Some experts propose C-reactive protein (CRP) as a screening tool for prediction of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Many epidemiologic studies show positive associations between elevated CRP levels and incident CVD. Assessment of the value of new prognostic tests, however, must rely on understanding of test characteristics rather than on associations measured by relative risks. In the case of CRP, test characteristics must be judged in the context of currently available CVD risk prediction algorithms. In this review of literature published before January 2006, the authors describe what is known about the additional utility of CRP in risk prediction. They find no definitive evidence that, for most individuals, CRP adds substantial predictive value above that provided by risk estimation using traditional risk factors for CVD. Use of CRP may add to risk estimation in a limited subset of individuals who are at intermediate predicted risk according to the Framingham risk score. The authors propose that many questions still must be addressed before CRP is incorporated into risk prediction algorithms and before universal screening with CRP can be recommended.

While high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) is an independent predictor of cardiovascular risk, global risk prediction models incorporating hsCRP have not been developed for clinical use.

Avian influenza, or influenza A (H5N1), has 3 of the 4 properties necessary to cause a serious pandemic: It can infect people, nearly all people are immunologically naive, and it is highly lethal. The Achilles heel of the virus is the lack of sustained human-human transmission. Fortunately, among the 124 cases reported through 30 May 2006, nearly all were acquired by direct contact with poultry. Unfortunately, the capability for efficient human-human transmission requires only a single mutation by a virus that is notoriously genetically unstable, hence the need for a new vaccine each year for seasonal influenza. Influenza A (H5N1) is being compared to another avian strain, the agent of the "Spanish flu" of 1918-1919, which traversed the world in 3 months and caused an estimated 50 million deaths. The question is, are we ready for this type of pandemic? The answer is probably no. The main problems are the lack of an effective vaccine, very poor surge capacity, a health care system that could not accommodate even a modest pandemic, and erratic regional planning. It's time to get ready, and in the process be ready for bioterrorism, natural disasters, and epidemics of other infectious diseases.

When the great influenza epidemic struck Philadelphia in 1918, the author was just starting his third year at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. After a single lecture on influenza, classes for the third and fourth year students were suspended while he and his mates manned an emergency hospital, in which they worked under little or no medical supervision and in the presence of an alarming patient mortality. This essay describes what happened in the hospital, and in the city as a whole, during the pandemic. Certain features of the clinical course of most patients permit the hope that modern therapy will prevent a repetition of the horrendous mortality.

The threat of an H5N1 influenza virus (avian flu) pandemic is substantial. The success of the current U.S. influenza pandemic response plan depends on effective coordination among state and local public health authorities and individual health care providers. This article is a summary of a public policy paper developed by the American College of Physicians to address issues in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Pandemic Influenza Plan that involve physicians. The College's positions call for the following: 1) development of local public health task forces that include physicians representing all specialties and practice settings; 2) physician access to 2-way communication with public health authorities and to information technology tools for diagnosis and syndrome surveillance; 3) clear identification and authorization of agencies to process licensing and registration of volunteer physicians; 4) clear guidelines for overriding standard procedures for confidentiality and consent in the interest of the public's health; 5) clear and fair infection control measures that do not create barriers to care; 6) analysis of and solutions to current problems with seasonal influenza vaccination programs as a way of developing a maximally efficient pandemic flu vaccine program; 7) federal funding to provide pandemic flu vaccine for the entire U.S. population and antiviral drugs for 25% of the population; and 8) planning for health care in alternative, nonhospital settings to prevent a surge in demand for hospital care that exceeds supply. *This paper is an abridged version of a full-text position paper (available at http://www.acponline.org/college/pressroom/as06/pandemic_policy.pdf) written by Laura Barnitz, BJ, MA, and updated and adapted for publication in Annals of Internal Medicine by Michael Berkwits, MD, MSCE. The original position paper was developed for the Health and Public Policy Committee of the American College of Physicians: Jeffrey P. Harris, MD (Chair); David L. Bronson, MD (Vice Chair); CPT Julie Ake, MD; Patricia P. Barry, MD; Molly Cooke, MD; Herbert S. Diamond, MD; Joel S. Levine, MD; Mark E. Mayer, MD; Thomas McGinn, MD; Robert M. McLean, MD; Ashley E. Starkweather; and Frederick E. Turton, MD. It was approved by the Board of Regents on 3 April 2006.

Strong community linkages are essential to a health care organization's overall preparedness for emergencies.

Long-acting beta-agonists may increase the risk for fatal and nonfatal asthma exacerbations.

Experts consider health information technology key to improving efficiency and quality of health care.

Urinary incontinence is common in women. Because treatments differ, urge incontinence should be distinguished from stress incontinence. To make this distinction, current guidelines recommend an extensive evaluation that is too time-consuming for primary care practice.

Defining the primary characteristics of persons infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) enables physicians to more easily identify persons who are most likely to benefit from testing for the disease.