Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Emailing: Letter from the Commissioner to Nation’s Doctors on H1N1 Vaccine


Letter from the Commissioner to Nation's Doctors on H1N1 Vaccine

November 10, 2009

Dear Healthcare Professional,

I am writing first to thank you for your extraordinary efforts during the 2009 H1N1 influenza outbreak.

As this new infectious disease sweeps through communities across the country, you must juggle your usual patient care responsibilities with a special role in influenza response. Delays in vaccine delivery and the persistence of myths about vaccination have not made your job any easier. Thank you for rising to this public health challenge.

I am also writing to provide information that can be helpful as you talk to patients about the 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccines -- the best tools we have to prevent severe illness and death caused by the virus.

As the Commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), I am pleased to have this opportunity to communicate with you directly at this key moment in time.

The Department of Health and Human Services is working with influenza vaccine manufacturers and state and local public health officials to make these vaccines widely available. So far, more than 41 million doses of the 2009 H1N1 vaccine have been allocated to the states for distribution across the country, and more is becoming available every day.

Some of your patients may be asking how the FDA, the manufacturers, and the scientific community can have confidence in vaccines that were available just six months after the 2009 H1N1 virus emerged. Understanding more about the manufacturing and approval process for these vaccines should help you to answer their questions.

Every year, FDA and vaccine manufacturers follow a series of steps to make a new influenza vaccine targeted to the three main circulating strains of influenza. These steps have produced effective and very safe vaccines time and again, adding up to hundreds of millions of doses administered in the United States alone.

We followed this same path for the 2009 H1N1 vaccines.

Making the 2009 H1N1 Vaccine

First, scientists at laboratories in the United States and elsewhere modified the 2009 H1N1 virus into a version suitable to be used as the "seed" for the development of vaccines. The process that was followed is similar in every respect to that which is employed every year for the preparation of seasonal influenza vaccines, as slightly different strains appear regularly each year. For the 2009 H1N1 virus, modified strains suitable for vaccine manufacturing were created and provided to influenza vaccine manufacturers by late May.

Next, companies began manufacturing the 2009 H1N1 vaccines in the same factories where they are licensed to manufacture seasonal influenza vaccines – using the same equipment and the same testing procedures. FDA inspects these plants at least once a year to assure that quality controls are followed at every step in the production process. FDA's oversight covers both those facilities that make the inactivated vaccines (the "flu shot") and those that make live attenuated viral vaccine (the "nasal spray").

A critical part of influenza vaccine production is the growth of the vaccine strain in specially produced eggs. After inoculation of the eggs, the virus replicates, creating hundreds of thousands of copies of itself. It is the efficiency of this growth that determines how much vaccine can be produced and how quickly. The material harvested from these eggs is then further processed into the vaccines that you administer to your patients.

As recently as a few years ago, egg shortages would have prevented summertime and fall production of a vaccine against a new strain of influenza. Fortunately, this year, manufacturers could tap into a reserve supply of eggs made by additional flocks of chickens. These flocks were available under contracts put in place for just this purpose – to respond to a possible pandemic.

At the end of July, FDA sought public input. We convened a public meeting of FDA's expert vaccine advisory committee to review the agency's approach to approval of the 2009 H1N1 vaccines. This committee includes scientists, physicians, public health officials and a consumer representative. The committee supported making the vaccines according to the same approach used every year for the seasonal influenza vaccines.

The next step was to develop a tool to accurately measure the amount of vaccine antigen that was being produced. Scientists from the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, and other nations, working together as part of the World Health Organization, developed the reagents needed to assure the proper amount of antigen goes into each dose of vaccine.

On September 15, after reviewing applications from manufacturers similar to those submitted each year for licensed seasonal vaccine, FDA licensed four vaccines against the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus.

The agency found that all of the appropriate documentation had been submitted, and all of the standards had been met. In fact, had this new virus emerged a few months earlier, it could have been included as one of the three strains in the 2009 seasonal vaccine. In this key respect, although the strain of the 2009 H1N1 virus is new, the 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccines are not.

Over the summer, the National Institutes of Health and vaccine manufacturers initiated clinical trials to determine the dose and number of doses needed to induce an optimal immune response. The good news is that just as for seasonal vaccine, one dose of H1N1 vaccine will likely be protective for healthy adults, the elderly, and older children. For children ages nine and younger, two doses of the H1N1 vaccine will likely be optimal, also similar to seasonal vaccine. No serious adverse events attributable to the vaccine have emerged during the clinical trials, which have so far included over 3600 patients at NIH-supported institutions alone.

Monitoring Vaccine Safety

We are now in a position never before experienced in the history of influenza. Just as a new and serious virus is spreading widely around the country, causing hospitalizations and deaths, a vaccine is becoming available to help prevent infection and protect the public. This accomplishment is the result of the efforts of hundreds of scientists across the world in the private and public sectors. Although a gap still remains between the demand for the vaccine and the currently available supply, this is the first time in history that any vaccine has been available at the time that an influenza pandemic has struck.

We are not cutting any corners. Just as for seasonal influenza vaccine, no lot of the 2009 H1N1 vaccine can be used until it has been carefully evaluated and released as sterile and potent by both the manufacturer and by the FDA.

In addition, the FDA and other agencies are looking for any unexpected, rare, serious adverse events and are quickly investigating concerns. We are also collaborating with our global counterparts to share information and experience. Should any safety concerns arise, we will evaluate them thoroughly and bring them to the public's attention quickly.

I encourage you to report any adverse effects that you believe are linked to any vaccine, including the 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccine, to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (http://vaers.hhs.gov/index). Other resources for 2009 H1N1 influenza, including a detailed description of vaccine safety efforts, are online at http://www.flu.gov/.

It is likely that most families in the United States will be touched by H1N1 influenza this year. Fortunately, many will experience mild illness. Others will endure unspeakable tragedy. The benefits of preventing serious consequences from infection with the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus far outweigh the risks associated with vaccination. All Americans, and especially pregnant women and others at high risk of severe influenza infection, should seriously consider the recommendation for vaccination to help protect themselves and their loved ones.

Thank you for your critical work during this challenging time.

Sincerely,

/s/

Margaret A. Hamburg, M.D.
Commissioner of Food and Drugs


Monday, November 9, 2009

USS NEW YORK CAP





Maybe this hat should become the official cap for all
New York First Responders. After the commissioning of the USS New York this weekend it is being seen on a lot of heads.




USS New York LPD 21 Ship's Crest

Dark blue and gold, the colors traditionally associated with the Navy, represent the sea and excellence. The crossed swords represent the US Navy and Marine Corps. The red is for sacrifice and valor and the white recalls purity of purpose. The gray chevron and two vertical bars represent the bow of LPD 21 and The Twin Towers respectively. They are conjoined to emphasize the use of 24 tons of steel recovered from the World Trade Center, to construct the 7.5 ton bow stem of the USS New York. The phoenix rising personifies the hope and determination of this nation to rebuild and regroup to fight terrorism. The shield on the phoenix's breast honors the New York City Fire Department, New York City Police Department and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. The vertical red stripe is for the Fire Department, the dark blue stripe is the traditional blue for the Police Department and the light blue stripe is for thePort Authority Police Department, The Celeste is taken from the patch of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. The Celeste also alludes to costal waters and the port of New York. The red drops represent blood shed and the ultimate sacrifice made by the men and women of 9/11. The stars commemorate the three battle stars the USS New York Battleship earned during World War 2. The border of the shield is adapted from the New York State Seal.The sunburst represents the crown of the Statue of Liberty. They represent the seven seas and contenents of the world and also suggest a direct connection to the littoral missions of the USS New York anywhere in the world, past and present. The mountains and lakes surrounded by the maple leaves represent the natural beauty of the State of New York.Source, Northrop Grumman LPD 21 Christening

QOD 11 9 09

Which statement regarding conducted electrical


weapons (ie, Tasers®) is true?

a. They are known to cause cardiac arrhythmias.

b. They cause involuntary contractions of regional skeletal muscles leading to immobilization of the victim.

c. They utilize only DC currents.

d. Patients with a Taser® injury should always be admitted for cardiac telemetry.

With increased use of conducted electrical weapons (ie, Tasers®) by law enforcement agents and by civilians

seeking personal protection, emergency clinicians can expect to see more patients in the ED with

Taser® injuries. Tasers® use compressed nitrogen to fire 2 metallic darts up to 35 feet and transmit an

electrical impulse through up to 2 inches of clothing. The Taser® causes involuntary contractions of the

regional skeletal muscles and makes it impossible for the target to move voluntarily. The peak voltage

across the target’s body is approximately 1200 V (delivered in rapid pulses over 5 seconds), and the average current is approximately 2.1 mA.

The electric shock delivered by the Taser® is neither pure AC nor pure DC and is probably similar to rapid,

low-amplitude DC shocks. After reports of deaths in police custody following

Taser® use, concern has been raised regarding its safety. However, a recent small prospective study

by Ho et al found no evidence of Taser®-induced cardiac arrhythmias, ECG changes, or electrolyte

abnormalities. Additionally, a prospective series involving 218 patients shot with the original Taser® in

the early 1980s described 3 deaths secondary to cardiac arrest; however, all 3 of these patients had high

levels of phencyclidine (PCP) in their blood, and this was cited as the cause of death. The authors

concluded that the death rate in their series was no higher than that reported for PCP toxicity alone.

Although data regarding the effects of the Taser® are limited, it appears most healthy subjects may be

safely discharged from the ED after dart removal and evaluation for any other injuries. Although

some authors recommend an ECG in patients who have been shot with the Taser®, no current evidence

supports this practice


Answer: b






No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.53/2486 - Release Date: 11/07/09 07:38:00

CME Yearly plan

New York-Presbyterian
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES

Continuing Medical Education

Dear Fellow EMS Professionals,

In an effort to help you plan your schedules, I am posting the dates for the following months for the 4 hour CME sessions. As you can see it will be a cyclical schedule to enable as many people as possible to attend.

Dr. Wallace Carter will continue to run the Adult Call Reviews on the first Tuesday* in March, June, September and December from 4:00 pm till 5:30 pm in room M-107.
Dr. Eachempati will have Trauma call Review from 5:30 pm till 6:45 pm.
Dr. Lupica will have Pediatric Call Review from .6:45 pm till 8:00 pm.

October 7, 2009 Wednesday
November 5 , 2009 Thursday

December 1, 2009 Tuesday*
January 6, 2010 Wednesday
February 4, 2010 Thursday

March 2, 2010 Tuesday*
April 7, 2010 Wednesday
May 6 , 2010 Thursday

June 1, 2010 Tuesday*
July 7, 2010 Wednesday
August 5, 2010 Thursday

September 7, 2010 Tuesday*

ANY QUESTIONS OR IDEAS
PLEASE CONTACT CME COORDINATOR
STEVE SAMUELS EMT-P 516-383-7248
SSAMUELS@OPTONLINE.NET

Sunday, November 8, 2009

USS NEW YORK

V-22 OSPREY



MEDICAL WARD





MAN THE SHIP





CORPMAN NATHANIEL MITCHELL aka TOUR GUIDE




ON THE FLIGHT DECK





THE HELM


Saturday, November 7, 2009

QOD 11 4 09

What is the preferred method of removal of corneal foreign bodies?


a. Removal with an 18-gauge needle
b. Removal with a moistened cotton-tipped swab
c. Removal with an optical burr
d. Outpatient removal within one week by ophthalmologist

A great variety of intraocular foreign bodies have been described, including metal fragments, wood, plastic, and others. Once determined that the injury to the eye is a simple foreign body and resultant corneal abrasion, removal of the foreign body should be performed under slit lamp visualization to provide consistent and stable removal of the offending irritant.

Corneal foreign bodies can often be safely removed in the ED. An initial attempt to remove an irritant from the pediatric eye may be performed with a moistened cotton-tipped swab. If this effort is unsuccessful, the use of a needle is indicated to remove the foreign body. It is important to reassure the patient and parents that the needle does not go into the eye, but merely rests on the surface. Attach a standard 18-gauge needle to a 3 mL syringe for stability. Some prefer to bend the needle shaft 30° to facilitate the approach to the eye. The foreign body can then be gently lifted off the surface of the cornea. Once the foreign body is dislodged, use a moist cotton swab to remove it from the surface of the eye, if necessary. If a rust ring remains following removal of a metallic foreign body, this may also be removed in the ED with either the needle or a burr. It is also acceptable to schedule ophthalmology follow up for removal within 24–48 hours.

Following foreign body removal, reexamine the eye for signs of ocular penetration. Pay particular attention for Seidel's sign, a leak of fluid that appears to be a dark stream of fluid on top of a green fluorescein background. After the foreign body is removed and signs of ocular perforation are excluded, the injury may be treated as a simple corneal abrasion

Answer: B (as we all know a moistened cotton-tipped swab is rarely successful, however)


USS NEW YORK COMMISSIONED



Today I had the honor of being present for the commissioning ceremony of the USS New York, LPD 21. The ship's motto is:

" Strength Forged Through Sacrifice , Never Forget ".


I have been to many other events in life: graduations, weddings; today I felt like I witnessed the birth of a ship when it came to life and was officially commissioned.

Find out more about this event and the ship by visiting the web site.

P.S. My Thanks to Nathaniel Mitchell

Visit the web site; http://www.ussnewyork.com/