lunes, 18 de diciembre de 2017

WHO Guidelines to Protect Workers from Nanomaterials | | Blogs | CDC

WHO Guidelines to Protect Workers from Nanomaterials | | Blogs | CDC

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC twenty four seven. Saving Lives, Protecting People



WHO Guidelines to Protect Workers from Nanomaterials

Posted on  by John Howard, MD, and Vladimir Murashov, PhD



Introduction from NIOSH Director, John Howard, MD

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has been at the forefront of research on working safely with nanomaterials. NIOSH leads the U.S. federal government health and safety initiative for nanotechnology coordinating research and activities through the NIOSH Nanotechnology Research Center (NTRC) established in 2004. The release of World Health Organization’s Guidelines on Protecting Workers from Potential Risks of Manufactured Nanomaterials is an important step in protecting workers worldwide from the potential risks of manufactured nanomaterials (MNMs).
The World Health Assembly identified the assessment of health impacts of new technologies, work processes and products as one of the activities under the Global Plan of Action on Workers’ Health adopted in 2007, and the WHO Global Network of Collaborating Centres in Occupational Health has selected MNMs as a key focus of its activity. I would like to personally thank NIOSH’s Vladimir Murashov, Ph.D., who chaired the WHO Guidelines development process, for his tireless efforts to protect all workers from the potential risks of MNMS.

On December 12, 2017 World Health Organization (WHO) published Guidelines on Protecting Workers from Potential Risks of Manufactured Nanomaterials. Distinct from other international organizations that have been active in the safety of nanomaterials, WHO targets these guidelines for workplaces in small- and medium-size enterprises and low- and middle-income countries. The increased production of manufactured nanomaterials (MNMs) and their use in consumer and industrial products means that workers in all countries will be at the front line of exposure to these materials, placing them at increased risk for potential adverse health effects. Currently there is a lack of precise information about human exposure pathways for MNMs, their fate in the human body and their ability to induce unwanted biological effects such as generation of oxidative stress. For background on the potential risks of working with nanomaterials see the NIOSH Nanotechnology Topic Page. These guidelines, which are the result of seven years of work by experts around the world, make 11 recommendations and reach two additional conclusions covering hazard and exposure assessments and risk mitigation measures for nanomaterials in the workplace:

Assess Health Hazards of MNMs

    • The Guideline Development Group recommends assigning hazard classes to all MNMs according to the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals for use in safety data sheets. For a limited number of MNMs this information is made available in these guidelines (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).
    • The Guideline Development Group recommends updating safety data sheets with MNM-specific hazard information or indicating which toxicological end-points did not have adequate testing available (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).
    • For the respirable fibres and granular biopersistent particles’ groups, the Guideline Development Group suggests using the available classification of MNMs for provisional classification of nanomaterials of the same group (conditional recommendation, low-quality evidence).

Assess Exposure to MNMs

    • The Guideline Development Group suggests assessing workers’ exposure in workplaces with methods similar to those used for the proposed specific occupational exposure limit (OEL) value of the MNM (conditional recommendation, low-quality evidence).
    • Because there are no specific regulatory OEL values for MNMs in workplaces, the Guideline Development Group suggests assessing whether workplace exposure exceeds a proposed OEL value for the MNM. A list of proposed OEL values is provided in Annex 1 of these guidelines. The chosen OEL should be at least as protective as a legally mandated OEL for the bulk form of the material (conditional recommendation, low-quality evidence).
    • If specific OELs for MNMs are not available in workplaces, the Guideline Development Group suggests a stepwise approach for inhalation exposure with, first an assessment of the potential for exposure; second, conducting basic exposure assessment and third, conducting a comprehensive exposure assessment such as those proposed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development or Comité Européen de Normalisation (the European Committee for Standardization) (conditional recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). For dermal exposure assessment, there was insufficient evidence to recommend one method of dermal exposure assessment over another.

Control Exposure to MNMs

    • Based on a precautionary approach, the Guideline Development Group recommends focusing control of exposure on preventing inhalation exposure with the aim of reducing it as much as possible (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).
    • The Guideline Development Group recommends reduction of exposures to a range of MNMs that have been consistently measured in workplaces especially during cleaning and maintenance, collecting material from reaction vessels and feeding MNMs into the production process. In the absence of toxicological information, the group recommends implementing the highest level of controls to prevent workers from any exposure. When more information is available, the group recommends taking a more tailored approach (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).
    • The Guideline Development Group recommends taking control measures based on the principle of hierarchy of controls, meaning that the first control measure should be to eliminate the source of exposure before implementing control measures that are more dependent on worker involvement, with personal protective equipment (PPE) being used only as a last resort. According to this principle, engineering controls should be used when there is a high level of inhalation exposure or when there is no, or very little, toxicological information available. In the absence of appropriate engineering controls, PPE should be used, especially respiratory protection, as part of a respiratory protection programme that includes fit-testing (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).
    • The Guideline Development Group suggests preventing dermal exposure by occupational hygiene measures such as surface cleaning, and the use of appropriate gloves (conditional recommendation, low-quality evidence).
    • When assessment and measurement by a workplace safety expert is not available, the Guideline Development Group suggests using control banding for nanomaterials to select exposure control measures in the workplace. Owing to a lack of studies, the group cannot recommend one method of control banding over another (conditional recommendation, very low-quality evidence).
  • Health Surveillance

    • The Guideline Development Group cannot make a recommendation for targeted MNM-specific health surveillance programmes over existing health surveillance programmes that are already in use owing to the lack of evidence.

    Training and Involvement of Workers

    • The Guideline Development Group considers training of workers and worker involvement in health and safety issues to be best practice but cannot recommend one form of training of workers over another, or one form of worker involvement over another, owing to the lack of studies available.

    The recommendations and conclusions arise from results of eleven systematic reviews accompanying these guidelines. The systematic reviews followed the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) systematic review process, on which WHO relies exclusively for the development of any guidelines. Since The GRADE systematic review process was developed for medical topics, where clinical trials could be conducted, it is not suited well for other health topics such as environmental and occupational health. Thus the development of these guidelines also provided invaluable experience on adapting the GRADE systematic review process to occupational health and other non-medical topics.
    This project did not have a dedicated funding, instead all of the work was done through voluntary contributions of experts and organizations: eight organizations participating in the WHO Global Network of Collaborating Centers on Occupational Health and five non-member organizations. In addition, experts from 15 countries participated in the external review.
    NIOSH led the effort to develop the guidelines by chairing the Guideline Development Group, by contributing one of the eleven systematic reviews (Eastlake A, Zumwalde R, Geraci C. Can control banding be useful for the safe handling of nanomaterials? A systematic review. J Nanoparticle Res. 2016;18:169. doi: 10.1007/s11051-016-3476-0) and by participating in the external expert review.
    Experience gained during the development of these guidelines contributed to the NIOSH effort to advance a systematic review process tailored for the occupational safety and health topics (for more information see NIOSH Science Blog on the systematic review for occupational safety and health questions. NIOSH plans to continue supporting this WHO effort at the guideline implementation phase, which will focus on turning these guidelines into practice.

    John Howard, MD, NIOSH Director
    Vladimir Murashov, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, NIOSH Office of the Director and Chair of the WHO Guidelines Development Group. 

Posted on  by John Howard, MD, and Vladimir Murashov, PhD

A Child’s Health is the Public’s Health | Features | CDC

A Child’s Health is the Public’s Health | Features | CDC

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC twenty four seven. Saving Lives, Protecting People



A Child’s Health is the Public’s Health

Group of children



Preparing for unexpected events is an important part of keeping children safe and healthy all year long. Events like the spread of a serious infection, an explosion, an earthquake, or a weather event, such as a hurricane, may cause health problems for large numbers of people, and especially for children.
Children make up one in four people in the United States and they have special needs during and after emergencies. Although younger children are often more affected than adults during disasters, there are concerns for children of all ages during emergencies because
  • Children may not be able to follow directions or make decisions to keep them away from danger during a disaster.
  • Children’s bodies use energy quicker than adults’ do, and they need food and water more often. This means that they will absorb poisons or dangerous chemicals faster than adults will.
  • Children have thinner skin and breathe faster than adults do, making them more likely to take in harmful substances through the skin or breathe them in.
  • Children are smaller than adults, but they have more skin in relation to their overall size, compared to adults. This means they have a higher chance of being harmed by certain chemicals or very hot or cold temperatures.
  • Children are more likely to put their hands in their mouths, and spend more time outdoors and on the ground, making them more likely to come into contact with dangers in the environment.
  • Children may not be able to explain how they are feeling, which can make it harder to identify a medical problem and treat them quickly.
  • Children have more contact with others, and they have less developed immune systems to fight off infections. This means they are more likely to catch an illness that can spread from person to person.
    Some children have special healthcare needs. These can increase a child’s chance of getting sick during an emergency, especially if the child is separated from a parent or caregiver.
Young girl carrying lantern
Caring for children during emergency procedures calls for planning and action before an emergency happens.

Progress on including Children’s Needs during Emergencies

Although children have a greater chance of being harmed during an emergency, it takes special attention to children’s needs to make sure they are not passed over when emergency plans are made or carried out. Caring for children during emergency procedures, such as evacuationdecontamination and sheltering, calls for planning and action before an emergency happens. For example, in an emergency, hospitals might have to care for a large number of children. Without planning ahead of time, hospitals may not have the right equipment and supplies to care for more than the usual number of young patients.
Agencies in local communities and at the state and national levels are working to make sure children are protected during disasters by taking steps, such as
  • Making new or stronger connections between public health, children’s healthcare providers, children’s hospitals; schools and the Board of Education;
  • Developing instructions for how to keep children healthy during an emergency and how to treat children who are sick or have special health care needs;
  • Sharing information and ideas about including children’s needs in emergency plans and about how to carry out these plans during an emergency; and
  • Preparing for the next event by reviewing what was learned from previous events and making improvements.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) created a Children’s Preparedness Unit (CPU) in 2012 to focus on protecting children during outbreaks and other emergencies. CPU works with partners to include children’s needs in all stages of an emergency. Most recently, CPU members staffed the CDC Emergency Operations Center for the Zika virus outbreak to serve as experts on children’s health. For the 2017 hurricane responses, CPU worked closely with CDC’s Vulnerable Populations Officer to establish the first At Risk Task Force for a response. This unique collaboration helped strengthen connections between groups across the agency and increase efficiency for current and future response efforts.

Moving Forward

Progress has been made, but there is still more work to do to protect children during emergencies. More research could determine how well emergency plans have protected children so far, how plans can be improved, and what can be done to serve children better during emergency events. For example, research could provide information on the mental health of children in disasters. Children respond to upsetting events differently, depending on their ages and states of development. Taking these differences into account in emergency plans might be one way to do a better job of caring for children.
Preparing to take care of children during a disaster is not always easy, but planning now can protect their safety and health in the future. Learn more about children in emergencies.


More Information

CDC Undergraduate Public Health Scholars (CUPS) Program | Features | CDC

CDC Undergraduate Public Health Scholars (CUPS) Program | Features | CDC

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC twenty four seven. Saving Lives, Protecting People

CDC Undergraduate Public Health Scholars (CUPS) Program

Participants of CUPS program orientation



Learn about programs that provide valuable exposure to a wide range of public health opportunities and see what past program participants have to say about their experience.
CDC’s Office of Minority Health and Health Equity (OMHHE) supports internship opportunities for qualified undergraduate and graduate students to gain meaningful experiences in public health settings.

What is CUPS?

OMHHE sponsors the CDC Undergraduate Public Health Scholars (CUPS) program, consisting of six internship opportunities taking place at five partner institutions that offer a public health workplace experience to increase student interest in minority health. CUPS enrolls a diverse and talented group of students and provides them with an opportunity to turn knowledge into real world application.
CUPS participants sitting at round table
The CUPS Program offers many opportunities to gain meaningful experience in a public health setting.
Students: application deadline is January 31, 2018. Apply on the school’s website.

Why Does CUPS Matter?

The CUPS program prepares a diverse body of students to ensure a more diverse workforce in the future. Minorities are projected to comprise 57% of the population in 2060. It will become increasingly important that the public health workforce has experience in minority health topics. Over 60% of CUPS students are accepted into public health schools or take positions in public health. During their internships, students are placed in a variety of public health settings including community organizations, health departments, university-based programs, and federal agencies. Students display a variety of skills and knowledge including focus on epidemiology, fundamentals of public health, minority health and health disparities, working with special populations, and biostatistics and statistical software.
The following is a description of the opportunities at each institution:
  • Summer Public Health Scholars Program (SPHSP) at Columbia University Medical Center
    The Summer Public Health Scholars Program is a 10-week summer training program for undergraduates in their junior and senior year and recent baccalaureate degree students. At the conclusion of the program, interns deliver an oral presentation and submit a final paper on a public health challenge or intervention.
  • Maternal Child Health Careers / Research Initiatives for Student Enhancement-Undergraduate Program (MCHC/RISE-UP) at Kennedy Krieger Institute
    The MCHC/RISE-UP Program is a 10-week summer public health leadership program designed for undergraduates in their junior and senior year and recent baccalaureate degree students (within 12 months). MCHC/RISE-UP is a national consortium of institutions including the Kennedy Krieger Institute (KKI), Maryland Center for Developmental Disabilities, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Nursing, and Public Health, University of Southern California, California State University-LA, and University of South Dakota Sanford School of Medicine Center for Disabilities. Three tracks are offered: (1) clinical (KKI only), (2) research, and (3) community engagement and advocacy.
  • Project: IMHOTEP at Morehouse College
    Project: IMHOTEP is an 11-week summer program designed for undergraduates in their junior and senior year and recent baccalaureate degree students. Throughout the program, interns participate in a wide variety of seminars, workshops, and other educational opportunities and must complete a required number of community service hours.
  • Future Public Health Leaders Program (FPHLP) at University of Michigan School of Public Health
    The Future Public Health Leaders Program is a 10-week summer program designed for undergraduates in their junior and senior year and recent baccalaureate degree students. The participants explore public health through seminars, workshops, and engagement in a community-based research project.
  • UCLA Public Health Scholars Training Program at Regents of the University of California, Los Angeles
    The UCLA Public Health Scholars Training Program is an 8-week residential summer training program that will expose undergraduate students to the field of public health. The program will increase the diversity of the public health workforce, improve the representation of underserved and underrepresented groups in public health, and solidify the public health pipeline, all of which will ultimately raise the quality of public health service.
For Graduate Students
  • Dr. James A. Ferguson, Emerging Infectious Diseases Fellowship Program (Ferguson Fellows) at Kennedy Krieger Institute
    The Dr. James A. Ferguson Emerging Infectious Diseases Fellowship is a 9-week summer program for students currently enrolled full-time in a medical, dental, pharmacy, veterinary, or public health graduate program who are interested in participating in infectious diseases and health disparities research. Ferguson Fellows are encouraged and supported to submit their research to national meetings and for publication.
Marcus R. Andrews, MPH
Marcus R. Andrews, MPH
Genesis R. Bojorquez, MSNc, RN
Genesis R. Bojorquez MSNc, RN

The Future of Public Health

Learn about former students and what the CUPS experience means to them.  

Marcus R. Andrews, MPH

School(s) Attended: George Washington University (undergraduate and graduate)
CUPS Program:  Project IMHOTEP, 2015
Degrees Earned: Bachelor of Arts in Sociology, 2015; Master of Public Health, 2017
“The CUPS program provided me with additional skill sets to contribute to the field of public health and health disparities. While working with Dr. Tiffany Powell-Wiley at the National Institutes of Health, our research used epidemiologic methods and geographic information systems (GIS) to understand the socioeconomic, psychosocial, and environmental factors that promote weight gain and cardiovascular risk factors among multi-ethnic populations.”

Genesis R. Bojorquez MSNc, RN

School(s) Attended: San Diego State University, 2015; University of San Diego, 2017
CUPS Program: Project IMHOTEP, 2015
Degrees Earned: Bachelor of Science, Nursing; Master of Science in Nursing, Executive Nurse; PhD (c)
“The CUPS program has set a trajectory for me both professionally and academically. CUPS provided me with the motivation and resources to succeed in the graduate school application process, and the internship solidified my interest in public health research. My entire CUPS experience was phenomenal and I formed life-long relationships with my mentors and other interns.”
Learn more about former CUPS participants on OMHHE’s student highlights page.

Other CDC-Sponsored Student Opportunities



More Information

Telemedicine Increases Diabetic Eye Exams | Features | CDC

Telemedicine Increases Diabetic Eye Exams | Features | CDC

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC twenty four seven. Saving Lives, Protecting People



Telemedicine Increases Diabetic Eye Exams

Man having eyes examined



Early diagnosis through screening and treatment of diabetes-related eye disease is 90% effective in preventing blindness. More participants were screened for eye disease at local health clinics using telemedicine than when referred out to eye care providers.
Oregon Health and Science University Prevention Research Center (PRC) is researching the effectiveness of using telemedicine to prevent blindness from diabetic retinopathy.
The leading cause of blindness in working-age adults is eye disease related to poorly managed diabetes.1 Diabetic retinopathy is significant because an 83% increase in diabetes is expected— 24 million in 2009 to 44 million by 2034.1
Minority populations including American Indian/Alaska Natives are two times more likely to have diabetes than non-Hispanic whites.1 There is a 78% chance that people with poorly managed diabetes for more than 15 years will develop eye disease.
Early diagnosis through screening and treatment of diabetes-related eye disease are 90% effective in preventing blindness.1 In many communities, it can be challenging to obtain eye exams from eye care providers due to:
  • Lack of transportation
  • Lack of health insurance
  • Limited access to eye care providers
  • Financial burdens such as co-pays or other associated cost of the exam

Research Question

Does screening for diabetic eye disease using telemedicine at community health clinics increase the number of people getting eye exams? Telemedicine is the use of electronic information and telecommunications to support and promote long-distance clinical health care, patient and professional health-related education, public health care, and health administration.2

Study

During their visits to community health clinics, over 500 diabetic patient participants were assigned to either a telemedicine screening group or were referred out to a traditional eye care provider. Technicians at the clinic took pictures of both eyes using a specially designed digital camera, and the telemedicine system automatically created and e-mailed an evaluation report to the clinic staff.

The Bottom Line

More of the telemedicine participants were screened for diabetic eye disease at their community health clinic than participants being referred out to an eye care provider—94% were screened via telemedicine versus 56% when referred out.

References

  1. Mansberger SL, Gleitsman K, Gardiner S., et al. Comparing the effectiveness of telemedicine and traditional surveillance in providing diabetic retinopathy screening examinations: a randomized controlled trial. Telemedicine Journal and E-Health. 2013;12:942–948.
  2. Center for Connected health Policy. Accessed Aug. 28, 2017

CDC - Cancer, the Flu, and You Feature

CDC - Cancer, the Flu, and You Feature



Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC twenty four seven. Saving Lives, Protecting People



Cancer, the Flu, and You



A nurse giving a flu shot to a patient



Everyone 6 months of age and older should get a flu vaccine every season.
Living with cancer increases your risk for complications from influenza (“flu”). If you have cancer now or have had cancer in the past, you are at higher risk for complications from the seasonal flu or influenza, including hospitalization and death.

Get Your Flu Shot!

People with cancer or a history of cancer, and people who live with or care for cancer patients and survivors, should get a seasonal flu shot. Immune defenses become weaker with age, which places older people at greater risk of severe illness from flu. Also, aging decreases the body’s ability to have a good immune response after getting a flu shot. Two vaccines are designed specifically for people 65 and older—
Many people who are at increased risk for flu are also at increased risk for pneumococcal disease. People with cancer or other diseases that compromise your immune system should ask their health care providers if pneumococcal shots are needed.

What to Do If You Get Sick

Make a plan in advance with your doctor about what to do if you get sick. Flu-like symptoms also can be a sign of a very serious infection that is not the flu and could result in a hospital stay or even death. The plan includes when you should call your doctor and how to get a prescription for antiviral medication quickly if needed.
If you have flu symptoms, stay home for at least 24 hours after your fever is gone except to get medical care or for other necessities. Your fever should be gone without the use of a fever-reducing medicine. Keep away from others as much as possible to avoid making them sick. It’s important for people with cancer to notify their doctor immediately if they get a fever.

Flu Treatment for Cancer Patients and Survivors

CDC recommends antiviral drugs to treat and prevent infection. Antiviral drugs are prescription medicines that stop flu viruses from reproducing in your body. If you get sick, antiviral drugs can make your illness milder and make you feel better faster. They may also prevent serious flu complications.
If you have received cancer treatment such as chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy within the last month, or have a blood or lymphatic form of cancer, call your doctor immediately if you have been within six feet (1.8m) of someone known or suspected to have the flu. Your doctor may give you antiviral drugs to help prevent the flu.
If you have cancer and have not received treatment within the last month, or you have had cancer in the past but are cancer-free now, and you have had close contact with someone known or suspected to have the flu, call your doctor and ask if you should receive antiviral drugs.

Help Prevent the Flu from Spreading

Good health habits can help stop the flu from spreading. For example, cover your nose and mouth with a tissue when you cough or sneeze and wash your hands often.

Bleeding Disorders in Women | Features | CDC

Bleeding Disorders in Women | Features | CDC

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC twenty four seven. Saving Lives, Protecting People

Bleeding Disorders in Women

Group of women



Did you know that heavy, prolonged menstrual bleeding (bleeding during a woman’s period) may be a sign of a bleeding disorder in women? As many as 1% of women in the United States may have a bleeding disorder, but many women are not aware of the condition despite having symptoms. Learn more about bleeding disorders in women. Take steps to understand if you are at risk for a bleeding disorder.
Bleeding disorders have a significant impact on a woman’s reproductive health and quality of life. The most common bleeding disorder in women is von Willebrand disease (VWD), which occurs when the blood lacks a certain protein that helps the blood to clot, resulting in excessive or prolonged bleeding. Women with bleeding disorders can experience anemia (low number of red blood cells in the blood) causing one to feel tired and weak, pain during a menstrual period, limitations in daily activities, and a reduced quality of life. It is important for women to know the signs and symptoms of a bleeding disorder and to talk to their doctors if they have symptoms.

Signs and Symptoms

Menorrhagia (Heavy Menstrual Bleeding)

Women are more likely to notice symptoms of a bleeding disorder because of their menstrual period. Heavy or prolonged menstrual bleeding, also known as menorrhagia, can be a sign of a bleeding disorder.
Menorrhagia is menstrual bleeding that lasts for more than 7 days or when menstrual bleeding is heavy. Heavy bleeding is when a tampon or pad needs to be changed after less than 2 hours or if there are clots the size of a quarter or larger.
If you think your menstrual period might be heavy, print and use a menstrual chart to track your bleeding and talk to your doctor about it. Heavy bleeding can cause you to feel tired or weak from anemia and can lead to other preventable health problems. If menorrhagia is left untreated, it could lead to more serious but potentially avoidable medical procedures, such as a hysterectomy (a surgery to remove a woman’s uterus or womb).
Women experiencing heavy bleeding should talk to their doctors about their symptoms and seek treatment to avoid more serious health problems.

Other Symptoms of a Bleeding Disorder

  • Received treatment for anemia or been told you’re “low in iron.”
  • Heavy bleeding after dental surgery, other surgery, or childbirth.
  • Prolonged bleeding episodes as a result of the following:
    • Dental surgery, other surgery, or childbirth
    • Nose bleed (bleeding longer than 10 minutes)
    • Cut or injury (bleeding longer than 5 minutes)
  • Easy and frequent bruising (weekly or more frequent, raised, and larger than a quarter in size)
  • Having a family member who has a bleeding disorder, such as VWD or hemophilia.

Are You at Risk?

In partnership with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Hemophilia Foundation launched the Better You Know campaign to raise awareness and knowledge of bleeding disorders. The campaign focuses on men and women who experience symptoms of a bleeding disorder but have not yet been diagnosed.
Bleeding disorders in women and the symptoms, such as menorrhagia, can be treated. If you have any of the symptoms listed above, it’s important to know your risk for having a bleeding disorder and get diagnosed. Your life can be better if you know. Take the first step toward finding out if you are at risk for a bleeding disorder by taking a simple, online risk assessment at betteryouknow.org and talking to your doctor about your results.
Your life can be better if you know. Better if you seek care. Better if you get treatment.
Find resources and information on bleeding disorders from the Better You Know campaign here.
Learn more about bleeding disorders in women by visiting CDC’s webpage here.

Weekly U.S. Influenza Surveillance Report | Seasonal Influenza (Flu) | CDC

Weekly U.S. Influenza Surveillance Report | Seasonal Influenza (Flu) | CDC

FluView: A Weekly Influenza Surveillance Report Prepared by the Influenza Division

Weekly U.S. Influenza Surveillance Report



Synopsis:

During week 49 (December 3-9, 2017), influenza activity increased in the United States.
  • Viral Surveillance: The most frequently identified influenza virus type reported by public health laboratories during week 49 was influenza A. The percentage of respiratory specimens testing positive for influenza in clinical laboratories increased.
  • Novel Influenza A Virus: One human infection with a novel influenza A virus was reported.
  • Pneumonia and Influenza Mortality: The proportion of deaths attributed to pneumonia and influenza (P&I) was below the system-specific epidemic threshold in the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) Mortality Surveillance System.
  • Influenza-associated Pediatric Deaths: One influenza-associated pediatric death was reported.
  • Influenza-associated Hospitalizations: A cumulative rate of 4.3 laboratory-confirmed influenza-associated hospitalizations per 100,000 population was reported.
  • Outpatient Illness Surveillance:The proportion of outpatient visits for influenza-like illness (ILI) was 2.7%, which is above the national baseline of 2.2%. Seven of the 10 regions reported ILI at or above region-specific baseline levels. Four states experienced high ILI activity; five states experienced moderate ILI activity; New York City, Puerto Rico, and 16 states experienced low ILI activity; 25 states experienced minimal ILI activity; and the District of Columbia had insufficient data.
  • Geographic Spread of Influenza:The geographic spread of influenza in 12 states was reported as widespread; Puerto Rico and 26 states reported regional activity; 10 states reported local activity; the District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands and two states reported sporadic activity; and Guam did not report.

Weekly U.S. Influenza Surveillance Report

CDC’s Influenza Division produces a weekly influenza surveillance report, FluView. According to this week's report (Dec 3-Dec 9), seasonal influenza activity is increasing in the United States. Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas experienced high Influenza Like Illness (ILI) activity levels. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, and Kentucky experienced moderate ILI activity.
Learn More

Influenza Prevention: Information for Travelers | Seasonal Influenza (Flu) | CDC

Influenza Prevention: Information for Travelers | Seasonal Influenza (Flu) | CDC

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC twenty four seven. Saving Lives, Protecting People



Traveling this season



Traveling this season?

The risk for exposure to flu during travel depends somewhat on the time of year and destination. It takes 2 weeks for vaccine immunity to develop after vaccination, so make sure to get vaccinated at least 2 weeks before travel.
Learn More

2017-18 Flu Season | FluVaxView | Seasonal Influenza (Flu) | CDC

2017-18 Flu Season | FluVaxView | Seasonal Influenza (Flu) | CDC



Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC twenty four seven. Saving Lives, Protecting People



Early-Season Flu Vaccination Coverage

Early-Season Flu Vaccination Coverage

On December 7, 2017, CDC released early-season flu vaccination coverage estimates for the 2017-2018 influenza season. The three reports include flu vaccination coverage estimates among the general population, health care professionals, and pregnant women.
Learn More


Results for the General Population
Results for Health Care Personnel
Results for Pregnant Women

Back Pain Update

Back Pain Update

Back Pain Update

New on the MedlinePlus Back Pain page:
12/13/2017 07:00 PM EST


Source: HealthDay

Disaster Preparation and Recovery Update

Disaster Preparation and Recovery Update

Disaster Preparation and Recovery Update

New on the MedlinePlus Disaster Preparation and Recovery page:
12/13/2017 04:00 PM EST


Source: HealthDay