DOCSLIB.ORG

Employment and Activity Limitations Among Adults with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease — United States, 2013

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Employment and Activity Limitations Among Adults with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease — United States, 2013 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Weekly / Vol. 64 / No. 11 March 27, 2015 Employment and Activity Limitations Among Adults with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease — United States, 2013 Anne G. Wheaton, PhD1, Timothy J. Cunningham, PhD1, Earl S. Ford, MD1, Janet B. Croft, PhD1 (Author affiliations at end of text) Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a group a random-digit–dialed telephone survey (landline and cell of progressive respiratory conditions, including emphysema phone) of noninstitutionalized civilian adults aged ≥18 years and chronic bronchitis, characterized by airflow obstruction that includes various questions about respondents’ health and and symptoms such as shortness of breath, chronic cough, risk behaviors. Response rates for BRFSS are calculated using and sputum production. COPD is an important contributor standards set by the American Association of Public Opinion to mortality and disability in the United States (1,2). Healthy Research Response Rate Formula #4.† The response rate is the People 2020 has several COPD-related objectives,* including number of respondents who completed the survey as a pro- to reduce activity limitations among adults with COPD. To portion of all eligible and likely eligible persons. The median assess the state-level prevalence of COPD and the associa- survey response rate for all states, territories, and DC in 2013 tion of COPD with various activity limitations among U.S. was 46.4%, and ranged from 29.0% to 60.3%. Additional adults, CDC analyzed data from the 2013 Behavioral Risk information is presented in the BRFSS 2013 Summary Data Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). Among U.S. adults in Quality Report.§ all 50 states, the District of Columbia (DC), and two U.S. territories, 6.4% (an estimated 15.7 million adults) had been † Available at http://www.aapor.org/AAPORKentico/AAPOR_Main/media/ MainSiteFiles/StandardDefinitions2011_1.pdf. told by a physician or other health professional that they have § Available at http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/annual_data/2013/pdf/2013_DQR.pdf. COPD. Adults who reported having COPD were more likely to report being unable to work (24.3% versus 5.3%), having an activity limitation caused by health problems (49.6% versus INSIDE 16.9%), having difficulty walking or climbing stairs (38.4% 296 Mycoplasma pneumoniae Outbreak in a Long-Term versus 11.3%), or using special equipment to manage health Care Facility — Nebraska, 2014 problems (22.1% versus 6.7%), compared with adults without 300 Use of 9-Valent Human Papillomavirus (HPV) COPD. Smokers who have been diagnosed with COPD are Vaccine: Updated HPV Vaccination encouraged to quit smoking, which can slow the progression Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on of the disease (3) and reduce mobility impairment (4). In Immunization Practices addition, COPD patients should consider participation in 305 Updated Recommendations for the Use of Typhoid a pulmonary rehabilitation program that combines patient Vaccine — Advisory Committee on Immunization education and exercise training to address barriers to physical Practices, United States, 2015 activity, such as respiratory symptoms and muscle wasting (5). 309 Announcement Each year, the BRFSS survey is administered by state 310 QuickStats health departments in collaboration with CDC. BRFSS is * Additional information available at http://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topics- Continuing Education examination available at objectives/topic/respiratory-diseases/objectives?topicId=36. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/cme/conted_info.html#weekly. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Self-reported, physician-diagnosed COPD was defined as a physical activity status, and activity limitation characteristics. positive response to the question, “Have you ever been told by Additionally, the age-adjusted prevalence of activity limitation a doctor or health professional that you have COPD, emphy- measures was calculated by COPD status, current smoking sema, or chronic bronchitis?” Several questions addressed activ- status, and physical activity status. T-tests were used to com- ity limitations: “Are you limited in any way in any activities pare prevalence between subgroups (significance at p<0.05). because of physical, mental, or emotional problems?”; “Do All indicated differences between subgroups are statistically you have serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs?”; and significant. Data are weighted to state population estimates, “Do you now have any health problem that requires you to use and statistical software that took into account the complex special equipment, such as a cane, a wheelchair, a special bed, sampling design was used. or a special telephone?” Being unable to work was defined for Overall, 6.4% of U.S. adults (an estimated 15.7 million) were respondents who reported they were unable to work in response told by a physician or other health care provider that they have to the question, “Are you currently…? Employed for wages, COPD (age-adjusted prevalence = 6.0%) (Table). Prevalence self-employed, out of work for 1 year or more, out of work for of COPD ranged from 2.6% among those aged 18–34 years less than 1 year, a homemaker, a student, retired, or unable to to 12.3% among those aged ≥75 years. In age-adjusted com- work.” Current smokers reported having smoked at least 100 parisons by race/ethnicity, Asians were the least likely to report cigarettes in their life and currently smoking cigarettes some COPD (2.0%), whereas adults who identified themselves as days or every day. Former smokers reported having smoked at multiracial or American Indian/Alaska Native reported the least 100 cigarettes in their life but were not current smokers. highest prevalence (10.7% and 10.2%, respectively). Women Respondents were categorized as engaging in physical activity if were more likely to report COPD than men (6.6% compared they answered “yes” to the question, “During the past month, with 5.4%). COPD prevalence was lower among employed other than your regular job, did you participate in any physi- adults (3.6%) compared with other employment categories. cal activities or exercises such as running, calisthenics, golf, COPD prevalence was lower with greater educational level. gardening, or walking for exercise?” COPD also varied by marital status, with divorced, widowed, The age-adjusted prevalence of self-reported, physician-diag- or separated respondents being more likely to report COPD nosed COPD (with 95% confidence intervals) was calculated (9.1%) than married respondents (4.7%). COPD was more by state, selected demographic characteristics, smoking status, common among current smokers (14.3%) than former smokers The MMWR series of publications is published by the Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, GA 30329-4027. Suggested citation: [Author names; first three, then et al., if more than six.] [Report title]. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2015;64:[inclusive page numbers]. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Thomas R. Frieden, MD, MPH, Director Harold W. Jaffe, MD, MA, Associate Director for Science Joanne Cono, MD, ScM, Director, Office of Science Quality Chesley L. Richards, MD, MPH, Deputy Director for Public Health Scientific Services Michael F. Iademarco, MD, MPH, Director, Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services MMWR Editorial and Production Staff (Weekly) Sonja A. Rasmussen, MD, MS, Editor-in-Chief Martha F. Boyd, Lead Visual Information Specialist Charlotte K. Kent, PhD, MPH, Executive Editor Maureen A. Leahy, Julia C. Martinroe, John S. Moran, MD, MPH, Editor Stephen R. Spriggs Teresa F. Rutledge, Managing Editor Visual Information Specialists Douglas W. Weatherwax, Lead Technical Writer-Editor Quang M. Doan, MBA, Phyllis H. King, Terraye M. Starr Jude C. Rutledge, Writer-Editor Information Technology Specialists MMWR Editorial Board William L. Roper, MD, MPH, Chapel Hill, NC, Chairman King K. Holmes, MD, PhD, Seattle, WA Matthew L. Boulton, MD, MPH, Ann Arbor, MI Timothy F. Jones, MD, Nashville, TN Virginia A. Caine, MD, Indianapolis, IN Rima F. Khabbaz, MD, Atlanta, GA Jonathan E. Fielding, MD, MPH, MBA, Los Angeles, CA Patricia Quinlisk, MD, MPH, Des Moines, IA David W. Fleming, MD, Seattle, WA Patrick L. Remington, MD, MPH, Madison, WI William E. Halperin, MD, DrPH, MPH, Newark, NJ William Schaffner, MD, Nashville, TN 290 MMWR / March 27, 2015 / Vol. 64 / No. 11 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report TABLE. Age-adjusted* percentage of adults aged ≥18 years reporting having ever been told by a physician that they had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)†, by selected characteristics — Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, United States, 2013 Characteristic No. %§ (95% CI) Estimated no.¶ with COPD Total respondents (crude) 486,921 6.4 (6.3–6.5) 15,667,000 Total (age-adjusted) 486,921 6.0 (5.9–6.1) Age group (yrs) (unadjusted) 18–34 77,294 2.6 (2.4–2.8) 1,931,000 35–44 59,556 3.6 (3.3–3.9) 1,447,000 45–54 83,324 6.7 (6.4–7.1) 2,976,000 55–64 106,090 9.7 (9.3–10.0) 3,823,000 65–74 89,992 11.8 (11.4–12.2) 3,061,000 ≥75 70,665 12.3 (11.8–12.8) 2,429,000 Race/Ethnicity White, non-Hispanic 373,527 6.3 (6.2–6.5) 11,237,000 Black, non-Hispanic 38,686 6.5 (6.1–6.9) 1,844,000 American Indian/Alaska Native, non-Hispanic 7,626 10.2 (8.8–11.7) 267,000 Asian, non-Hispanic 9,381 2.0 (1.4–2.9) 181,000
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Maternal Vaccines - Safety in Pregnancy
    Journal Pre-proof Maternal Vaccines - Safety in pregnancy Dr Mala Arora, FRCOG (UK), FICOG, DObst (Ire), Chairperson, Vice President, Director, Consultant, Dr Rama Lakshmi, MBBS, MD PII: S1521-6934(21)00017-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2021.02.002 Reference: YBEOG 2112 To appear in: Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology Received Date: 14 August 2020 Revised Date: 18 November 2020 Accepted Date: 6 February 2021 Please cite this article as: Arora M, Lakshmi R, Maternal Vaccines - Safety in pregnancy, Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2021.02.002. This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. © 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Maternal Vaccines - Safety in pregnancy Dr Mala Arora FRCOG (UK),FICOG, DObst (Ire) Chairperson ICOG 2017 Vice President FOGSI 2011 Director Noble IVF Centre, sector 14, Faridabad Consultant Fortis La Femme, GK2 New Delhi India Dr Rama Lakshmi MBBS,MD Fellowship (IVF &Reproductive Medicine) Milann Fertility Centre Bengaluru India Corresponding author: Dr Mala Arora E-mail: [email protected];Journal [email protected] Pre-proof Abstract Vaccination during pregnancy is important for active immunity of the mother against serious infectious diseases, and also for passive immunity of the neonate to infectious diseases with high morbidity and mortality.
    [Show full text]
  • (ACIP) General Best Guidance for Immunization
    8. Altered Immunocompetence Updates This section incorporates general content from the Infectious Diseases Society of America policy statement, 2013 IDSA Clinical Practice Guideline for Vaccination of the Immunocompromised Host (1), to which CDC provided input in November 2011. The evidence supporting this guidance is based on expert opinion and arrived at by consensus. General Principles Altered immunocompetence, a term often used synonymously with immunosuppression, immunodeficiency, and immunocompromise, can be classified as primary or secondary. Primary immunodeficiencies generally are inherited and include conditions defined by an inherent absence or quantitative deficiency of cellular, humoral, or both components that provide immunity. Examples include congenital immunodeficiency diseases such as X- linked agammaglobulinemia, SCID, and chronic granulomatous disease. Secondary immunodeficiency is acquired and is defined by loss or qualitative deficiency in cellular or humoral immune components that occurs as a result of a disease process or its therapy. Examples of secondary immunodeficiency include HIV infection, hematopoietic malignancies, treatment with radiation, and treatment with immunosuppressive drugs. The degree to which immunosuppressive drugs cause clinically significant immunodeficiency generally is dose related and varies by drug. Primary and secondary immunodeficiencies might include a combination of deficits in both cellular and humoral immunity. Certain conditions like asplenia and chronic renal disease also can cause altered immunocompetence. Determination of altered immunocompetence is important to the vaccine provider because incidence or severity of some vaccine-preventable diseases is higher in persons with altered immunocompetence; therefore, certain vaccines (e.g., inactivated influenza vaccine, pneumococcal vaccines) are recommended specifically for persons with these diseases (2,3). Administration of live vaccines might need to be deferred until immune function has improved.
    [Show full text]
  • Antibiotic Use Guidelines for Companion Animal Practice (2Nd Edition) Iii
    ii Antibiotic Use Guidelines for Companion Animal Practice (2nd edition) iii Antibiotic Use Guidelines for Companion Animal Practice, 2nd edition Publisher: Companion Animal Group, Danish Veterinary Association, Peter Bangs Vej 30, 2000 Frederiksberg Authors of the guidelines: Lisbeth Rem Jessen (University of Copenhagen) Peter Damborg (University of Copenhagen) Anette Spohr (Evidensia Faxe Animal Hospital) Sandra Goericke-Pesch (University of Veterinary Medicine, Hannover) Rebecca Langhorn (University of Copenhagen) Geoffrey Houser (University of Copenhagen) Jakob Willesen (University of Copenhagen) Mette Schjærff (University of Copenhagen) Thomas Eriksen (University of Copenhagen) Tina Møller Sørensen (University of Copenhagen) Vibeke Frøkjær Jensen (DTU-VET) Flemming Obling (Greve) Luca Guardabassi (University of Copenhagen) Reproduction of extracts from these guidelines is only permitted in accordance with the agreement between the Ministry of Education and Copy-Dan. Danish copyright law restricts all other use without written permission of the publisher. Exception is granted for short excerpts for review purposes. iv Foreword The first edition of the Antibiotic Use Guidelines for Companion Animal Practice was published in autumn of 2012. The aim of the guidelines was to prevent increased antibiotic resistance. A questionnaire circulated to Danish veterinarians in 2015 (Jessen et al., DVT 10, 2016) indicated that the guidelines were well received, and particularly that active users had followed the recommendations. Despite a positive reception and the results of this survey, the actual quantity of antibiotics used is probably a better indicator of the effect of the first guidelines. Chapter two of these updated guidelines therefore details the pattern of developments in antibiotic use, as reported in DANMAP 2016 (www.danmap.org).
    [Show full text]
  • HEDIS®1 Public Comment Overview
    HEDIS®1 Public Comment Overview HEDIS Overview HEDIS is a set of standardized performance measures designed to ensure that purchasers and consumers can reliably compare the performance of health plans. It also serves as a model for emerging systems of performance measurement in other areas of health care delivery. HEDIS is maintained by NCQA, a not-for-profit organization committed to evaluating and publicly reporting on the quality of health plans, ACOs, physicians, and other organizations. The HEDIS measurement set consists of 92 measures across 6 domains of care. Items available for public comment are being considered for HEDIS Measurement Year 2022, which will be published in August 2021. HEDIS Measure Development Process NCQA’s consensus development process involves rigorous review of published guidelines and scientific evidence, as well as feedback from multi-stakeholder advisory panels. The NCQA Committee on Performance Measurement, a diverse panel of independent scientists and representatives from health plans, consumers, federal policymakers, purchasers and clinicians, oversees the evolution of the HEDIS measurement set. Numerous measurement advisory panels provide clinical and technical knowledge required to develop the measures. Additional HEDIS expert panels and the Technical Measurement Advisory Panel provide invaluable assistance by identifying methodological issues and giving feedback on new and existing measures. Synopsis NCQA seeks public feedback on proposed new HEDIS measures, revisions to existing measures and proposed measure retirement. Reviewers are asked to submit comments to NCQA in writing via the Public Comment website by 11:59 p.m. (ET), Thursday, March 11. Submitting Comments Submit all comments via NCQA’s Public Comment website at https://my.ncqa.org/ Note: NCQA does not accept comments via mail, email or fax.
    [Show full text]
  • New Quality-Control Investigations on Vaccines: Micro- and Nanocontamination
    International Journal of Vaccines and Vaccination New Quality-Control Investigations on Vaccines: Micro- and Nanocontamination Abstract Research Article Vaccines are being under investigation for the possible side effects they can Volume 4 Issue 1 - 2017 cause. In order to supply new information, an electron-microscopy investigation method was applied to the study of vaccines, aimed at verifying the presence of solid contaminants by means of an Environmental Scanning Electron Microscope equipped with an X-ray microprobe. The results of this new investigation show 1 the presence of micro- and nanosized particulate matter composed of inorganic National Council of Research of Italy, Institute for the Science elements in vaccines’ samples which is not declared among the components and and Technology of Ceramics, Italy 2International Clean Water Institute, USA 3Nanodiagnostics srl, Italy of those particulate contaminants have already been verified in other matrices whose unduly presence is, for the time being, inexplicable. A considerable part and reported in literature as non biodegradable and non biocompatible. The *Corresponding author: Dr. Antonietta Gatti, National evidence collected is suggestive of some hypotheses correlated to diseases that Council of Research of Italy, c/o Nanodiagnostics are mentioned and briefly discussed. Via E. Fermi, 1/L, 41057 San Vito (MO), Italy, Tel: 059798778; Email: Keywords: Vaccine; Disease; Contamination; Protein corona; Biocompatibility; Received: November 30, 2016 | Published: January 23, process; Quality control 2017 Toxicity; Nanoparticle; Immunogenicity; Foreign body; Environment; Industrial Introduction diseases [10,11]. Neurological damages induced in patients under hemodialysis treated with water containing Aluminum are Vaccines are one of the most notable inventions meant to reported in literature [12].
    [Show full text]
  • Artículos Científicos
    Editor: NOEL GONZÁLEZ GOTERA Número 183 Diseño: Lic. Roberto Chávez y Liuder Machado. Semana 110415 -170415 Foto: Lic. Belkis Romeu e Instituto Finlay La Habana, Cuba. ARTÍCULOS CIENTÍFICOS Publicaciones incluidas en PubMED durante el período comprendido entre el 11 y el 17 de abril de 2015. Con “vaccin*” en título: 154 artículos recuperados. Vacunas meningococo (Neisseria meningitidis) 2. Immunogenicity and Safety of Meningococcal C Conjugate Vaccine in Children and Adolescents Infected and Uninfected with HIV in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Frota AC, Milagres LG, Harrison LH, Ferreira B, Menna Barreto D, Pereira GS, Cruz AC, Pereira- Manfro W, de Oliveira RH, Abreu TF, Hofer CB. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2015 May;34(5):e113-e118. PMID: 25876102 Related citations Select item 25875985 18. Health and Economic Outcomes of Introducing the New MenB Vaccine (Bexsero) into the Italian Routine Infant Immunisation Programme. Tirani M, Meregaglia M, Melegaro A. PLoS One. 2015 Apr 13;10(4):e0123383. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0123383. eCollection 2015. PMID: 25874805 Related citations Select item 25874777 19. Effectiveness of Meningococcal C Conjugate Vaccine in Salvador, Brazil: A Case-Control Study. 1 Cardoso CW, Ribeiro GS, Reis MG, Flannery B, Reis JN. PLoS One. 2015 Apr 13;10(4):e0123734. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0123734. eCollection 2015. PMID: 25874777 Related citations Select item 25874726 83. Brazilian meningococcal C conjugate vaccine: Scaling up studies. Bastos RC, de Souza IM, da Silva MN, Silva FP, Figueira ES, Leal ML, Jessouroun E, Junior JG, Medronho RA, da Silveira IA. Vaccine. 2015 Apr 9. pii: S0264-410X(15)00427-2.
    [Show full text]
  • Situation Report on the Active Substance Amoxicillin
    INSPECTION DIVISION Starting materials inspection division Date: 30/03/2016 Version: 1 public Status: Final SITUATION REPORT ON THE ACTIVE SUBSTANCE AMOXICILLIN I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 2 II. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................. 3 III. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS/GUIDELINES IN FORCE ................................................................ 3 IV. AMOXICILLIN SUPPLY .................................................................................................................... 3 IV.1. Process for obtaining amoxicillin ................................................................................................ 3 IV.2. Sources of supply of medicinal product manufacturing sites in France ..................................... 5 V. EVALUATION OF AMOXICILLIN MANUFACTURERS BY PHARMACEUTICAL SITE .................. 8 VI. REVIEW OF RECENT INSPECTIONS .............................................................................................. 8 VI.1. Collaboration between competent authorities ............................................................................ 8 VI.2. Monitoring of amoxicillin (sodium or trihydrate) manufacturing sites by international authorities since 2010 ..........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Selection and Use of Essential Medicines
    WHO Technical Report Series 1006 The Selection and Use of Essential Medicines Report of the WHO Expert Committee, 2017 (including the 20th WHO Model List of Essential Medicines and the 6th Model List of Essential Medicines for Children) WHO Technical Report Series 1006 The Selection and Use of Essential Medicines Report of the WHO Expert Committee, 2017 (including the 20th WHO Model List of Essential Medicines and the 6th WHO Model List of Essential Medicines for Children) This report contains the collective views of an international group of experts and does not necessarily represent the decisions or the stated policy of the World Health Organization The selection and use of essential medicines: report of the WHO Expert Committee, 2017 (including the 20th WHO model list of essential medicines and the 6th WHO model list of essential medicines for children). (WHO technical report series ; no. 1006) ISBN 978-92-4-121015-7 ISSN 0512-3054 © World Health Organization 2017 Some rights reserved. This work is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- ShareAlike 3.0 IGO licence (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo). Under the terms of this licence, you may copy, redistribute and adapt the work for non-commercial purposes, provided the work is appropriately cited, as indicated below. In any use of this work, there should be no suggestion that WHO endorses any specific organization, products or services. The use of the WHO logo is not permitted. If you adapt the work, then you must license your work under the same or equivalent Creative Commons licence.
    [Show full text]
  • Together, Let's Save Antibiotics
    TOGETHER, LET’S SAVE ANTIBIOTICS Proposals of the special working group for keeping antibiotics effective Together, let’s save antibiotics Written by : Dr Jean CARLET and Pierre LE COZ 2 TOGETHER, LET’S SAVE ANTIBIOTICS REPORT FROM THE SPECIAL WORKING GROUP FOR KEEPING ANTIBIOTICS EFFECTIVE June 2015 TOGETHER, LET’S SAVE ANTIBIOTICS 3 Acknowledgements My sincere thanks go first and foremost to Marisol Touraine, the French Minister of Social Affairs, Health and Women’s Rights, for entrusting me with this assignment. I would also like to thank the cabinet ministers, especially Professor Djillali Annane and Dr Jérôme Salomon for their well-informed advice. I am grateful to Professor Benoît Vallet, Director-General for Health, for his encouragements throughout this assignment, and to Dr Marie-Hélène Loulergue, Deputy-Director of Infection Risk Prevention, her assistant Dr Bernadette Worms and their team for their warm welcome. I would like to highlight the involvement and commitment of the working group coordinators, Dr Bruno Coignard, Deputy Director of the Department of Infectious Diseases at the French Institute for Public Health Surveillance (InVS), Professor Céline Pulcini, infectious diseases consultant at Nancy Teaching Hospital (CHU), Ms Claude Rambaud, Vice-President of the Collectif Inter-associatif Sur la Santé (CISS), Mr Alain-Michel Ceretti, Founder and Chairman of LIEN, Professor Jocelyne Arquembourg, lecturer at the University of Paris III – Sorbonne Nouvelle, Ms Florence Séjourné, Managing Director of the biotech Da Volterra,
    [Show full text]
  • Vaccines in a Manner Not Approved by the U.S
    Immunization 101 Laurie Courtney MSN, RN Immunization Nurse Manager Massachusetts Department Of Public Health Immunization Division 1 MAIC 2021 Presenter Disclosure Information I, Laurie Courtney, have been asked to disclose any relevant financial relationships with ACCME-defined commercial entities that are either providing financial support for this program or whose products or services are mentioned during this presentation. I have no relevant financial relationships to disclose. I may discuss the use of vaccines in a manner not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, but in accordance with ACIP recommendations MAIC 2021 2 Outline • Principles of vaccination • 2021 Immunization schedules • Vaccination and the COVID-19 pandemic • Vaccine safety and adverse events reporting • COVID-19 guidance • Resources 3 MAIC 2021 Principles of vaccination 4 Community Immunity/Herd Immunity MAIC 2021 5 https://www.mlive.com/news/2014/12/how_do_vaccinations_work_the_s.html Types of Immunity • Passive Immunity . Produced by one animal or human and transferred to another . Immediate, temporary protection . Maternal antibodies . Blood products, IG, plasma . Antitoxin . Monoclonal antibodies • Active Immunity . Protection produced by a person’s own immune system . Lasts for many years, often for a lifetime . Survive infection . Vaccination https://www.vaccines.gov/basics/types 6 MAIC 2021 Types of Vaccines • Live-attenuated vaccines MMR, LAIV, Varicella, oral polio, rotavirus, BCG • Inactivated vaccines Hep A, IIV, IPV, rabies • Subunit, recombinant, polysaccharide, and conjugate vaccines PPSV23, PCV13, Hep B, MenACWY/B, Shingrix, HPV, Hib, Pertussis • Toxoid vaccines DTaP, Tdap, Td • Messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines COVID-19 • Viral vector vaccines COVID-19 https://www.vaccines.gov/basics/types 7 MAIC 2021 Timing and Spacing of Vaccines • Refer to ACIP General Best Practice Guidelines .
    [Show full text]
  • Towards a New Global Business Model for Antibiotics
    Towards a New Global Business Model for Antibiotics Global Business Model for a New Towards Chatham House Report Edited by Charles Clift, Unni Gopinathan, Chantal Morel, Kevin Outterson, John-Arne Røttingen and Anthony So Towards a New Global Business Model for Antibiotics Edited by Charles Clift, Gopinathan, and Anthony John-ArneSo Outterson, Charles Chantal Unni Kevin Røttingen by Morel, Edited Delinking Revenues from Sales Report from the Chatham House Working Group on New Antibiotic Business Models Chatham House Chatham House Report Edited by Charles Clift, Unni Gopinathan, Chantal Morel, Kevin Outterson, John-Arne Røttingen and Anthony So October 2015 Towards a New Global Business Model for Antibiotics Delinking Revenues from Sales Report from the Chatham House Working Group on New Antibiotic Business Models Chatham House, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, is an independent policy institute based in London. Our mission is to help build a sustainably secure, prosperous and just world. The Royal Institute of International Affairs Chatham House 10 St James’s Square London SW1Y 4LE T: +44 (0) 20 7957 5700 F: + 44 (0) 20 7957 5710 www.chathamhouse.org Charity Registration No. 208223 © The Royal Institute of International Affairs, 2015 Chatham House, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, does not express opinions of its own. The opinions expressed in this publication are the responsibility of the authors. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical including photocopying, recording or any information storage or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the copyright holder.
    [Show full text]
  • Vaccine Technology in Human and Animal Health: Market Assessment and Intellectual Property Landscape
    APRIL 2020 VACCINE TECHNOLOGY IN HUMAN AND ANIMAL HEALTH: MARKET ASSESSMENT AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LANDSCAPE Primary Author: Rachel Nash Sector Lead: Rupert Osborn IP Pragmatics Limited London | Edinburgh | Sydney www.ip-pragmatics.com 2 | P a g e TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................... 2 1. Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 3 2. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 4 3. Market overview ................................................................................................................................. 5 3.1 Human Vaccine Market ................................................................................................................. 7 3.2 Animal Vaccine Market ............................................................................................................... 15 4. Key Players ........................................................................................................................................ 20 4.1 Human Vaccines .......................................................................................................................... 21 4.2 Animal Vaccines .........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]