COVID-19 Vaccination Coverage Among Insured Persons Aged ≥16 Years, by Race/Ethnicity and Other Selected Characteristics - Eight Integrated Health Care Organizations, United States, December 14, 2020-May 15, 2021.

COVID-19 vaccination is critical to ending the COVID-19 pandemic. Members of minority racial and ethnic groups have experienced disproportionate COVID-19-associated morbidity and mortality (1); however, COVID-19 vaccination coverage is lower in these groups (2). CDC used data from CDC's Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD)* to assess disparities in vaccination coverage among persons aged ≥16 years by race and ethnicity during December 14, 2020-May 15, 2021. Measures of coverage included receipt of ≥1 COVID-19 vaccine dose (i.e., receipt of the first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines or 1 dose of the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine [Johnson & Johnson]) and full vaccination (receipt of 2 doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines or 1 dose of Janssen COVID-19 vaccine). Among 9.6 million persons aged ≥16 years enrolled in VSD during December 14, 2020-May 15, 2021, ≥1-dose coverage was 48.3%, and 38.3% were fully vaccinated. As of May 15, 2021, coverage with ≥1 dose was lower among non-Hispanic Black (Black) and Hispanic persons (40.7% and 41.1%, respectively) than it was among non-Hispanic White (White) persons (54.6%). Coverage was highest among non-Hispanic Asian (Asian) persons (57.4%). Coverage with ≥1 dose was higher among persons with certain medical conditions that place them at higher risk for severe COVID-19 (high-risk conditions) (63.8%) than it was among persons without such conditions (41.5%) and was higher among persons who had not had COVID-19 (48.8%) than it was among those who had (42.4%). Persons aged 18-24 years had the lowest ≥1-dose coverage (28.7%) among all age groups. Continued monitoring of vaccination coverage and efforts to improve equity in coverage are critical, especially among populations disproportionately affected by COVID-19.

COVID-19 Vaccination Coverage Among Pregnant Women During Pregnancy - Eight Integrated Health Care Organizations, United States, December 14, 2020-May 8, 2021.

COVID-19 vaccines are critical for ending the COVID-19 pandemic; however, current data about vaccination coverage and safety in pregnant women are limited. Pregnant women are at increased risk for severe illness and death from COVID-19 compared with nonpregnant women of reproductive age, and are at risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes, such as preterm birth (1-4). Pregnant women are eligible for and can receive any of the three COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States via Emergency Use Authorization.* Data from Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), a collaboration between CDC and multiple integrated health systems, were analyzed to assess receipt of ≥1 dose (first or second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccines or a single dose of the Janssen [Johnson & Johnson] vaccine) of any COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy, receipt of first dose of a 2-dose COVID-19 vaccine (initiation), or completion of a 1- or 2-dose COVID-19 vaccination series. During December 14, 2020-May 8, 2021, a total of 135,968 pregnant women were identified, 22,197 (16.3%) of whom had received ≥1 dose of a vaccine during pregnancy. Among these 135,968 women, 7,154 (5.3%) had initiated and 15,043 (11.1%) had completed vaccination during pregnancy. Receipt of ≥1 dose of COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy was highest among women aged 35-49 years (22.7%) and lowest among those aged 18-24 years (5.5%), and higher among non-Hispanic Asian (Asian) (24.7%) and non-Hispanic White (White) women (19.7%) than among Hispanic (11.9%) and non-Hispanic Black (Black) women (6.0%). Vaccination coverage increased among all racial and ethnic groups over the analytic period, likely because of increased eligibility for vaccination† and increased availability of vaccine over time. These findings indicate the need for improved outreach to and engagement with pregnant women, especially those from racial and ethnic minority groups who might be at higher risk for severe health outcomes because of COVID-19 (4). In addition, providing accurate and timely information about COVID-19 vaccination to health care providers, pregnant women, and women of reproductive age can improve vaccine confidence and coverage by ensuring optimal shared clinical decision-making.

Measures Taken to Prevent Zika Virus Infection During Pregnancy - Puerto Rico, 2016.

Zika virus infection during pregnancy remains a serious health threat in Puerto Rico. Infection during pregnancy can cause microcephaly, brain abnormalities, and other severe birth defects (1). From January 1, 2016 through March 29, 2017, Puerto Rico reported approximately 3,300 pregnant women with laboratory evidence of possible Zika virus infection (2). There is currently no vaccine or intervention to prevent the adverse effects of Zika virus infection during pregnancy; therefore, prevention has been the focus of public health activities, especially for pregnant women (3). CDC and the Puerto Rico Department of Health analyzed data from the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System Zika Postpartum Emergency Response (PRAMS-ZPER) survey conducted from August through December 2016 among Puerto Rico residents with a live birth. Most women (98.1%) reported using at least one measure to avoid mosquitos in their home environment. However, only 45.8% of women reported wearing mosquito repellent daily, and 11.5% reported wearing pants and shirts with long sleeves daily. Approximately one third (38.5%) reported abstaining from sex or using condoms consistently throughout pregnancy. Overall, 76.9% of women reported having been tested for Zika virus by their health care provider during the first or second trimester of pregnancy. These results can be used to assess and refine Zika virus infection prevention messaging and interventions for pregnant women and to reinforce measures to promote prenatal testing for Zika.

Moderate Versus Deep Hypothermia With Unilateral Selective Antegrade Cerebral Perfusion for Acute Type A Dissection.

BACKGROUND: Despite improved results with surgical therapy for acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD), there remains a lack of consensus regarding the optimal method of cerebral protection and circulation management during ATAAD. The purpose of this study is to determine whether in the setting of antegrade cerebral perfusion, moderate hypothermic circulatory arrest (MHCA) provides equivalent cerebral and visceral protection as deep hypothermic circulatory arrest (DHCA) for patients undergoing emergent ATAAD repair. METHODS: A review of the Emory aortic surgery database from 2004 to 2014 identified 288 patients who underwent ATAAD with right axillary artery cannulation, unilateral selective antegrade cerebral perfusion (uSACP), and hypothermic circulatory arrest (HCA). In all, 88 patients underwent HCA at 24 °C or lower (DHCA), and 206 patients underwent HCA at more than 24 °C (MHCA). Major adverse outcomes of death, stroke, temporary neurologic dysfunction, and dialysis-dependent renal failure were examined. RESULTS: The groups were well matched for age and major comorbidities. The DHCA patients underwent HCA at lower temperatures (DHCA 21.6 ± 3.1 °C vs MHCA 27.4 ± 1.6 °C, p < 0.01). There were no significant differences in cardiopulmonary bypass, cross-clamp, or HCA times. Mortality was 14.6% for DHCA patients, and 9.2% for MHCA patients (p = 0.17). There was no significant difference in stroke, temporary neurologic dysfunction, or dialysis-dependent renal failure. There was no association with either MHCA plus uSACP or DHCA plus uSACP and any of the major adverse outcomes (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Moderate HCA with uSACP is an effective circulation management strategy that provides excellent cerebral and visceral protection during emergent ATAAD repair. In the setting of antegrade cerebral perfusion, deep hypothermia does not provide any additional benefit.

Possible rabies exposures in Peace Corps volunteers, 2011.

We surveyed Peace Corps Medical Officers (PCMOs) to determine the frequency of and responses to possible rabies exposures of U.S. Peace Corps volunteers (PCVs). Surveys were sent to 56 PCMOs serving in countries with moderate or high rabies vaccine recommendations from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), of which 38 (68%) responded. Thirty-seven PCMOs reported that, of 4,982 PCVs, 140 (3%) experienced possible rabies exposures. Of these, 125 (89%) had previously received rabies vaccination, 129 (92%) presented with adequately cleansed wounds, and 106 (76%) were deemed to require and were given post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP). Of 35 respondents, 30 (86%) reported that rabies vaccine was always accessible to PCVs in their country within 24 hours. Overall, the Peace Corps is successful at preventing and treating possible rabies exposures. However, this study identified a few gaps in policy implementation. The Peace Corps should continue and strengthen efforts to provide education, preexposure vaccination, and PEP to PCVs.

The global availability of rabies immune globulin and rabies vaccine in clinics providing indirect care to travelers.

We assessed rabies vaccine (RV) and immune globulin (RIG) availability on the local market by querying US Embassy medical staff worldwide. Of 112 responses, 23% were from West, Central, and East Africa. RV and RIG availability varied by region. Possible rabies exposures accounted for 2% of all travelers' health inquiries.

The global availability of rabies immune globulin and rabies vaccine in clinics providing direct care to travelers.

BACKGROUND: Rabies, which is globally endemic, poses a risk to international travelers. To improve recommendations for travelers, we assessed the global availability of rabies vaccine (RV) and rabies immune globulin (RIG). METHODS: We conducted a 20-question online survey, in English, Spanish, and French, distributed via e-mail to travel medicine providers and other clinicians worldwide from February 1 to March 30, 2011. Results were compiled according to the region. RESULTS: Among total respondents, only 190 indicated that they provided traveler postexposure care. Most responses came from North America (38%), Western Europe (19%), Australia and South and West Pacific Islands (11%), East and Southeast Asia (8%), and Southern Africa (6%). Approximately one third of 187 respondents stated that patients presented with wounds from an animal exposure that were seldom or never adequately cleansed. RIG was often or always accessible for 100% (n = 5) of respondents in the Middle East and North Africa; 94% (n = 17) in Australia and South and West Pacific Islands; 20% (n = 1) in Tropical South America; and 56% (n = 5) in Eastern Europe and Northern Asia. Ninety-one percent (n = 158) of all respondents reported that RV was often or always accessible. For all regions, 35% (n = 58) and 26% (n = 43) of respondents felt that the cost was too high for RIG and RV, respectively. CONCLUSION: The availability of RV and RIG varied by geographic region. All travelers should be informed that RIG and RV might not be readily available at their destination and that travel health and medical evacuation insurance should be considered prior to departure. Travelers should be educated to avoid animal exposures; to clean all animal bites, licks, and scratches thoroughly with soap and water; and to seek medical care immediately, even if overseas.

Use of rapid tests and antiviral medications for influenza among primary care providers in the United States.

Limited data are available about how physicians diagnose and treat influenza. We conducted an internet-based survey of primary care and emergency physicians to evaluate the use of influenza testing and antiviral medications for diagnosis and treatment of influenza. In April 2005, an electronic link to a 33-question, web-based survey was emailed to members of the American College of Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Family Physicians, and American College of Emergency Physicians. Of the 157,674 physician members of the four medical societies, 2649 surveys were completed (1.7%). The majority of participants were internists (59%). Sixty percent of respondents reported using rapid tests to diagnose influenza. Factors associated with using rapid influenza tests included physician specialty, type of patient insurance, and practice setting. After controlling for insurance and community setting, emergency physicians and pediatricians were more likely to use rapid influenza tests than internists [odds ratio (OR) 3.7, confidence interval (CI): 2.3-6.1; and OR 1.7, CI: 1.4-2.1, respectively]. Eighty-six percent of respondents reported prescribing influenza antiviral medications. Reasons for not prescribing antivirals included: patients do not usually present for clinical care within 48 hours of symptom onset (53.0%), cost of antivirals (42.6%) and skepticism about antiviral drug effectiveness (21.7%). The use of rapid tests and antiviral medications for influenza varied by medical specialty. Educating physicians about the utility and limitations of rapid influenza tests and antivirals, and educating patients about seeking prompt medical care for influenza-like illness during influenza season could lead to more rapid diagnosis and improved management of influenza.