BACKGROUND: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a major cause of hospitalized acute respiratory illness (ARI) among young children. With RSV vaccines and immunoprophylaxis agents in clinical development, we sought to update estimates of US pediatric RSV hospitalization burden.METHODS: Children ,5 years old hospitalized for ARI were enrolled through active, prospective, population-based surveillance from November 1, 2015, to June 30, 2016, at 7 US pediatric hospital sites. Clinical information was obtained from parent interviews and medical records. Midturbinate nasal and throat flocked swabs were collected and tested for RSV by using molecular diagnostic assays at each site. We conducted descriptive analyses and calculated population-based rates of RSV-associated hospitalizations.RESULTS: Among 2969 hospitalized children included in analyses, 1043 (35%) tested RSVpositive; 903 (87%) children who were RSV-positive were ,2 years old, and 526 (50%) were ,6 months old. RSV-associated hospitalization rates were 2.9 per 1000 children ,5 years old and 14.7 per 1000 children ,6 months old; the highest age-specific rate was observed in 1-month-old infants (25.1 per 1000). Most children who were infected with RSV (67%) had no underlying comorbid conditions and no history of preterm birth.CONCLUSIONS: During the 2015-2016 season, RSV infection was associated with one-third of ARI hospitalizations in our study population of young children. Hospitalization rates were highest in infants ,6 months. Most children who were RSV-positive had no history of prematurity or underlying medical conditions, suggesting that all young children could benefit from targeted interventions against RSV.WHAT'S KNOWN ON THIS SUBJECT: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection is a major cause of hospitalization among young children. The US pediatric burden of hospitalized RSV is substantial, with the most recent prospective populationbased estimates of burden coming from 3 counties in 2000-2005.WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS: During 2015-2016, prospective population-based surveillance over a broader geographic area detected RSV in one-third of acute respiratory illness hospitalizations in our study population of young US children and yielded updated burden estimates that should help inform RSV-specific intervention strategies.

Introduction: In March 2014, Brazil began its national HPV immunization campaign targeting girls ages 9-13. Objective: Describe determinants of parental decisions to vaccinate their daughters against HPV.Method: In this qualitative study, thirty semi-structured interviews were conducted at five health posts in São Paulo, Brazil. Interview questions explored parental opinions of disease prevention methods, vaccines in general, and the HPV vaccine. Interviews were analyzed using grounded theory. Results: Overall, parental knowledge about HPV and the vaccine was low, yet most eligible daughters had been vaccinated. Parents perceived the HPV vaccine to be normal, preventative, and protective. Parents viewed themselves as accountable for their children’s health, and saw the vaccine as a parenting tool for indirect control. Trust in healthcare professionals and an awareness of the dangers of “nowadays” (uncertainties regarding disease and sexual behavior) were also important in vaccine decision-making. These factors held more explanatory power for decisions to vaccinate than parental knowledge levels. This was the first study to qualitatively examine the perception of publically provided HPV vaccination among parents with eligible daughters in Brazil. The findings help interpret the greater than 90% coverage for the first HPV vaccine dose in Brazil. The results indicate that attempts to understand, maintain, or modify vaccination rates require the consideration of context specific factors, which influence both parent perspectives and vaccination decisions. Conclusion: HPV knowledge levels are not predictive of parental decisions to vaccinate daughters. Context specific factors from the sociocultural dimensions of parenting, sexuality, gender, and the healthcare system are more influential in vaccine decision-making.

Knowledge and attitude played secondary roles in influencing HPV vaccine verification. Community health agents were crucial for vaccine promotion; continued education and support of this group is essential for the sustained success of HPV immunization efforts in Brazil.

No abstract

BackgroundRespiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a major cause of severe acute respiratory illnesses (ARI) in young children. Circulation of RSV subgroups A and B can vary by season and geographic location, and may have implications for disease susceptibility, outcomes, and prevention measures. We investigated RSV subgroup distribution among samples collected in the New Vaccine Surveillance Network.MethodsProspective active surveillance for hospitalized ARI was conducted from November 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016 among children < 12 months of age at seven pediatric hospital sites. Mid-turbinate nasal and throat flocked swabs (combined when both available) and/or tracheal aspirates were collected and tested for RSV at each site using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT–PCR) assays; RSV A/B subgroup results were available from four sites that did their own subgroup testing (Cincinnati, Kansas City, Houston, and Oakland). At three sites (Rochester, Nashville, Seattle), approximately 50 RSV-positive specimens were sampled based on the monthly distribution for each site and 1:1 distribution by gender, and then assayed for subgroup at CDC. Patient information was obtained from medical records; chi-square tests were used to compare the distribution of A and B subgroups by site.ResultsOf 704 RSV-positive hospitalized infants, subgroup data from 586 were analyzed; 340 (58%) were RSV A and 246 (42%) were RSV B. The median age for both RSV A and RSV B patients was 2 months. Subgroup distribution varied by geographic location, with the overall proportion of RSV A ranging from 18–83% across sites (P < 0.01). Peak RSV A and B detections by month varied by site, occurring from November–February (figure).ConclusionDuring the 2015–2016 season, RSV A and B subgroups co-circulated among hospitalized infants enrolled at seven US sites. The predominance of RSV subgroup varied by geographic location. Continued surveillance and additional subgroup testing over multiple seasons should improve understanding of the epidemiologic significance of RSV infections by subgroup. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

BackgroundViral infections are a significant cause of severe acute respiratory illnesses (ARI) in young children. Understanding the current epidemiology of these viruses is important for informing treatment and prevention measures. We describe the New Vaccine Surveillance Network (NVSN) and report preliminary results from 2015 to 2016.MethodsProspective active surveillance for hospitalized ARI was conducted from November 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016 among children <5 years of age at seven pediatric hospital sites (figure) using a broad case definition based on admission diagnoses. Parent interviews and medical chart reviews were performed, and mid-turbinate nasal and throat flocked swabs and/or tracheal aspirates were tested for adenovirus, human metapneumovirus (HMPV), influenza, parainfluenza viruses (PIV) 1–3, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), and rhinovirus/enterovirus using molecular diagnostic assays at each site. Asymptomatic controls <5 years of age were also enrolled.ResultsAmong 2,974 hospitalized children with ARI whose specimens were tested for viruses, 2,228 (75%) were <2 years old, with 745 (25%) 0–2 months, and 309 (10%) 3–5 months old. The majority were male (58%; n = 1,732) and 63% (n = 1,093) had no documented comorbid conditions. The median length of stay was 2 days; 1,683 (57%) received supplemental oxygen, 435 (15%) were admitted to intensive care, 95 (3%) required mechanical ventilation, and 1 (<1%) died. Viruses were detected in 2,242 (75%) children with ARI, with >1 virus detected in 234 (8%). RSV was detected in 1,039 (35%) children with ARI, HMPV in 245 (8%), influenza in 104 (4%), and PIV-1, PIV-2, and PIV-3 in 49 (2%), 2 (<1%), and 78 (3%), respectively. Rhinovirus/enterovirus was detected in 849 (29%) and adenovirus in 118 (4%) children with ARI, but were also detected in 18% (n = 227) and 5% (n = 60), respectively, of the 1,243 controls tested; the other viruses were more rarely detected in controls.ConclusionDuring the 2015–2016 season, viral detections were common in young children hospitalized for ARI at seven US sites. NVSN combines clinical data with current molecular laboratory techniques to describe respiratory virus epidemiology in cases of hospitalized pediatric ARI in order to inform current and future prevention, treatment, and healthcare utilization measures. Disclosures N. Halasa, Sanofi Pasteur: Investigator, Research support. GSK: Consultant, Consulting fee. Moderna: Consultant, Consulting fee. J. Englund, Gilead: Consultant and Investigator, Consulting fee and Research support. Novavax: Investigator, Research support. GlaxoSmithKline: Investigator, Research support. Alios: Investigator, Research support. MedImmune: Investigator, Research support. J. V. Williams, Quidel: Board Member, Consulting fee. GlaxoSmithKline: Consultant, Consulting fee.

BackgroundWe investigated clinical influenza testing and treatment in children hospitalized with acute respiratory illness (ARI) who had distinct respiratory syndromes.MethodsChildren <18 years old with ARI were enrolled at seven hospitals in the New Vaccine Surveillance Network (NVSN) between November 1, 2015–June 30, 2016. ICD10 admission diagnosis codes were grouped to define syndromes of bronchiolitis, asthma, pneumonia, and croup. At clinician discretion, influenza testing with a rapid influenza diagnostic test or molecular assay was performed on respiratory samples. As part of the study, each site performed influenza testing using molecular assays on mid-turbinate nasal and throat swabs from all enrolled children. Analysis was restricted to influenza season; children who received antivirals before hospitalization were excluded.ResultsAmong 2,134 children with available ICD10 codes, on preliminary analysis 1,119 (52%) had influenza testing ordered by a clinician: 111 (10%) were positive, and 57 (51%) of 111 received antiviral treatment. Of the 2,134, 858 (40%) had one of the four mutually exclusive syndromes (table). Hospital clinical testing per clinician discretion was influenza positive in 16 of the 858 children (percent positivity per syndrome ranged from <1% to 38%; table). Research study testing of children not undergoing clinical influenza testing identified 11 additional positives. Antiviral treatment was highest for pneumonia patients.ConclusionUnderstanding testing and treatment practices by clinical syndrome may help to identify missed opportunities for influenza diagnosis and treatment.Table: Bronchiolitis Asthma Pneumonia Croup n = 392 n = 320 n = 117 n = 29 n % n % n % n % Age <5 years 391>991564976652379 <2 days from illness onset to admission 87221715428241552 >1 known underlying condition 8421277876253621 Hospital clinical testing performed 2095390286858828 Positive influenza1<144812338 Antiviral treatment0160 Research study result in children without hospital clinical testing Additional positive influenza1352 Antiviral treatment0030Disclosures J. Englund, Gilead: Consultant and Investigator, Consulting fee and Research support. Novavax: Investigator, Research support. GlaxoSmithKline: Investigator, Research support. Alios: Investigator, Research support. MedImmune: Investigator, Research support. N. B. Halasa, sanofi pasteur: Investigator, Research support. GSK: Consultant, Consulting fee. Moderna: Consultant, Consulting fee.

In regard to: "Why is it appropriate to recommend human papillomavirus vaccination as cervical cancer prevention?" TO THE EDITORS: I would like to commend the authors on a very informative and well-reasoned article on the safety and appropriateness of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine and its relationship to cervical cancer prevention. Two of the major concerns about the HPV vaccine are raised, summarized, and subsequently dispelled. 1 The authors raise a critical point in that "deemphasizing the role of HPV vaccine in cervical cancer prevention in women at risk for developing cervical cancer may allow racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in cervical cancer to continue unchecked." 1 In a 2014 article, Bruno et al. 2 also note that a lack of time to educate patients, a lack of preventative care visits, and cost may be a barrier. What do the authors recommend to improve provider promotion of HPV vaccines, particularly in high-risk populations? Disparities in preventative care are a real tragedy, and I applaud the authors for raising this very important point. As health professionals, it should be all of our responsibilities to ensure best care regardless of race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. The authors discuss only the role of Pap smear in cervical cancer screening. There is a global move towards primary HPV testing; recommendations are now available in the United States and Canada. 3,4 I would be very interested to hear their thoughts on the move toward HPV testing for cervical cancer screening in conjunction with vaccination programs.