State Injury Programs' Response to the Opioid Epidemic: The Role of CDC's Core Violence and Injury Prevention Program.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) Core Violence and Injury Prevention Program (Core) supports capacity of state violence and injury prevention programs to implement evidence-based interventions. Several Core-funded states prioritized prescription drug overdose (PDO) and leveraged their systems to identify and respond to the epidemic before specific PDO prevention funding was available through CDC. This article describes activities employed by Core-funded states early in the epidemic. Four case examples illustrate states' approaches within the context of their systems and partners. While Core funding is not sufficient to support a comprehensive PDO prevention program, having Core in place at the beginning of the emerging epidemic had critical implications for identifying the problem and developing systems that were later expanded as additional resources became available. Important components included staffing support to bolster programmatic and epidemiological capacity; diverse and collaborative partnerships; and use of surveillance and evidence-informed best practices to prioritize decision-making.

Influenza-Related Hospitalizations and Poverty Levels - United States, 2010-2012.

Annual influenza vaccine is recommended for all persons aged ≥6 months in the United States, with recognition that some persons are at risk for more severe disease (1). However, there might be previously unrecognized demographic groups that also experience higher rates of serious influenza-related disease that could benefit from enhanced vaccination efforts. Socioeconomic status (SES) measures that are area-based can be used to define demographic groups when individual SES data are not available (2). Previous surveillance data analyses in limited geographic areas indicated that influenza-related hospitalization incidence was higher for persons residing in census tracts that included a higher percentage of persons living below the federal poverty level (3-5). To determine whether this association occurs elsewhere, influenza hospitalization data collected in 14 FluSurv-NET sites covering 27 million persons during the 2010-11 and 2011-12 influenza seasons were analyzed. The age-adjusted incidence of influenza-related hospitalizations per 100,000 person-years in high poverty (≥20% of persons living below the federal poverty level) census tracts was 21.5 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 20.7-22.4), nearly twice the incidence in low poverty (<5% of persons living below the federal poverty level) census tracts (10.9, 95% CI: 10.3-11.4). This relationship was observed in each surveillance site, among children and adults, and across racial/ethnic groups. These findings suggest that persons living in poorer census tracts should be targeted for enhanced influenza vaccination outreach and clinicians serving these persons should be made aware of current recommendations for use of antiviral agents to treat influenza (6).

Survey of influenza and other respiratory viruses diagnostic testing in US hospitals, 2012-2013.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about laboratory capacity to routinely diagnose influenza and other respiratory viruses at clinical laboratories and hospitals. AIMS: We sought to assess diagnostic practices for influenza and other respiratory virus in a survey of hospitals and laboratories participating in the US Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network in 2012-2013. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All hospitals and their associated laboratories participating in the Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network (FluSurv-NET) were included in this evaluation. The network covers more than 80 counties in 15 states, CA, CO, CT, GA, MD, MN, NM, NY, OR, TN, IA, MI, OH, RI, and UT, with a catchment population of ~28 million people. We administered a standardized questionnaire to key personnel, including infection control practitioners and laboratory departments, at each hospital through telephone interviews. RESULTS: Of the 240 participating laboratories, 67% relied only on commercially available rapid influenza diagnostic tests to diagnose influenza. Few reported the availability of molecular diagnostic assays for detection of influenza (26%) and other viral pathogens (≤20%) in hospitals and commercial laboratories. CONCLUSION: Reliance on insensitive assays to detect influenza may detract from optimal clinical management of influenza infections in hospitals.