prevalence

Lateral epicondylosis tennis elbow is a degenerative noninflammatory condition of the common extensor origin at the lateral epicondyle of the elbow Tennis elbow has a prevalence of 1 3 peaking at age 35 50 years 1 It is associated with smoking and with a combination of repetitive and forceful manual activities 2

This report updates the 2020–21 recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) regarding the use of seasonal influenza vaccines in the United States (MMWR Recomm Rep 2020;69[No. RR-8]). Routine annual influenza vaccination is recommended for all persons aged ≥6 months who do not have contraindications. For each recipient, a licensed and age-appropriate vaccine should be used. ACIP makes no preferential recommendation for a specific vaccine when more than one licensed, recommended, and age-appropriate vaccine is available. During the 2021–22 influenza season, the following types of vaccines are expected to be available: inactivated influenza vaccines (IIV4s), recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV4), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV4).

The 2021–22 influenza season is expected to coincide with continued circulation of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Influenza vaccination of persons aged ≥6 months to reduce prevalence of illness caused by influenza will reduce symptoms that might be confused with those of COVID-19. Prevention of and reduction in the severity of influenza illness and reduction of outpatient visits, hospitalizations, and intensive care unit admissions through influenza vaccination also could alleviate stress on the U.S. health care system. Guidance for vaccine planning during the pandemic is available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pandemic-guidance/index.html. Recommendations for the use of COVID-19 vaccines are available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/vacc-specific/covid-19.html, and additional clinical guidance is available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/clinical-considerations/covid-19-v....

Updates described in this report reflect discussions during public meetings of ACIP that were held on October 28, 2020; February 25, 2021; and June 24, 2021. Primary updates to this report include the following six items. First, all seasonal influenza vaccines available in the United States for the 2021–22 season are expected to be quadrivalent. Second, the composition of 2021–22 U.S. influenza vaccines includes updates to the influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 and influenza A(H3N2) components. U.S.-licensed influenza vaccines will contain hemagglutinin derived from an influenza A/Victoria/2570/2019 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus (for egg-based vaccines) or an influenza A/Wisconsin/588/2019 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus (for cell culture–based and recombinant vaccines), an influenza A/Cambodia/e0826360/2020 (H3N2)-like virus, an influenza B/Washington/02/2019 (Victoria lineage)-like virus, and an influenza B/Phuket/3073/2013 (Yamagata lineage)-like virus. Third, the approved age indication for the cell culture–based inactivated influenza vaccine, Flucelvax Quadrivalent (ccIIV4), has been expanded from ages ≥4 years to ages ≥2 years. Fourth, discussion of administration of influenza vaccines with other vaccines includes considerations for coadministration of influenza vaccines and COVID-19 vaccines. Providers should also consult current ACIP COVID-19 vaccine recommendations and CDC guidance concerning coadministration of these vaccines with influenza vaccines. Vaccines that are given at the same time should be administered in separate anatomic sites. Fifth, guidance concerning timing of influenza vaccination now states that vaccination soon after vaccine becomes available can be considered for pregnant women in the third trimester. As previously recommended, children who need 2 doses (children aged 6 months through 8 years who have never received influenza vaccine or who have not previously received a lifetime total of ≥2 doses) should receive their first dose as soon as possible after vaccine becomes available to allow the second dose (which must be administered ≥4 weeks later) to be received by the end of October. For nonpregnant adults, vaccination in July and August should be avoided unless there is concern that later vaccination might not be possible. Sixth, contraindications and precautions to the use of ccIIV4 and RIV4 have been modified, specifically with regard to persons with a history of severe allergic reaction (e.g., anaphylaxis) to an influenza vaccine. A history of a severe allergic reaction to a previous dose of any egg-based IIV, LAIV, or RIV of any valency is a precaution to use of ccIIV4. A history of a severe allergic reaction to a previous dose of any egg-based IIV, ccIIV, or LAIV of any valency is a precaution to use of RIV4. Use of ccIIV4 and RIV4 in such instances should occur in an inpatient or outpatient medical setting under supervision of a provider who can recognize and manage a severe allergic reaction; providers can also consider consulting with an allergist to help identify the vaccine component responsible for the reaction. For ccIIV4, history of a severe allergic reaction (e.g., anaphylaxis) to any ccIIV of any valency or any component of ccIIV4 is a contraindication to future use of ccIIV4. For RIV4, history of a severe allergic reaction (e.g., anaphylaxis) to any RIV of any valency or any component of RIV4 is a contraindication to future use of RIV4.

This report focuses on recommendations for the use of vaccines for the prevention and control of seasonal influenza during the 2021–22 influenza season in the United States. A brief summary of the recommendations and a link to the most recent Background Document containing additional information are available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/vacc-specific/flu.html. These recommendations apply to U.S.-licensed influenza vaccines used according to Food and Drug Administration–licensed indications. Updates and other information are available from CDC’s influenza website (https://www.cdc.gov/flu); vaccination and health care providers should check this site periodically for additional information.

COVID-19 can involve persistence, sequelae, and other medical complications that last weeks to
months after initial recovery. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to identify studies
assessing the long-term efects of COVID-19. LitCOVID and Embase were searched to identify articles
with original data published before the 1st of January 2021, with a minimum of 100 patients. For
efects reported in two or more studies, meta-analyses using a random-efects model were performed
using the MetaXL software to estimate the pooled prevalence with 95% CI. PRISMA guidelines were
followed. A total of 18,251 publications were identifed, of which 15 met the inclusion criteria. The
prevalence of 55 long-term efects was estimated, 21 meta-analyses were performed, and 47,910
patients were included (age 17–87 years). The included studies defned long-COVID as ranging from 14
to 110 days post-viral infection. It was estimated that 80% of the infected patients with SARS-CoV-2
developed one or more long-term symptoms. The fve most common symptoms were fatigue (58%),
headache (44%), attention disorder (27%), hair loss (25%), and dyspnea (24%). Multi-disciplinary
teams are crucial to developing preventive measures, rehabilitation techniques, and clinical
management strategies with whole-patient perspectives designed to address long COVID-19 care.

Background: Risky consumption of alcohol is a global problem. More than 3.3 million deaths annually are associated with risky use of alcohol, and global alcohol consumption continues to increase. People who have high alcohol consumption often require planned and emergency surgical procedures.Risky drinking is associated with increased postoperative complications such as infections, cardiopulmonary complications, and bleeding episodes. Alcohol causes disorders of the liver, pancreas, and nervous system. Stopping consumption of alcohol can normalize these organ systems to some degree and may reduce the occurrence of complications after surgery.This review was first published in 2012 and was updated in 2018.

Objectives: To assess the effects of perioperative alcohol cessation interventions on rates of postoperative complications and alcohol consumption.

Search methods: We searched the following databases up until 21 September 2018: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; Embase; CINAHL via EBSCOhost; and two trials registers. We scanned the reference lists and citations of included trials and any identified relevant systematic reviews for further references to additional trials. When necessary, we contacted trial authors to ask for additional information.

Selection criteria: We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of perioperative alcohol cessation interventions on postoperative complications and alcohol consumption. We included participants with risky consumption of alcohol who were undergoing all types of elective or acute surgical procedures under general or regional anaesthesia or sedation, who were offered a perioperative alcohol cessation intervention or no intervention.We defined 'risky drinking' as alcohol consumption equivalent to more than 3 alcoholic units (AU)/d or 21 AU/week (with 1 AU containing 12 grams of ethanol) with or without symptoms of alcohol abuse or dependency. This corresponds to the amount of alcohol associated with increased postoperative complication rates in most clinical studies.

Data collection and analysis: We used guidance provided in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We presented main outcomes as dichotomous variables in a meta-analysis. When data were available, we conducted subgroup and sensitivity analyses to explore the risk of bias. Primary outcome measures were postoperative complications and in-hospital and 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were successful quitting at the end of the programme, postoperative alcohol use, and length of hospital stay. We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.

Main results: We included in this updated review one new study (70 participants), resulting in a total of three RCTs (140 participants who drank 3 to 40 AU/d). All three studies were of moderate to good quality. All studies evaluated the effects of intensive alcohol cessation interventions, including pharmacological strategies for alcohol withdrawal symptoms, patient education, and relapse prophylaxis. We identified one ongoing study.Overall, 53 of the 122 participants from three studies who underwent surgery developed any type of postoperative complication that required treatment. Of 61 participants in the intervention groups, 20 had complications, compared with 33 of 61 participants in the control groups (risk ratio (RR) 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 0.96). Results show differences between the three clinical studies regarding outcome measurement and intensity of the interventions. However, all alcohol cessation programmes were intensive and included pharmacological therapy. The overall quality of evidence for this outcome is moderate.In-hospital and 30-day postoperative mortality rates were low in the three studies. Researchers reported one death among 61 participants in the intervention groups, and three deaths among 61 participants in the control groups (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.07 to 2.96). The quality of evidence for this outcome is low.Investigators describe more successful quitters at the end of the intervention programme than among controls. Forty-one out of 70 participants in the intervention groups successfully quit drinking compared with only five out of 70 participants in the control groups (RR 8.22, 95% CI 1.67 to 40.44). The quality of evidence for this outcome is moderate.All three studies reported postoperative alcohol consumption (grams of alcohol/week) at the end of the programme as median and range values; therefore it was not possible to estimate the mean and the standard deviation (SD). We performed no meta-analysis. All three studies reported length of stay, and none of these studies described a significant difference in length of stay. Data were insufficient for review authors to perform a meta-analysis. No studies reported on the prevalence of participants without risky drinking in the longer term.

Authors' conclusions: This systematic review assessed the efficacy of perioperative alcohol cessation interventions for postoperative complications and alcohol consumption. All three studies showed a significant reduction in the number of participants who quit drinking alcohol during the intervention period. Intensive alcohol cessation interventions offered for four to eight weeks to participants undergoing all types of surgical procedures to achieve complete alcohol cessation before surgery probably reduced the number of postoperative complications. Data were insufficient for review authors to assess their effects on postoperative mortality. No studies reported an effect on length of stay, and no studies addressed the prevalence of risky drinking in the longer term.Included studies were few and reported small sample sizes; therefore one should be careful about drawing firm conclusions based on these study results. All three studies were conducted in Denmark, and most participants were men. The included participants may represent a selective group, as they could have been more motivated and/or more interested in participating in clinical research or otherwise different, and effects may have been overestimated for both intervention and control groups in these studies. Trial results indicate that these studies are difficult to perform, that strong research competencies are necessary for future studies, and that further evaluation of perioperative alcohol cessation interventions in high-quality randomized controlled trials is needed. Once published and assessed, the one 'ongoing' study identified may alter the conclusions of this review.

Conflict of interest statement

Hanne Tønnesen has authored all three of the studies included in this review (Egholm 2017; Tønnesen 1999a; Tønnesen 2002).

Julie Weber Melchior Egholm, Johanna Adami, and Bolette Pedersen have authored one of the included studies (Egholm 2017).

Hanne Tønnesen is also the primary investigator for the ongoing study (NCT02188446).

Therefore, to avoid any potential bias, Carsten B Juhl extracted data and checked the interpretation against study reports and any available study registration details or protocols as an independent review author.