Baltimore, MD, United States
Baltimore, MD, United States

Time filter

Source Type

Koonin L.M.,Centers for Disease Control and Prevention | Hanfling D.,Inova Health System | Hanfling D.,George Washington University | Hanfling D.,Center for Biosecurity of UPMC
Biosecurity and Bioterrorism | Year: 2013

The impact of a severe influenza pandemic could be overwhelming to hospital emergency departments, clinics, and medical offices if large numbers of ill people were to simultaneously seek care. While current planning guidance to reduce surge on hospitals and other medical facilities during a pandemic largely focuses on improving the "supply" of medical care services, attention on reducing "demand" for such services is needed by better matching patient needs with alternative types and sites of care. Based on lessons learned during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and its partners are currently exploring the acceptability and feasibility of using a coordinated network of nurse triage telephone lines during a pandemic to assess the health status of callers, help callers determine the most appropriate site for care (eg, hospital ED, outpatient center, home), disseminate information, provide clinical advice, and provide access to antiviral medications for ill people, if appropriate. As part of this effort, the integration and coordination of poison control centers, existing nurse advice lines, 2-1-1 information lines, and other hotlines are being investigated. Copyright © 2013, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. 2013.


Russell P.K.,Health-U | Gronvall G.K.,Center for Biosecurity of UPMC
Biosecurity and Bioterrorism | Year: 2012

The U.S. government has taken significant steps toward developing and acquiring vaccines, drugs, and other medical countermeasures (MCMs) to protect and treat the population after a biological attack. In contrast to 2001, there is now a procedure for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to develop, license, and stockpile MCMs for civilian use. Another major accomplishment is smallpox preparedness: There is now an adequate supply of vaccine for every person in the U.S., and there is an alternative vaccine meant for immunocompromised people and those with close contact with them. In spite of these and other accomplishments, the U.S. government MCM effort has been criticized by federal advisory committees, National Academy of Sciences reports, a congressional commission, and outside analysts who state that the efforts lack central leadership and accountability and that the pace of progress has been slow. A clear operational strategy for using MCMs, which would guide their development and acquisition, is also lacking. In this article, we review key areas of progress made since 2001 to develop and acquire MCMs, and we summarize what we judge to be the most critical and often mentioned areas where improvements are needed. © 2012 Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.


Franco C.,Center for Biosecurity of UPMC | Hynes N.A.,Geographic Medicine Center | Bouri N.,Center for Biosecurity of UPMC | Henderson D.A.,Center for Biosecurity of UPMC
Biosecurity and Bioterrorism | Year: 2010

Over the past 3 decades, dengue has spread rapidly and has emerged as one of the world's most common mosquitoborne viral diseases. Although often found in tropical and semitropical areas, dengue is capable of being transmitted in temperate climates as well. Dengue is currently endemic to Mexico, most other Latin American countries, and parts of the Caribbean, and it has the potential to become reestablished as an endemic disease in the United States. In fact, sustained transmission of dengue has occurred in Florida within the past year. Conditions exist in the U.S. that could facilitate sustained dengue transmission, including environmental factors, competent mosquito vectors, limited vector and dengue surveillance, increased domestic outdoor daytime activities in warmer months, and low public awareness of the disease. If dengue were to be reestablished in the U.S., it could have significant medical, public health, and economic consequences for the country. The impact of dengue as a public health threat could be lessened through enhanced awareness and reporting of cases, increased support for vector surveillance and control programs, and a greater focus on vaccine development. © Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.


Bouri N.,Center for Biosecurity of UPMC | Sell T.K.,Center for Biosecurity of UPMC | Franco C.,Center for Biosecurity of UPMC | Adalja A.A.,Center for Biosecurity of UPMC | And 2 more authors.
Public Health Reports | Year: 2012

Conditions that facilitate sustained dengue transmission exist in the United States, and outbreaks have occurred during the past decade in Texas, Hawaii, and Florida. More outbreaks can also be expected in years to come. To combat dengue, medical and public health practitioners in areas with mosquito vectors that are competent to transmit the virus must be aware of the threat of reemergent dengue, and the need for early reporting and control to reduce the impact of dengue outbreaks. Comprehensive dengue control includes human and vector surveillance, vector management programs, and community engagement efforts. Public health, medical, and vector-control communities must collaborate to prevent and control disease spread. Policy makers should understand the role of mosquito abatement and community engagement in the prevention and control of the disease. © 2012 Association of Schools of Public Health.


Adalja A.A.,Center for Biosecurity of UPMC | Watson M.,Center for Biosecurity of UPMC | Waldhorn R.E.,Georgetown University | Toner E.S.,Center for Biosecurity of UPMC
Journal of Critical Care | Year: 2013

The events of the 2009 influenza pandemic sparked discussion regarding the need to optimize delivery of care to those most severely ill. We propose in this conceptual study that a tiered regionalization care system be instituted for patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. Such system would be a component of national pandemic plans and could also be used in day-to-day operations. © 2013 Elsevier Inc.


Adalja A.A.,Center for Biosecurity of UPMC
Biosecurity and Bioterrorism | Year: 2011

Medicine for Policymakers is a Journal column that provides decision makers with brief explanations of the meaning and implications for biosecurity of clinical issues. The articles describe, for a nonmedical audience, hospital practices, medical challenges, healthcare delivery issues, and other topics of current interest. Readers may submit ideas to the column's editor, Amesh A. Adalja, MD, through the Journal's editorial office at jfox@upmc-biosecurity.org. © Copyright 2011, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.


Franco C.,Center for Biosecurity of UPMC | Sell T.K.,Center for Biosecurity of UPMC
Biosecurity and Bioterrorism | Year: 2011

Since 2001, the United States government has spent substantial resources on preparing the nation against a bioterrorist attack. Earlier articles in this series have analyzed civilian biodefense funding by the federal government for fiscal years (FY) 2001 through proposed funding for FY2011. This article updates those figures with budgeted amounts for FY2012, specifically analyzing the budgets and allocations for biodefense at the Departments of Health and Human Services, Defense, Homeland Security, Agriculture, Commerce, and State; the Environmental Protection Agency; and the National Science Foundation. This article also includes an updated assessment of the proportion of biodefense funding provided for programs that address multiple scientific, public health, healthcare, national security, and international security issues in addition to biodefense. The FY2012 federal budget for civilian biodefense totals $6.42 billion. Of that total, $5.78 billion (90%) is budgeted for programs that have both biodefense and nonbiodefense goals and applications, and $637.6 million (10%) is budgeted for programs that have objectives solely related to biodefense. © Copyright 2011, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.


Henderson D.A.,Center for Biosecurity of UPMC
Biosecurity and Bioterrorism | Year: 2011

The World Health Assembly is scheduled to decide in May 2011 whether the 2 known remaining stockpiles of smallpox virus are to be destroyed or retained. In preparation for this, a WHO-appointed committee undertook a comprehensive review of the status of smallpox virus research from 1999 to 2010. It concluded that, considering the nature of the studies already completed with respect to vaccine, drugs, and diagnostics, there was no reason to retain live smallpox virus except to satisfy restrictive regulatory requirements. The committee advised that researchers and regulators define alternative models for testing the vaccines and drugs. Apart from other considerations, the costs of new products are significant and important. These include prospective expenditures required for the development, manufacture, testing, and storage of new products. This commentary provides approximations of these costs and the incremental contribution that a newly developed vaccine might make in terms of public health security. © Copyright 2011, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.


Schoch-Spana M.,Center for Biosecurity of UPMC
Biosecurity and Bioterrorism | Year: 2012

Over the past decade, assumptions have been made and unmade about what officials can expect of average people confronting a bioterrorist attack or other major health incident. The reframing of the public in national discourse and doctrine from a panic-stricken mob to a band of hearty survivors is a positive development and more realistic in terms of the empirical record. So, too, is the realization that citizen contributions to national health security encompass not only individual preparedness and volunteerism but also mutual aid and collective deliberation of the tough choices posed by health disasters. In projecting what needs to occur over the next 10 years in biosecurity, 2 priority challenges emerge: retaining the lesson that a public prone to panic, social disorder, and civil unrest is a myth, and building an infrastructure to bolster the public's full contributions to health emergency management. © 2012 Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.


Adalja A.A.,Center for Biosecurity of UPMC
Biosecurity and Bioterrorism | Year: 2011

Medicine for Policymakers is a new Journal column that provides decision makers with brief explanations of the meaning and implications for biosecurity of clinical issues. The articles describe, for a nonmedical audience, hospital practices, medical challenges, healthcare delivery issues, and other topics of current interest. Readers may submit ideas to the column's editor, Amesh A. Adalja, MD, through the Journal's editorial office at jfox@upmc-biosecurity.org. Copyright 2011, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.

Loading Center for Biosecurity of UPMC collaborators
Loading Center for Biosecurity of UPMC collaborators