles virus IgG antibodies among participants of any age from the same source population that reported an index (any EIA or multiple bead-based assays, MBA) and reference test (PRNT) using sera, whole blood, or plasma. Measures of diagnostic accuracy with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were abstracted for each study result, where reported. Results We identified 550 unique publications and identified 36 eligible studies for analysis. We classified studies as high, medium, or low quality; results from high quality studies are reported. Because most high quality studies used the Siemens Enzygnost EIA kit, we generate individual and pooled diagnostic accuracy estimates for this assay separately. Median sensitivity of the Enzygnost EIA was 92.1% [IQR = 82.3, 95.7]; median specificity was 96.9 [93.0, 100.0]. Pooled sensitivity and specificity from studies using the Enzygnost kit were 91.6 (95%CI: 80.7,96.6) and 96.0 (95%CI: 90.9,98.3), respectively. The sensitivity of all other EIA kits across high quality studies ranged from 0% to 98.9% with median (IQR) = 90.6 [86.6, 95.2]; specificity ranged from 58.8% to 100.0% with median (IQR) = 100.0 [88.7, 100.0]. Conclusions Evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of currently available measles IgG EIAs is variable, insufficient, and may not be fit for purpose for serosurveillance goals. Additional studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of measles EIAs, including MBAs, should be conducted among diverse populations and settings (e.g., vaccination status, elimination/endemic status, age groups).

Background Widespread transmission of COVID-19 continues to threaten public health, particularly of rural, American Indian communities. Although COVID-19 risk factors for severe disease and clinical characteristics are well described in the general population, there has been little shared on hospitalized American Indian populations. Methods In this observational study, we performed chart extractions on all persons hospitalized with COVID-19 from April 1 through July 31, 2020 among an exclusively American Indian population living on or near Tribal lands in eastern Arizona. We provide descriptive statistics for the cohort stratified by presentation, comparing those who self-presented or were referred by an outreach program. Exploratory analyses were performed to identify risk factors for morbidity and mortality. Results During the observation period, 2262 persons were diagnosed with COVID-19 and 490 (22%) were hospitalized. Hospitalized persons had a median age of 54 years; 92% had at least one comorbidity, 72% had greater than one comorbidity, and 60% had a BMI of > 30. Most persons required supplemental oxygen (83%), but the majority (62%) only required nasal cannula and only 11% were intubated. The case fatality rates were 1.7% for the population, 7.1% among hospitalizations, and 9.3% among hospitalized patients 50 years and older. All rates that are significantly lower than those reported nationally during the same period. Conclusions We observed a cohort of American Indian patients hospitalized secondary to COVID-19 with greater number of comorbidities compared to the general population but with lower mortality rates. We posit that the primary driver of mortality reduction for this population and the hospitalized cohort was a community-based referral program that led to disproportionately lower fatality rates among the oldest persons.

The Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices recommends that all pregnant women receive the seasonal influenza vaccine and the tetanus toxoid, diphtheria toxoid, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine during every pregnancy. However, vaccination coverage rates are suboptimal among pregnant women in the United States, leaving these women and their unborn children at risk of vaccine-preventable diseases and their complications. We sought to understand the current landscape of published literature regarding maternal immunization, including barriers to and predictors of vaccine acceptance, and identify gaps in the research in order to inform strategies for future programmatic improvement. We conducted a literature search using MEDLINE (OVID), PsychINFO, and CINAHL (Ebsco) databases. The search included published, English-language manuscripts that identified patient, provider, or system-level barriers to, predictors of, or interventions that improved uptake of maternal vaccines among pregnant women in the US. Studies were reviewed using an inductive thematic analysis approach. We included 75 studies in our review. Pregnant women identified 25 different barriers to accepting recommended maternal immunizations; barriers related to vaccine safety perceptions were the most common. Healthcare providers identified 24 different barriers to vaccinating their pregnant patients. The most commonly cited barriers among healthcare providers were financial concerns. Eighteen different predictors of vaccine acceptance were identified. Receipt of a healthcare provider’s recommendation was the factor most frequently reported as a reason for vaccination among pregnant women. We were able to identify gaps in the literature regarding maternal immunization and make recommendations for future research. Efforts to address the challenges of maternal immunization in the United States should include increasing the focus on Tdap, implementing more high-level assessments of safety perceptions and associated concerns, and determining most effective interventions.

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is the leading viral cause of acute lower respiratory tract infection (ALRI), including bronchiolitis and pneumonia, in infants and children worldwide. Protection against RSV is primarily antibody mediated and passively acquired RSV neutralizing antibody can protect infants from RSV ALRI. Maternal immunization is an attractive strategy for the prevention of RSV in early infancy when immune responses to active immunization may be suboptimal and most severe RSV disease and death occur. However, several biologic factors have been shown to potentially attenuate or interfere with the transfer of protective naturally acquired antibodies from mother to fetus and could therefore also reduce vaccine effectiveness through impairment of transfer of vaccine-induced antibodies. Many of these factors are prevalent in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) which experience the greatest burden of RSV-associated mortality; more data are needed to understand these mechanisms in the context of RSV maternal immunization. This review will focus on what is currently known about biologic conditions that may impair RSV antibody transfer, including preterm delivery, low birthweight, maternal HIV infection, placental malaria, and hypergammaglobulinemia (high levels of maternal total IgG). Key data gaps and priority areas for research are highlighted and include improved understanding of the epidemiology of hypergammaglobulinemia and the mechanisms by which it may impair antibody transfer. Key considerations for ensuring optimal vaccine effectiveness in LMICs are also discussed.

•Providers routinely assess, recommend, administer, and refer adults for vaccination.•Only one third of clinicians and pharmacists routinely document adult vaccinations.•Barriers to assess, recommend, administer, refer, document adult vaccines reported.•Improving interoperability between electronic health records and registries needed. The Standards for Adult Immunization Practice (Standards), revised in 2014, emphasize that adult-care providers assess vaccination status of adult patients at every visit, recommend vaccination, administer needed vaccines or refer to a vaccinating provider, and document vaccinations administered in state/local immunization information systems (IIS). Providers report numerous systems- and provider-level barriers to vaccinating adults, such as billing, payment issues, lower prioritization of vaccines due to competing demands, and lack of information about the use and utility of IIS. Barriers to vaccination result in missed opportunities to vaccinate adults and contribute to low vaccination coverage. Clinicians’ (physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners) and pharmacists’ reported barriers to assessment, recommendation, administration, referral, and documentation, provider vaccination practices, and perceptions regarding their adult patients’ attitudes toward vaccines were evaluated. Data from non-probability-based Internet panel surveys of U.S. clinicians (n = 1714) and pharmacists (n = 261) conducted in February-March 2017 were analyzed using SUDAAN. Weighted proportion of reported barriers to assessment, recommendation, administration, referral, and documentation in IIS were calculated. High percentages (70.0%−97.4%) of clinicians and pharmacists reported they routinely assessed, recommended, administered, and/or referred adults for vaccination. Among those who administered vaccines, 31.6% clinicians’ and 38.4% pharmacists’ submitted records to IIS. Reported barriers included: (a) assessment barriers: vaccination of adults is not within their scope of practice, inadequate reimbursement for vaccinations; (b) administration barriers: lack of staff to manage/administer vaccines, absence of necessary vaccine storage and handling equipment and provisions; and (c) documentation barriers: unaware if state/city has IIS that includes adults or not sure how their electronic system would link to IIS. Although many clinicians and pharmacists reported implementing most of the individual components of the Standards, with the exception of IIS use, there are discrepancies in providers’ reported actual practices and their beliefs/perceptions, and barriers to vaccinating adults remain.

Annual vaccination against seasonal influenza is widely recognized as the primary intervention method in preventing morbidity and mortality from influenza, but coverage among adults is suboptimal in the United States. Safety and effectiveness perceptions regarding vaccines are consistently cited as factors that influence adults’ decisions to accept or reject vaccination. Therefore, we conducted this analysis in order to understand sociodemographic, attitude, and knowledge factors associated with these perceptions for influenza vaccine among adults in three different age groups. Probability-based Internet panel surveys using nationally representative samples of adults aged ≥19 years in the United States were conducted during February–March of 2017 and 2018. We asked respondents if they believed the influenza vaccine was safe and effective. We calculated prevalence ratios using chi-square and pairwise t-tests to determine associations between safety and effectiveness beliefs and sociodemographic variables for adults aged 19–49, 50–64, and ≥65 years. Survey completion rates were 58.2% (2017) and 57.2% (2018); we analyzed 4597 combined responses. Overall, most adults reported the influenza vaccine was safe (86.3%) and effective (73.0%). However, fewer younger adults reported positive perceptions compared with older age groups. Respondents who believed the vaccine was safe also reported it was effective. Generally, adults perceived the influenza vaccine as safe and effective. Considering this, any improvements to these perceptions would likely be minor and have a limited effect on coverage. Future research to understand why, despite positive perceptions, adults are still choosing to forego the vaccine may be informative.

As countries move towards or achieve measles elimination status, serosurveillance is an important public health tool. However, a major challenge of serosurveillance is finding a feasible, accurate, cost-effective, and high throughput assay to measure measles antibody concentrations and estimate susceptibility in a population. We conducted a systematic review to assess, characterize, and - to the extent possible - quantify the performance of measles IgG enzyme-linked assays (EIAs) compared to the gold standard, plaque reduction neutralization tests (PRNT). We followed the PRISMA statement for a systematic literature search and methods for conducting and reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses recommended by the Cochrane Screening and Diagnostic Tests Methods Group. We identified studies through PubMed and Embase electronic databases and included serologic studies detecting measles virus IgG antibodies among participants of any age from the same source population that reported an index (any EIA or multiple bead-based assays, MBA) and reference test (PRNT) using sera, whole blood, or plasma. Measures of diagnostic accuracy with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were abstracted for each study result, where reported. We identified 550 unique publications and identified 36 eligible studies for analysis. We classified studies as high, medium, or low quality; results from high quality studies are reported. Because most high quality studies used the Siemens Enzygnost EIA kit, we generate individual and pooled diagnostic accuracy estimates for this assay separately. Median sensitivity of the Enzygnost EIA was 92.1% [IQR = 82.3, 95.7]; median specificity was 96.9 [93.0, 100.0]. Pooled sensitivity and specificity from studies using the Enzygnost kit were 91.6 (95%CI: 80.7,96.6) and 96.0 (95%CI: 90.9,98.3), respectively. The sensitivity of all other EIA kits across high quality studies ranged from 0% to 98.9% with median (IQR) = 90.6 [86.6, 95.2]; specificity ranged from 58.8% to 100.0% with median (IQR) = 100.0 [88.7, 100.0]. Evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of currently available measles IgG EIAs is variable, insufficient, and may not be fit for purpose for serosurveillance goals. Additional studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of measles EIAs, including MBAs, should be conducted among diverse populations and settings (e.g., vaccination status, elimination/endemic status, age groups).

During the 2009 influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 pandemic, 77 countries received donated monovalent A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccine through the WHO Pandemic Influenza A(H1N1) Vaccine Deployment Initiative. However, 47% did not receive their first shipment until after the first wave of virus circulation, and 8% did not receive their first shipment until after the WHO declared the end of the pandemic. Arguably, these shipments were too late into the pandemic to have a substantial effect on virus transmission or disease burden during the first waves of the pandemic. In order to evaluate the potential benefits of earlier vaccine availability, we estimated the number of illnesses and deaths that could be averted during a 2009-like influenza pandemic under five different vaccine-availability timing scenarios. We adapted a model originally developed to estimate annual influenza morbidity and mortality burden averted through US seasonal vaccination and ran it for five vaccine availability timing scenarios in nine low- and middle-income countries that received donated vaccine. Among nine study countries, we estimated that the number of averted cases was 61–216,197 for actual vaccine receipt, increasing to 2,914–283,916 had vaccine been available simultaneously with the United States. Earlier delivery of vaccines can reduce influenza case counts during a simulated 2009-like pandemic in some low- and middle-income countries. For others, increasing the number of cases and deaths prevented through vaccination may be dependent on factors other than timely initiation of vaccine administration, such as distribution and administration capacity.

The revised Standards for Adult Immunization Practice (“Standards”), published in 2014, recommend routine vaccination assessment, strong provider recommendation, vaccine administration or referral, and documentation of vaccines administered into immunization information systems (IIS). We assessed clinician and pharmacist implementation of the Standards in the United States from 2016 to 2018. Participating clinicians (family and internal medicine physicians, obstetricians-gynecologists, specialty physicians, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners) and pharmacists responded using an internet panel survey. Weighted proportion of clinicians and pharmacists reporting full implementation of each component of the Standards were calculated. Adjusted prevalence ratio (APR) estimates of practice characteristics associated with self-reported implementation of the Standards are also presented. Across all medical specialties, the percentages of clinicians and pharmacists implementing the vaccine assessment and recommendation components of the Standards were >80.0%. However, due to low IIS documentation, full implementation of the Standards was low overall, ranging from 30.4% for specialty medicine to 45.8% in family medicine clinicians. The presence of an immunization champion (APR, 1.40 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.26 to 1.54]), use of standing orders (APR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.27 to 1.57]), and use of a patient reminder-recall system (APR, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.26 to 1.54]) were positively associated with adherence to the Standards by clinicians. Similar results were observed for pharmacists. Nonetheless, vaccination improvement strategies, i.e., having standing orders in place, empowering an immunization champion, and using patient recall-reminder systems were underutilized in clinical settings; full implementation of the Standards was inconsistent across all health care provider practices.