CDC Advisory

Influenza activity is currently low in the United States as a whole, but is increasing in some parts of the country. This season, influenza A (H3N2) viruses have been reported most frequently and have been detected in almost all states.

During past seasons when influenza A (H3N2) viruses have predominated, higher overall and age-specific hospitalization rates and more mortality have been observed, especially among older people, very young children, and persons with certain chronic medical conditions compared with seasons during which influenza A (H1N1) or influenza B viruses have predominated.

Influenza viral characterization data indicates that 48% of the influenza A (H3N2) viruses collected and analyzed in the United States from October 1 through November 22, 2014 were antigenically “like” the 2014-2015 influenza A (H3N2) vaccine component, but that 52% were antigenically different (drifted) from the H3N2 vaccine virus. In past seasons during which predominant circulating influenza viruses have been antigenically drifted, decreased vaccine effectiveness has been observed. However, vaccination has been found to provide some protection against drifted viruses. Though reduced, this cross-protection might reduce the likelihood of severe outcomes such as hospitalization and death. In addition, vaccination will offer protection against circulating influenza strains that have not undergone significant antigenic drift from the vaccine viruses (such as influenza A (H1N1) and B viruses).

Because of the detection of these drifted influenza A (H3N2) viruses, this CDC Health Advisory is being issued to re-emphasize the importance of the use of neuraminidase inhibitor antiviral medications when indicated for treatment and prevention of influenza, as an adjunct to vaccination.

The two prescription antiviral medications recommended for treatment or prevention of influenza are oseltamivir (Tamiflu®) and zanamivir (Relenza®). Evidence from past influenza seasons and the 2009 H1N1 pandemic has shown that treatment with neuraminidase inhibitors has clinical and public health benefit in reducing severe outcomes of influenza and, when indicated, should be initiated as soon as possible after illness onset. Clinical trials and observational data show that early antiviral treatment can:

  • shorten the duration of fever and illness symptoms;
  • reduce the risk of complications from influenza (e.g., otitis media in young children and pneumonia requiring antibiotics in adults); and
  • reduce the risk of death among hospitalized patients.

Background: As of November 22, influenza activity has increased slightly in most parts of the United States. Surveillance data indicate that influenza A (H3N2) viruses have predominated so far, with lower levels of detection of influenza B viruses and even less detection of H1N1 viruses. During the week ending November 22, 1,123 (91.4%) of the 1,228 influenza-positive tests reported to CDC were influenza A viruses and 105 (8.6%) were influenza B viruses. Of the 85 influenza A (H3N2) viruses collected by U.S. laboratories and antigenically or genetically characterized at CDC since October 1, 2014, 44 (52%) are significantly different (drifted) from A/Texas/50/2012, the U.S. H3N2 vaccine virus. Drifted H3N2 viruses were first detected in late March 2014, after World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations for the 2014-2015 Northern Hemisphere vaccine had been made in mid-February. At that time, a very small number of these viruses had been found among the thousands of specimens that had been collected and tested, but these viruses have become more predominant over time. Most of the drifted H3N2 viruses are A/Switzerland/9715293/2013 viruses, which is the H3N2 virus selected for the 2015 Southern Hemisphere influenza vaccine. These drifted viruses will likely continue to circulate in the United States throughout the season. All influenza viruses tested for resistance to neuraminidase inhibitors this season have shown susceptibility to both oseltamivir and zanamivir. Given the likelihood that the drifted influenza A (H3N2) viruses will continue to circulate this season, CDC is issuing the following recommendations to remind clinicians of CDC’s guidance for the use of influenza antiviral medications.

Recommendations for Health Care Providers

  • Clinicians should encourage all patients 6 months and older who have not yet received an influenza vaccine this season to be vaccinated against influenza. There are several influenza vaccine options for the 2014-15 influenza season (see http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/vaccine/vaccines.htm).
  • Clinicians should encourage all persons with influenza-like illness who are at high risk for influenza complications (see list below) to seek care promptly to determine if treatment with influenza antiviral medications is warranted.

Summary of CDC Recommendations for Influenza Antiviral Medications for the 2014-2015 Season:

Influenza Vaccination: Clinicians should continue to vaccinate patients who have not yet received influenza vaccine this season.

Antiviral Use: Clinical benefit is greatest when antiviral treatment is administered early. When indicated, antiviral treatment should be started as soon as possible after illness onset, ideally within 48 hours of symptom onset. However, antiviral treatment might still have some benefits in patients with severe, complicated, or progressive illness and in hospitalized patients when started after 48 hours of illness onset.

Antiviral treatment with oseltamivir or zanamivir is recommended as early as possible for any patient with confirmed or suspected influenza who:

  • is hospitalized;
  • has severe, complicated, or progressive illness; or
  • is at higher risk for influenza complications. This list includes:
  • children aged younger than 2 years;
  • adults aged 65 years and older;
  • persons with chronic pulmonary (including asthma), cardiovascular (except hypertension alone), renal, hepatic, hematological (including sickle cell disease), and metabolic disorders (including diabetes mellitus), or neurologic and neurodevelopment conditions (including disorders of the brain, spinal cord, peripheral nerve, and muscle such as cerebral palsy, epilepsy [seizure disorders], stroke, intellectual disability [mental retardation], moderate to severe developmental delay, muscular dystrophy, or spinal cord injury);
  • persons with immunosuppression, including that caused by medications or by HIV infection;
  • women who are pregnant or postpartum (within 2 weeks after delivery);
  • persons aged younger than 19 years who are receiving long-term aspirin therapy;
  • American Indians/Alaska Natives;
  • persons who are morbidly obese (i.e., body-mass index is equal to or greater than 40); and
  • residents of nursing homes and other chronic-care facilities.

Clinical judgment, on the basis of the patient’s disease severity and progression, age, underlying medical conditions, likelihood of influenza, and time since onset of symptoms, is important when making antiviral treatment decisions for high-risk outpatients. Decisions about starting antiviral treatment should not wait for laboratory confirmation of influenza.

Oseltamivir is approved for treatment of influenza in persons aged two weeks and older, and for chemoprophylaxis to prevent influenza in people one year of age and older, while zanamivir is approved for treatment of persons seven years and older and for prevention of influenza in persons five years and older. Because high levels of resistance to adamantane antiviral medications continue to be observed among circulating influenza A viruses, adamantanes (rimantadine and amantadine) are not recommended for treatment or prevention of influenza.

Antiviral treatment also can be considered on the basis of clinical judgment for any previously healthy, symptomatic outpatient who is not considered “high risk” with confirmed or suspected influenza, if treatment can be initiated within 48 hours of illness onset.

Special Considerations for Institutional Settings: Use of antiviral chemoprophylaxis to control outbreaks among high risk persons in institutional settings is recommended. An influenza outbreak is likely when at least two residents are ill within 72 hours, and at least one has laboratory confirmed influenza. When influenza is identified as a cause of a respiratory disease outbreak among nursing home residents, use of antiviral medications for chemoprophylaxis is recommended for residents (regardless of whether they have received influenza vaccination) and for unvaccinated health care personnel. For newly-vaccinated staff, antiviral chemoprophylaxis can be administered up to two weeks (the time needed for antibody development) following influenza vaccination. Chemoprophylaxis may also be considered for all employees, regardless of their influenza vaccination status, if the outbreak is caused by a strain of influenza virus that is not well matched by the vaccine. Antiviral chemoprophylaxis should be administered for a minimum of two weeks, and continue for at least seven days after the last known case was identified.

To reduce the substantial burden of influenza in the United States, CDC continues to recommend a three-pronged approach:

(1) influenza vaccination. The influenza vaccine contains three or four influenza viruses depending on the influenza vaccine—an influenza A (H1N1) virus, an influenza A (H3N2) virus, and one or two influenza B viruses. Therefore, even if vaccine effectiveness is reduced against drifted circulating viruses, the vaccine will protect against non-drifted circulating vaccine viruses. Further, there is evidence to suggest that vaccination may make illness milder and prevent influenza-related complications. Such protection is possible because antibodies created through vaccination with one strain of influenza viruses will often “cross-protect” against different but related strains of influenza viruses;

(2) use of neuraminidase inhibitor medications when indicated for treatment or prevention. Antiviral treatment with oseltamivir or zanamivir is recommended as early as possible for any patient with confirmed or suspected influenza who: is hospitalized; has severe, complicated, or progressive illness; or is at higher risk for influenza complications. Antiviral chemoprophylaxis should be used for prevention of influenza when indicated for institutional influenza outbreaks, and may be considered for those who have contraindications to influenza vaccination. CDC recommends antiviral chemoprophylaxis for a minimum of two weeks, and continuing for at least seven days after the last known case was identified.

(3) use of other preventive health practices that may help decrease the spread of influenza, including respiratory hygiene, cough etiquette, social distancing (e.g., staying home from work and school when ill, staying away from people who are sick) and hand washing.

For More Information:

  • Influenza Vaccines Available in United States, 2014–15 Influenza Season – http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/vaccine/vaccines.htm
  • Information for healthcare professionals on the use of influenza antiviral medications – http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/antivirals/
  • Summary of Influenza Antiviral Treatment Recommendations for clinicians – http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/antivirals/summary-clinicians.htm#summary
  • Diagnostic Testing for Influenza – http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/antivirals/summary-clinicians.htm#diagnostic
  • Interim Guidance for Influenza Outbreak Management in Long-Term Care Facilities – http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/infectioncontrol/ltc-facility-guidance.htm

United Against the Flu

United Against the Flu is a collaborative effort by several national health care organizations and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to amplify the importance of getting vaccinated, especially this flu season.

Did you know that approximately 380,000 Americans were hospitalized due to the flu in 2012, and more than 30 million were affected by flu-related illnesses, according to the CDC? In addition to symptoms including sore throat, aches and fever, the flu can lead to serious health complications such as pneumonia.

Read more.

Doctors’ Testimony Crucial As Border Children Seek Asylum

New York lawyer Brett Stark, who has worked with dozens of unaccompanied Central American children who crossed into the United States in the past year, says getting the courts to grant these kids asylum is extremely difficult. So he often turns to a special advocate — a doctor.

Such medical-legal partnerships have cropped up in New York and California, where thousands of unaccompanied minors have settled with their families or friends who were already in the U.S.

One child in New York, a teenager from Honduras, carried a mark of his country’s gang violence in his back—a bullet lodged in the middle of his spine.  He ended up in the Bronx, where his immigration case was taken up by Stark, who works with the Immigrant & Refugee Division at Catholic Charities New York. Asylum cases are among the most difficult immigration status cases to win, Stark says, and a doctor’s testimony can help sway the decision.

“I could say to the judge, ‘Your honor, this child is fleeing gangs in his home country and because of that, he’s eligible for asylum,’” Stark explains. “But what’s more powerful and has more impact is to say, ‘Here’s a letter from Dr. Alan Shapiro, where he reports this child has a bullet lodged in his spine in the L6 region.’ And the judge can look at this and say, ‘This corroborates what you’re saying, and we can put this in a legal context.’”

With testimony from Shapiro, a pediatrician and senior medical director of South Bronx Health Center, a program of Montefiore and The Children’s Health Fund, the judge granted the Honduran teenager a special visa for victims of crimes, another immigrant classification allowing the boy to stay in the country legally.

As 68,000 unaccompanied minors crossed the border between October 2013 and September 2014, controversy erupted over whether they should be allowed into the U.S. or sent back to their home countries of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. One concern was whether the children might bring infectious diseases across the border.

In July, Republican representative Phil Gingrey, from Georgia, wrote a letter to the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention expressing concern about “reports of illegal migrants carrying deadly diseases such as swine fly, dengue fever, Ebola virus, and tuberculosis.”

But Shapiro says infectious disease hasn’t been an issue for the unaccompanied minors who come to his clinic. They need standard primary care like any child, such as vaccinations before they can start school.

The problems he sees have much more to do with the physical and emotional scars the children bear from the violence in their home countries and the long trek to the United States.  Many suffer from depression, anxiety, adjustment disorders, and post-traumatic stress disorder.

“They’re in a highly alert, anxious state,” Shapiro says. “Many kids have witnessed the murders of their relatives and had threats on their own lives.”

Often, those are the very factors that could help the children get permission to stay in the U.S., but they can be difficult to demonstrate in a courtroom. Having medical testimony from a doctor, Shapiro says, “greatly bolsters the case.”

For cases involving emotional trauma, the bulk of the evidence may come from a psychologist.  The lawyer can try to describe the trauma, Stark says, but it’s much more effective for a psychologist to contribute testimony that the child presented with symptoms consistent with PTSD or other trauma.  “A psychologist’s contribution can be very moving and vital,” Stark says, especially when a child is unable to speak for himself.

But Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank in Washington that favors tighter immigration controls, warns that emotional trauma is not cause for asylum. To be granted asylum, immigrants must be able to prove that they fear persecution in their home countries based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.  “That doesn’t apply to these kids,” Krikorian says.

“What I fear is that this kind of testimony will be designed to elicit sympathy so that immigration authorities grant a green card whether or not it’s warranted under the law,” he adds. “Even the majority of those who do get asylum really don’t warrant it.”

From October 2013 to June 2014, 1,532 unaccompanied minors applied for asylum in the U.S. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), one of two government agencies that hear asylum cases, adjudicated 167 such cases during that period. Of those cases, 108 of the children were granted asylum.  Many unaccompanied minors have applied for other categories of protection that allow them to stay in the country.

Meanwhile, from July 18, 2014 to October 7, 2014, immigration judges ordered 1,252 unaccompanied children deported, according to the Executive Office for Immigration Review, part of the Department of Justice. Often, those orders are appealed.

Many unaccompanied minors across the country do not have access to an attorney: The government is not required to provide legal representation in immigration court to children who aren’t citizens, and few can afford to hire an attorney.

In the Bronx, Shapiro and Stark are trying to serve as many of the 433 unaccompanied minors who have settled in the borough as they can. They’ve named their medical-legal clinic Terra Firma, where they have seen about 50 unaccompanied minors since October 2013; they hope to help 200 more in 2015.

“The reason we’re pediatricians is that we’re looking out for the well-being of the child,” Shapiro says. “These are very vulnerable children who have needs that go above and beyond the other children you might see.”

Every other week, dozens of them file into the South Bronx Children and Family Health Center for Terra Firma. For two-and-a-half hours, the clinic provides health care, counseling, case management, and legal services for the children.  Both pediatric and mental health care are available in Spanish, which can be hard to find elsewhere in the city.

As part of the New York Immigration Coalition, Shapiro has been working with the New York City health department to develop a health alert for all pediatricians detailing the medical needs for unaccompanied children, and how best to help them.

So far, the Terra Firma model appears to be a rarity, but something similar is taking shape in California. Los Angeles has received 2,474 unaccompanied minors from January through September of 2014. Elena Fernandez, behavioral health director of St. John’s Well Child and Family Center, says psychologists at the clinic are being asked to provide psychological assessments for use in immigration hearings.  Other times, their job is to help children testify themselves and prepare for what may arise during a hearing.

“It’s the clinician who has to determine whether the child is ready to testify and disclose in a hearing the level of trauma. Because you run the risk of them re-experiencing that trauma in a courtroom,” Fernandez says.

St. John’s has seen more than three times as many undocumented kids this fall as they did at the same time last year.  Most of them, CEO Jim Mangia believes, are unaccompanied minors.  The additional visits, most of which were pro bono, he says, have cost his clinics about $250,000 over a three-month period.

“This is a humanitarian crisis, a refugee crisis,” Mangia says. “These children have been kidnapped, brutalized, beaten, raped, sexually abused, and that’s why they’ve fled in the first place. … There’s just a tremendous amount of trauma.”

Kaiser Health News (KHN) is a national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

Consumers May Miss Out On Subsidies Due To Confusion About Job-Based Coverage

Confusion about whether some types of job-based coverage disqualify consumers from signing up for subsidized insurance through the health law’s marketplaces may lead some people to buy skimpier employer plans instead.

In recent weeks, some assisters who help consumers find coverage say people are being told by their employers that their bare-bones plans – which, for example, may cover preventive benefits only — meet “minimum essential coverage” requirements. That’s the type of coverage most people must have to satisfy the health law’s requirement that they have health insurance.

The problem is that consumers mistakenly think that having access to such coverage means they don’t qualify for subsidies if they want to buy a policy on the exchanges instead.

But that’s not necessarily the case.

Rather, they would be ineligible for subsidies if their employer plan is deemed affordable under the law and pays for 60 percent of allowed medical charges, on average.  Coverage is considered affordable if it costs no more than 9.5 percent of an employee’s income for self-only coverage.

Some of the confusion relates to the similar-sounding bureaucratic names for these different health law standards.  Minimum value coverage means the plan pays for 60 percent of allowed medical charges, on average.

Minimum essential coverage, which can include a range of things from grandfathered health plans to some of the prevention-only plans being offered by large employers, refers to what large employers must offer to avoid paying penalties for not offering coverage, as well as what individuals must carry to comply with the law’s coverage requirement.

Some consultants have reportedly developed job-based plans that cover very little other than preventive benefits. Unlike small group and individual plans, which are required to provide comprehensive coverage under the health law, no such requirements exist for large group plans.

“It’s hard for consumers to understand how a plan that is lousy in their eyes could somehow prevent them from getting subsidies on the exchange,” says JoAnn Volk, a senior research fellow at Georgetown University’s Center On Health Insurance Reforms.

The federal government recently released guidance saying that plans that don’t include coverage of hospitalization services and doctor’s visits don’t satisfy the minimum value standard even if they manage to meet the 60 percent actuarial value threshold without those benefits. Until final regulations are released next year, workers who are offered such plans won’t be barred from qualifying for premium tax credits on the exchanges, the guidance said.

The vast majority of plans are believed to meet the minimum value standard, however. No more than 2 percent of people covered by employer-sponsored insurance — 3.2 million people — are enrolled in plans with an actuarial value of less than 60 percent, according to a 2011 estimate by the federal Department of Health and Human Services. Those affected are more likely to be in low-wage jobs and may not have had health insurance before.

In addition, because the 9.5 percent affordability standard is based on the cost of employee-only coverage rather than family coverage, most plans will be considered affordable, says Judith Solomon, vice president for health policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Having said that, “we know there were some pretty shabby plans being offered out there,” Solomon says.

During open enrollment, health plans are all supposed to provide a “summary of benefits and coverage” that explains the details of the plan and also states whether it provides minimum essential coverage and meets minimum value standards.

“We were hearing from assisters that people were having trouble understanding this employer coverage information,” says Cheryl Fish-Parcham, private insurance program director at Families USA, a consumer advocacy organization.

Families USA and other advocacy groups sent a letter to the administration requesting that it amend the summary of benefits and coverage requirements to add language informing people that they could be eligible for premium assistance on the marketplace if their employer plan doesn’t meet the minimum value standard, Fish-Parcham says.

Workers who are filling out an application for a marketplace plan and are uncertain about whether their on-the-job coverage meets minimum value standards can download an “employer coverage tool” from healthcare.gov and ask their employer to complete it.

However, employers aren’t required to fill out the form.

“It’s a bewildering process,” says Fish-Parcham.

Please contact Kaiser Health News to send comments or ideas for future topics for the Insuring Your Health column.

Kaiser Health News (KHN) is a national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

Nurses: Climate Crisis is a Public Health Crisis

RNs head to Peru to share message at United Nations Climate Change Summit

Today, I am on my way to Lima, Peru as part of a small delegation from National Nurses United going to participate in the United Nations Climate Change Summit 20th yearly Conference of the Parties (COP 20).

World leaders are coming together with the goal of negotiating the foundations of a new international climate agreement that would be completed in Paris in 2015 (COP 21).  This is critical if we are to avoid climate catastrophe

Our delegation will share what I consider to be a big missing piece at the conference – the human health perspective.  As nurses, we will highlight the fact that the climate crisis is a public health crisis

People often ask me what a nurse is doing advocating for climate justice and I tell them this:  The World Health Organization’s latest study concludes that 1 in 8 deaths globally are now attributable to air pollution. One in eight!  And that doesn’t take into account illness and deaths caused by toxins in our water and soil nor the impacts of extreme weather events on human health.  Human health is absolutely dependent on healthy air, water and food supply.  The current system is not sustainable in terms of human health. 

We also bring the labor component to the table.  We support a just transition and an economy for the 99%.  We need to move from an extractive economy (carbon spewing fossil fuels) to a restorative and renewable economy (solar, wind, energy democracy).  The Robin Hood Tax could go a long way towards funding such a just transition, where real jobs, education, healthcare and retirement with dignity are funded instead of corporate subsidies. 

I can’t begin to express how important this is for me personally, as a mother of two, as a registered nurse of 25 years, as a human being on planet earth.  I have to admit I have been a bit obsessed with the climate crisis for the last five years or so, even going to business school for an MBA in sustainable enterprise.  My education convinced me of what I already knew – that business and government are not going to get us out of this crisis.  We are the solution, you and I, regular folks standing up and saying we are not willing to stand idle any longer while we watch our ecosystems destroyed, and our very own health being compromised every moment of every day.  Who better than nurses to come to the international political table and be a part of this conversation?

The international politicians and policy makers need a dose of nursing advocacy, a dose of National Nurses United and Global Nurses United style action.  I am optimistic that our delegation will do just that.  I am so excited to be a part of this.  I look forward to keeping you all posted of the goings on in Lima.