United States

A review of what we know about ultra-processed foods and their impact on health outcomes including a link to a categorized list of food based upon the degree of processing. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

This Medical News article discusses a new American Heart Association science advisory on ultraprocessed foods, cardiometabolic health, and policy recommendations for improving dietary patterns.

Author/s:

Samantha Anderer

Addictive Screen Use Trajectories and Suicidal Behaviors, Suicidal Ideation, and Mental Health in US Youths

Megan George — Fri, 25 Jul 2025 13:43:37 +0000

Date Added:

July 25, 2025

Journal/Publication:

JAMA

Publication Date:

June 18, 2025

URL:

Addictive Screen Use Trajectories and Suicidal Behaviors, Suicidal Ideation, and Mental Health in US Youths

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1001/jama.2025.7829

Keywords

PMID (1):

40531519

MeSH

adolescent

Adolescent Behavior / psychology

Addictive* / epidemiology

Behavior, Addictive* / psychology

A review of the adverse consequences of addictive screen use behaviors by adolescents. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

View

Importance: Increasing child and adolescent use of social media, video games, and mobile phones has raised concerns about potential links to youth mental health problems. Prior research has largely focused on total screen time rather than longitudinal addictive use trajectories.

Objectives: To identify trajectories of addictive use of social media, mobile phones, and video games and to examine their associations with suicidal behaviors and ideation and mental health outcomes among youths.

Design, setting, and participants: Cohort study analyzing data from baseline through year 4 follow-up in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study (2016-2022), with population-based samples from 21 US sites.

Exposures: Addictive use of social media, mobile phones, and video games using validated child-reported measures from year 2, year 3, and year 4 follow-up surveys.

Main outcomes and measures: Suicidal behaviors and ideation assessed using child- and parent-reported information via the Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia. Internalizing and externalizing symptoms were assessed using the parent-reported Child Behavior Checklist.

Results: The analytic sample (n = 4285) had a mean age of 10.0 (SD, 0.6) years; 47.9% were female; and 9.9% were Black, 19.4% Hispanic, and 58.7% White. Latent class linear mixed models identified 3 addictive use trajectories for social media and mobile phones and 2 for video games. Nearly one-third of participants had an increasing addictive use trajectory for social media or mobile phones beginning at age 11 years. In adjusted models, increasing addictive use trajectories were associated with higher risks of suicide-related outcomes than low addictive use trajectories (eg, increasing addictive use of social media had a risk ratio of 2.14 [95% CI, 1.61-2.85] for suicidal behaviors). High addictive use trajectories for all screen types were associated with suicide-related outcomes (eg, high-peaking addictive use of social media had a risk ratio of 2.39 [95% CI, 1.66-3.43] for suicidal behaviors). The high video game addictive use trajectory showed the largest relative difference in internalizing symptoms (T score difference, 2.03 [95% CI, 1.45-2.61]), and the increasing social media addictive use trajectory for externalizing symptoms (T score difference, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.54-1.56]), compared with low addictive use trajectories. Total screen time at baseline was not associated with outcomes.

Conclusions and relevance: High or increasing trajectories of addictive use of social media, mobile phones, or video games were common in early adolescents. Both high and increasing addictive screen use trajectories were associated with suicidal behaviors and ideation and worse mental health.

Author/s:

Yunyu Xiao, PhD, Yuan Meng, PhD, Timothy T. Brown, PhD

ADHD Diagnosis and Treatment in Children and Adolescents

Alex Haga — Fri, 05 Apr 2024 00:54:05 +0000

Date Added:

April 4, 2024

Journal/Publication:

Comparative Effectiveness Review

Publisher:

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

Publication Date:

March 1, 2024

URL:

ADHD Diagnosis and Treatment in Children and Adolescents

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

https://doi.org/10.23970/AHRQEPCCER267

An evidence-based summary of what we currently know about the diagnosis and treatment of children with ADHD. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

Objective. The systematic review assessed evidence on the diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents to inform a planned update of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) guidelines.

Data sources. We searched PubMed®, Embase®, PsycINFO®, ERIC, clinicaltrials.gov, and prior reviews for primary studies published since 1980. The report includes studies published to June 15, 2023.

Review methods. The review followed a detailed protocol and was supported by a Technical Expert Panel. Citation screening was facilitated by machine learning; two independent reviewers screened full text citations for eligibility. We abstracted data using software designed for systematic reviews. Risk of bias assessments focused on key sources of bias for diagnostic and intervention studies. We conducted strength of evidence (SoE) and applicability assessments for key outcomes. The protocol for the review has been registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022312656).

Results. Searches identified 23,139 citations, and 7,534 were obtained as full text. We included 550 studies reported in 1,097 publications (231 studies addressed diagnosis, 312 studies addressed treatment, and 10 studies addressed monitoring). Diagnostic studies reported on the diagnostic performance of numerous parental ratings, teacher rating scales, teen/child self-reports, clinician tools, neuropsychological tests, EEG approaches, imaging, and biomarkers. Multiple approaches showed promising diagnostic performance (e.g., using parental rating scales), although estimates of performance varied considerably across studies and the SoE was generally low. Few studies reported estimates for children under the age of 7. Treatment studies evaluated combined pharmacological and behavior approaches, medication approved by the Food and Drug Administration, other pharmacologic treatment, psychological/behavioral approaches, cognitive training, neurofeedback, neurostimulation, physical exercise, nutrition and supplements, integrative medicine, parent support, school interventions, and provider or model-of-care interventions. Medication treatment was associated with improved broadband scale scores and ADHD symptoms (high SoE) as well as function (moderate SoE), but also appetite suppression and adverse events (high SoE). Psychosocial interventions also showed improvement in ADHD symptoms based on moderate SoE. Few studies have evaluated combinations of pharmacological and youth-directed psychosocial interventions, and we did not find combinations that were systematically superior to monotherapy (low SoE). Published monitoring approaches for ADHD were limited and the SoE is insufficient.

Conclusion. Many diagnostic tools are available to aid the diagnosis of ADHD, but few monitoring strategies have been studied. Medication therapies remain important treatment options, although with a risk of side effects, as the evidence base for psychosocial therapies strengthens and other nondrug treatment approaches emerge.

Author/s:

Peterson, BS, Trampush, J, Maglione, M, Bolshakova, M, Brown, M., Rozelle, M

To Treat or Not to Treat? Effect of Urate-Lowering Therapy on Renal Function, Blood Pressure and Safety in Patients with Asymptomatic Hyperuricemia: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Saige Blanchard — Tue, 10 May 2022 05:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

May 10, 2022

Journal/Publication:

Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine

Publisher:

Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine

Publication Date:

January 16, 2022

Issue:

Volume:

Pages:

140-151

URL:

To Treat or Not to Treat? Effect of Urate-Lowering Therapy on Renal Function, Blood Pressure and Safety in Patients with Asymptomatic Hyperuricemia: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.3122/jabfm.2022.01.210273

Keywords

Asymptomatic Hyperuricemia

blood pressure

Disease Management

family medicine

Network Meta-Analysis

PMID (1):

35039419

MeSH

Lowering uric acid levels in patients with asymptomatic hyperuricemia appears to have beneficial effects on renal function and/or blood pressure, depending upon the medication used, with very few significant adverse effects. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

Purpose: Hyperuricemia is associated with increased cardiovascular risk. Because patients with asymptomatic hyperuricemia (AH) experience no immediate discomfort and there are possible side effects of urate-lowering drugs, treatment for AH is controversial. We aimed to perform a network meta-analysis (NMA) to investigate the effects of different urate-lowering therapies (ULTs) on serum uric acid level, renal function, blood pressure (BP), and safety in AH patients.

Methods: This NMA focused on AH patients. The intervention group (patients receiving urate-lowering drugs) was compared with others using other types of drugs, placebo, or usual care. We undertook a NMA under the frequentist framework by R.

Results: Thirteen eligible trials were identified. The interventions included allopurinol, febuxostat, and benzbromarone, which are not approved in the United States. Benzbromarone and allopurinol had the best efficacy on lowering serum uric acid level in short-term and long-term follow-up (mean difference [MD] = -3.05; 95% CI, -5.19 to -0.91 vs MD = -3.17; 95% CI, -5.19 to -1.15). Patients using allopurinol had significantly higher eGFR than using placebo in both short-term and long-term follow-up (MD = 3.07; 95% CI, 0.18 to 5.95 vs MD = 4.10; 95% CI, 2.66 to 5.54). No difference in BP was found between groups, except for febuxostat to diastolic BP after long-term treatment (MD = -1.47; 95% CI, -2.91 to -0.04). No statistically increased odds of safety events were found with the use of ULT.

Conclusions: Our result showed that in AH patients, allopurinol has a renoprotective effect. Febuxostat has a significant impact in lowering diastolic BP. ULT does not result in a higher risk of safety events.

Author/s:

Tien, Y., Shih, M., Tien, C., Huang, H., Tu, Y.

Child & Adolescent Immunization Schedule

Saige Blanchard — Mon, 28 Feb 2022 16:28:35 +0000

Date Added:

February 28, 2022

Journal/Publication:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

URL:

Child & Adolescent Immunization Schedule

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Web Page

Keywords

child

adolescent

Immunization

Immunization Schedule

MeSH

vaccination

vaccines

Immunization Schedule

United States

The CDC’s 2022 childhood immunization recommendations. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

Recommendations for Ages 18 Years or Younger, United States, 2022

Author/s:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Recommended Adult Immunization Schedule, United States, 2022

Saige Blanchard — Mon, 28 Feb 2022 06:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

February 28, 2022

Journal/Publication:

Annals of Internal Medicine

Publisher:

American College of Physicians

Publication Date:

February 18, 2022

URL:

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

https://doi.org/10.7326/M22-0036

Keywords

MeSH

Immunization Schedule

Advisory Committees

This is a summary of the 2022 CDC adult immunization recommendations. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

In November 2021, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted to approve the Recommended Adult Immunization Schedule for Ages 19 Years or Older, United States, 2022. The 2022 adult immunization schedule, available at www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/imz/adult.html, summarizes ACIP recommendations in the cover page, tables, notes, and appendix (Figure). The appendix lists the contraindications and precautions for all routinely recommended vaccines on the adult immunization schedule (Figure). The full ACIP recommendations for each vaccine are available at www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/index.html. The 2022 schedule has also been approved by the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and by the American College of Physicians (www.acponline.org), the American Academy of Family Physicians (www.aafp.org), the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (www.acog.org), the American College of Nurse-Midwives (www.midwife.org), the American Academy of Physician Associates (www.aapa.org), and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (www.shea-online.org).

Author/s:

N., Wodi, A. P., Bernstein, H., Ault, K. A.

The Management of Type 1 Diabetes in Adults. A Consensus Report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD)

Bethie Seay — Tue, 05 Oct 2021 05:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

October 5, 2021

Journal/Publication:

Diabetes Care

Publication Date:

September 30, 2021

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

MeSH

Adult

United States

diabetes mellitus, type 1

insulin

Islets of Langerhans Transplantation

Diabetic Ketoacidosis

self-management

Consensus

Psychiatric Rehabilitation

blood glucose

Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring

Inpatients

follow-up studies

Hypoglycemia

Insulin, Regular, Human

Pancreas

Writing

health personnel

A Consensus statement from the ADA on management of Type 1 diabetes in adults.

View

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) convened a writing group to develop a consensus statement on the management of type 1 diabetes in adults. The writing group has considered the rapid development of new treatments and technologies and addressed the following topics: diagnosis, aims of management, schedule of care, diabetes self-management education and support, glucose monitoring, insulin therapy, hypoglycemia, behavioral considerations, psychosocial care, diabetic ketoacidosis, pancreas and islet transplantation, adjunctive therapies, special populations, inpatient management, and future perspectives. Although we discuss the schedule for follow-up examinations and testing, we have not included the evaluation and treatment of the chronic microvascular and macrovascular complications of diabetes as these are well-reviewed and discussed elsewhere. The writing group was aware of both national and international guidance on type 1 diabetes and did not seek to replicate this but rather aimed to highlight the major areas that health care professionals should consider when managing adults with type 1 diabetes. Though evidence-based where possible, the recommendations in the report represent the consensus opinion of the authors.

Author/s:

Holt, R. I. G., DeVries, J. H., Hess-Fischl, A., Hirsch, I. B., Kirkman, M. S., Klupa, T., Ludwig, B., Nørgaard, K., Pettus, J., Renard, E., Skyler, J. S., Snoek, F. J., Weinstock, R. S., Peters, A. L.

Button battery ingestions in children

Bethie Seay — Tue, 28 Sep 2021 05:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

September 28, 2021

Journal/Publication:

CMAJ

Publication Date:

September 27, 2021

Issue:

Volume:

193

Pages:

E1498

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

DOI (1):

10.1503/cmaj.210572

MeSH

Constriction, Pathologic

caregivers

outpatients

Poisons

Electric Power Supplies

Esophageal Fistula

Abdomen

Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage

vomiting

hospitals

Eating

A concise review of button battery ingestions in children and what to do about them.

View

1. Injuries in children from ingesting button batteries are
increasing
2. The type and size of the ingested battery influence the
likelihood of complications
3. Urgency of management depends on the location of the battery
4. Honey or sucralfate should be administered after battery
ingestion
5. Children should be monitored for long-term complications

Author/s:

Zipursky, A. R., Ratnapalan, S.

Recombinant Zoster Vaccine (Shingrix): Real-World Effectiveness in the First 2 Years Post-Licensure

Bethie Seay — Thu, 23 Sep 2021 05:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

September 23, 2021

Journal/Publication:

Clinical Infectious Diseases

Publication Date:

September 15, 2021

Issue:

Volume:

Pages:

941-948

Type:

Clinical Research Results

DOI (1):

10.1093/cid/ciab125

MeSH

herpes zoster vaccine

Neuralgia, Postherpetic

Real world effectiveness of Shingrix (76%)

View

Background
Shingrix (recombinant zoster vaccine) was licensed to prevent herpes zoster, dispensed as 2 doses given 2–6 months apart among adults aged ≥50 years. Clinical trials yielded efficacy of >90% for confirmed herpes zoster, but post-market performance has not been evaluated. Efficacy of a single dose and a delayed second dose and efficacy among persons with autoimmune or immunosuppressive conditions have not been studied. We aimed to assess post-market vaccine effectiveness of Shingrix.

Methods
We conducted a cohort study among Medicare Part D community-dwelling beneficiaries aged >65 years. Herpes zoster was identified using a medical office visit diagnosis with treatment, and postherpetic neuralgia was identified using a validated algorithm. We used inverse probability of treatment weighting to improve cohort balance and marginal structural models to estimate hazard ratios.

Results
We found a vaccine effectiveness of 70.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 68.6–71.5) and 56.9% (95% CI, 55.0–58.8) for 2 and 1 doses, respectively. The 2-dose vaccine effectiveness was not significantly lower for beneficiaries aged >80 years, for second doses received at ≥180 days, or for individuals with autoimmune conditions. The vaccine was also effective among individuals with immunosuppressive conditions. Two-dose vaccine effectiveness against postherpetic neuralgia was 76.0% (95% CI, 68.4–81.8).

Conclusions
This large real-world observational study of the effectiveness of Shingrix demonstrates the benefit of completing the 2-dose regimen. Second doses administered beyond the recommended 6 months did not impair effectiveness. Our effectiveness estimates were lower than the clinical trials estimates, likely due to differences in outcome specificity.

Author/s:

Izurieta, H. S., Wu, X., Forshee, R., Lu, Y., Sung, H. M., Agger, P. E., Chillarige, Y., Link-Gelles, R., Lufkin, B., Wernecke, M., MaCurdy, T. E., Kelman, J., Dooling, K.

Interventional Treatments for Acute and Chronic Pain: Systematic Review

Bethie Seay — Mon, 13 Sep 2021 05:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

September 13, 2021

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

DOI (1):

10.23970/AHRQEPCCER247

A review of the evidence regarding the use of vertebroplasty, kyphoplasty, and cool radiofrequency denervation for acute and chronic back pain.

View

Objective. To evaluate the benefits and harms of selected interventional procedures for acute and chronic pain that are not currently covered by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) but are relevant for and have potential utility for use in the Medicare population, or that are covered by CMS but for which there is important uncertainty or controversy regarding use.

Data sources. Electronic databases (Ovid® MEDLINE®, PsycINFO®, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) to April 12, 2021, reference lists, and submissions in response to a Federal Register notice.

Review methods. Using predefined criteria and dual review, we selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for 10 interventional procedures and conditions that evaluated pain, function, health status, quality of life, medication use, and harms. Random effects meta-analysis was conducted for vertebral compression fracture; otherwise, outcomes were synthesized qualitatively. Effects were classified as small, moderate, or large using previously defined criteria.

Results. Thirty-seven randomized trials (in 48 publications) were included. Vertebroplasty (13 trials) is probably more effective at reducing pain and improving function in older (>65 years of age) patients, but benefits are small (less than 1 point on a 10-point pain scale). Benefits appear smaller (but still present) in sham-controlled (5 trials) compared with usual care controlled trials (8 trials) and larger in trials of patients with more acute symptoms; however, testing for subgroup effects was limited by imprecision. Vertebroplasty is probably not associated with increased risk of incident vertebral fracture (10 trials). Kyphoplasty (2 trials) is probably more effective than usual care for pain and function in older patients with vertebral compression fracture at up to 1 month (moderate to large benefits) and may be more effective at >1 month to ≥1 year (small to moderate benefits) but has not been compared against sham therapy. Evidence on kyphoplasty and risk of incident fracture was conflicting. In younger (below age for Medicare eligibility) populations, cooled radiofrequency denervation for sacroiliac pain (2 trials) is probably more effective for pain and function versus sham at 1 and 3 months (moderate to large benefits). Cooled radiofrequency for presumed facet joint pain may be similarly effective versus conventional radiofrequency, and piriformis injection with corticosteroid for piriformis syndrome may be more effective than sham injection for pain. For the other interventional procedures and conditions addressed, evidence was too limited to determine benefits and harms.

Conclusions. Vertebroplasty is probably effective at reducing pain and improving function in older patients with vertebral compression fractures; benefits are small but similar to other therapies recommended for pain. Evidence was too limited to separate effects of control type and symptom acuity on effectiveness of vertebroplasty. Kyphoplasty has not been compared against sham but is probably more effective than usual care for vertebral compression fractures in older patients. In younger populations, cooled radiofrequency denervation is probably more effective than sham for sacroiliac pain. Research is needed to determine the benefits and harms of the other interventional procedures and conditions addressed in this review.

Author/s:

Chou, R., Fu, R., Dana, T., Pappas, M., Hart, E., Mauer, K. M.

Prevention and Control of Seasonal Influenza with Vaccines: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, United States, 2021-22 Influenza Season

Bethie Seay — Thu, 26 Aug 2021 05:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

August 26, 2021

Type:

Public Health Announcements

MeSH

Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype

SARS-CoV-2

influenza, human

vaccines, inactivated

Pregnancy Trimester, Third

Inpatients

prevalence

united states food and drug administration

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S.

Intensive Care Units

Cell Culture Techniques

delivery of health care

The 2021-2022 CDC recommendations regarding administration of influenza vaccines.

View

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.

Author/s:

Grohskopf, L. A., Alyanak, E., Ferdinands, J. M., Broder, K. R., Blanton, L. H., Talbot, H. K., Fry, A. M.

Implementing High-Quality Primary Care: Rebuilding the Foundation of Health Care

Bethie Seay — Tue, 25 May 2021 05:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

May 25, 2021

Type:

Notifications and Opportunities

MeSH

Humans

United States

Information Technology

Adaptation, physiological

Quality of Health Care

This is a summary of recommendations from a National Academy of Medicine panel on Implementing High Quality Primary Care.

View

High-quality primary care is the foundation of a high-functioning health care system. When it is high-quality, primary care provides continuous, personcentered, relationship-based care that considers the needs and preferences of individuals, families, and communities. Without access to high-quality primary care, minor health problems can spiral into chronic disease, chronic disease management becomes difficult and uncoordinated, visits to emergency departments increase, preventive care lags, and health care spending soars to unsustainable levels.

Unequal access to primary care remains a concern, and the COVID-19 pandemic amplified pervasive economic, mental health, and social health disparities that ubiquitous, high-quality primary care might have reduced. Primary care is the only health care component where an increased supply is associated with better population health and more equitable outcomes. For this reason, primary care is a common good, which makes the strength and quality of the country’s primary care services a public concern.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine formed the Committee on Implementing High-Quality Primary Care in 2019. Building on the recommendations of the 1996 Institute of Medicine report Primary Care: America’s Health in a New Era, the committee was tasked to develop an implementation plan for high-quality primary care in the United States.

The committee’s definition of high-quality primary care (see Box 1) describes what it should be, not what most people in the United States experience today. To rebuild a strong foundation for the U.S. health care system, the committee’s implementation plan includes objectives and actions targeting primary care stakeholders and balancing national needs for scalable solutions while allowing for adaptations to meet local needs.

The committee set five implementation objectives to make high-quality primary care available to all people living in the United States:

1. Pay for primary care teams to care for people, not doctors to deliver services.

2.Ensure that high-quality primary care is available to every individual and family in every community.

3.Train primary care teams where people live and work.

4.Design information technology that serves the patient, family, and the interprofessional care team.

5.Ensure that high-quality primary care is implemented in the United States.

Author/s:

The National Academy of Sciences

COVID-19 Vaccine: Quick Reference Guide for Healthcare Professionals

Bethie Seay — Tue, 25 May 2021 05:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

May 25, 2021

Type:

Clinical Decision Aids

MeSH

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S.

delivery of health care

ACIP Reference Guide on COVID Vaccine administration.

View

The table below provides basic information on the proper storage, preparation, and administration of the currently authorized COVID-19 vaccine products in the United States. For additional information and detailed clinical guidance go to the manufacturer’s and CDC’s webpages listed.

Author/s:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ Interim Recommendation for Use of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine — United States, December 2020

Devin Evans — Thu, 21 Jan 2021 06:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

January 21, 2021

Journal/Publication:

Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report

Publisher:

CDC

Publication Date:

December 18, 2020

Issue:

Volume:

Pages:

1922-1924

URL:

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ Interim Recommendation for Use of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine — United States, December 2020

Type:

Public Health Announcements

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.15585/mmwr.mm6950e2

Keywords

immunizations

Pfizer–BioNTech mRNA vaccine

PMID (1):

33332292

MeSH

Summary and conclusions of the ACIP regarding the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine based upon the RCT data available from Pfizer. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

On December 11, 2020, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 (BNT162b2) vaccine (Pfizer, Inc; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), a lipid nanoparticle-formulated, nucleoside-modified mRNA vaccine encoding the prefusion spike glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (1). Vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine consists of 2 doses (30 μg, 0.3 mL each) administered intramuscularly, 3 weeks apart. On December 12, 2020, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) issued an interim recommendation* for use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in persons aged ≥16 years for the prevention of COVID-19. To guide its deliberations regarding the vaccine, ACIP employed the Evidence to Recommendation (EtR) Framework,† using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.§ The recommendation for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine should be implemented in conjunction with ACIP's interim recommendation for allocating initial supplies of COVID-19 vaccines (2). The ACIP recommendation for the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine under EUA is interim and will be updated as additional information becomes available.

Author/s:

Oliver, Sara E., Gargano, Julia W., Marin, Mona, Wallace, Megan, Curran, Kathryn G., Chamberland, Mary, McClung, Nancy, Campos-Outcalt, Doug, Morgan, Rebecca L., Mbaeyi, Sarah, Romero, Jose R., Talbot, H.K., Lee, Grace M., Bell, Beth P., Dooling, Kathleen

Using Insulin to Treat Poorly Controlled Type 2 Diabetes in 2020

John Bayhi — Tue, 26 May 2020 20:43:16 +0000

Date Added:

May 26, 2020

Journal/Publication:

JAMA

Publisher:

American Medical Association

Publication Date:

May 22, 2020

Volume:

Online ahead of print

URL:

Using Insulin to Treat Poorly Controlled Type 2 Diabetes in 2020

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1001/jama.2020.1303

Keywords

PMID (1):

32442246

MeSH

Sodium-Glucose Transporter 2 Inhibitors

hypoglycemic agents

insulin

glycated hemoglobin a

dipeptidyl-peptidase IV inhibitors

Metformin

diabetes mellitus, type 2

Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor

Thiazolidinediones

A potentially useful decision algorithm for management of patients with Type 2 diabetes, which includes early consideration of use of basal insulin in patients with A1c > 9%. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

No abstract available

Author/s:

Hirsch, IB, Gaudiani, LM