Vaccination of Adults in General Medical Practice.

In vaccinating adults, clinicians face 2 types of challenges: (1) staying current on recommendations for influenza, pneumococcal, hepatitis A and B, zoster, and other vaccines and (2) addressing systemic barriers to implementing practices that increase vaccination rates. Although adult immunization rates remain suboptimal, there has been much good news in adult vaccination recently. New high-dose and adjuvanted influenza vaccines help improve immune response and may reduce influenza complications in older adults. The new recombinant zoster vaccine offers significantly more efficacy against zoster outbreaks and postherpetic neuralgia than zoster vaccine live. Pertussis vaccine given during the third trimester of pregnancy may prevent between 50% and 90% of pertussis infections in infants. Shorter time for completion (1 vs 6 months) of new, adjuvanted hepatitis B vaccine may increase adherence. Clinicians can address systemic barriers to increasing vaccination rates in their clinics and health care systems by following the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Standards for Adult Immunization Practice. Clinicians can help increase vaccination rates by writing standing orders and by advocating for nurses or medical assistants to receive training and protected time for assessing and documenting vaccination histories and administration. Strong recommendations that presume acceptance of vaccination are effective with most patients. Communication techniques similar to motivational interviewing can help with vaccine-hesitant patients. Clinicians, as experts on providing preventive services, can educate community leaders about the benefits of immunization and can inform vaccine experts about challenges of implementing vaccination recommendations in clinical practice and strategies that can work to raise vaccination rates.

The effects of high fructose syrup.

High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) has become an increasingly common food ingredient in the last 40 years. However, there is concern that HFCS consumption increases the risk for obesity and other adverse health outcomes compared to other caloric sweeteners. The most commonly used types of HFCS (HFCS-42 and HFCS-55) are similar in composition to sucrose (table sugar), consisting of roughly equal amounts of fructose and glucose. The primary difference is that these monosaccharides exist free in solution in HFCS, but in disaccharide form in sucrose. The disaccharide sucrose is easily cleaved in the small intestine, so free fructose and glucose are absorbed from both sucrose and HFCS. The advantage to food manufacturers is that the free monosaccharides in HFCS provide better flavor enhancement, stability, freshness, texture, color, pourability, and consistency in foods in comparison to sucrose. Because the composition of HFCS and sucrose is so similar, particularly on absorption by the body, it appears unlikely that HFCS contributes more to obesity or other conditions than sucrose does. Nevertheless, few studies have evaluated the potentially differential effect of various sweeteners, particularly as they relate to health conditions such as obesity, which develop over relatively long periods of time. Improved nutrient databases are needed to analyze food consumption in epidemiologic studies, as are more strongly designed experimental studies, including those on the mechanism of action and relationship between fructose dose and response. At the present time, there is insufficient evidence to ban or otherwise restrict use of HFCS or other fructose-containing sweeteners in the food supply or to require the use of warning labels on products containing HFCS. Nevertheless, dietary advice to limit consumption of all added caloric sweeteners, including HFCS, is warranted.