Development and Pilot of an Mpox Severity Scoring System

Clinical severity scores facilitate comparisons to understand risk factors for severe illness. For the 2022 multinational monkeypox clade IIb virus outbreak, we developed a 7-item Mpox Severity Scoring System (MPOX-SSS) with initial variables refined by data availability and parameter correlation. Application of MPOX-SSS to the first 200 patients diagnosed with mpox revealed higher scores in those treated with tecovirimat, presenting >3 days after symptom onset, and with CD4 counts <200 cells/mm3. For individuals evaluated repeatedly, serial scores were concordant with clinical observations. The pilot MPOX-SSS demonstrated good discrimination, distinguished change over time, and identified higher scores in expected groups.

How the Orthodox Features of Orthopoxviruses Led to an Unorthodox Mpox Outbreak: What We've Learned, and What We Still Need to Understand

Orthopoxviruses have repeatedly confounded expectations in terms of the clinical illness they cause and their patterns of spread. Monkeypox virus (MPXV), originally characterized in the late 1950s during outbreaks among captive primates, has been recognized since the 1970s to cause human disease (mpox) in West and Central Africa, where interhuman transmission has largely been associated with nonsexual, close physical contact. In May 2022, a focus of MPXV transmission was detected, spreading among international networks of gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men. The outbreak grew in both size and geographic scope, testing the strength of preparedness tools and public health science alike. In this article we consider what was known about mpox before the 2022 outbreak, what we learned about mpox during the outbreak, and what continued research is needed to ensure that the global public health community can detect, and halt further spread of this disease threat.

Low CD4 Count or Being Out of Care Increases the Risk for Mpox Hospitalization Among People With Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Mpox

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-associated immunosuppression may increase the risk of hospitalization with mpox. Among persons diagnosed with mpox in the state of Georgia, we characterized the association between hospitalization with mpox and HIV status. People with HIV and a CD4 count <350 cells/mm3 or who were not engaged in HIV care had an increased risk of hospitalization.

HIV and mpox: a rapid review

In this review, we discuss the history and epidemiology of mpox, prevention strategies, clinical characteristics and management, severity of mpox among persons with advanced HIV, and areas for future research relevant to persons with HIV.

E-Cigarette Use Among persons With Diagnosed HIV in the U.S

Introduction

E-cigarettes emerged in the U.S. market in the late 2000s. In 2017, E-cigarette use among U.S. adults was 2.8%, with higher use among some population groups. Limited studies have assessed E-cigarette use among persons with diagnosed HIV. The purpose of this study is to describe the national prevalence estimates of E-cigarette use among persons with diagnosed HIV by selected sociodemographic, behavioral, and clinical characteristics.

Methods

Data were collected between June 2018 and May 2019 as part of the Medical Monitoring Project, an annual cross-sectional survey that produces nationally representative estimates of behavioral and clinical characteristics of persons with diagnosed HIV in the U.S. Statistically significant differences (p<0.05) were determined using chi-square tests. Data were analyzed in 2021.

Results

Among persons with diagnosed HIV, 5.9% reported currently using E-cigarettes, 27.1% had ever used them but were not using them currently, and 72.9% had never used them. Current use of E-cigarettes was highest among persons with diagnosed HIV who currently smoke conventional cigarettes (11.1%), those with major depression (10.8%), those aged 25-34 years (10.5%), those who reported injectable and noninjectable drug use in the past 12 months (9.7%), those diagnosed <5 years ago (9.5%), those who self-reported sexual orientation as other (9.2%), and non-Hispanic White people (8.4%).

Conclusions

Overall, findings suggest that a greater proportion of persons with diagnosed HIV used E-cigarettes than the overall U.S. adult population and that higher rates were observed among certain subgroups, including those who currently smoke cigarettes. E-cigarette use among persons with diagnosed HIV warrants continued attention because of its potential impact on HIV-related morbidity and mortality.

Severe Monkeypox in Hospitalized Patients - United States, August 10-October 10, 2022

As of October 21, 2022, a total of 27,884 monkeypox cases (confirmed and probable) have been reported in the United States.§ Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men have constituted a majority of cases, and persons with HIV infection and those from racial and ethnic minority groups have been disproportionately affected (1,2). During previous monkeypox outbreaks, severe manifestations of disease and poor outcomes have been reported among persons with HIV infection, particularly those with AIDS (3-5). This report summarizes findings from CDC clinical consultations provided for 57 patients aged ≥18 years who were hospitalized with severe manifestations of monkeypox¶ during August 10-October 10, 2022, and highlights three clinically representative cases. Overall, 47 (82%) patients had HIV infection, four (9%) of whom were receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART) before monkeypox diagnosis. Most patients were male (95%) and 68% were non-Hispanic Black (Black). Overall, 17 (30%) patients received intensive care unit (ICU)-level care, and 12 (21%) have died. As of this report, monkeypox was a cause of death or contributing factor in five of these deaths; six deaths remain under investigation to determine whether monkeypox was a causal or contributing factor; and in one death, monkeypox was not a cause or contributing factor.** Health care providers and public health professionals should be aware that severe morbidity and mortality associated with monkeypox have been observed during the current outbreak in the United States (6,7), particularly among highly immunocompromised persons. Providers should test all sexually active patients with suspected monkeypox for HIV at the time of monkeypox testing unless a patient is already known to have HIV infection. Providers should consider early commencement and extended duration of monkeypox-directed therapy†† in highly immunocompromised patients with suspected or laboratory-diagnosed monkeypox.§§ Engaging all persons with HIV in sustained care remains a critical public health priority.

Summary of Guidance for Minimizing the Impact of COVID-19 on Individual Persons, Communities, and Health Care Systems - United States, August 2022

As SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, continues to circulate globally, high levels of vaccine- and infection-induced immunity and the availability of effective treatments and prevention tools have substantially reduced the risk for medically significant COVID-19 illness (severe acute illness and post-COVID-19 conditions) and associated hospitalization and death (1). These circumstances now allow public health efforts to minimize the individual and societal health impacts of COVID-19 by focusing on sustainable measures to further reduce medically significant illness as well as to minimize strain on the health care system, while reducing barriers to social, educational, and economic activity (2). Individual risk for medically significant COVID-19 depends on a person's risk for exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and their risk for developing severe illness if infected (3). Exposure risk can be mitigated through nonpharmaceutical interventions, including improving ventilation, use of masks or respirators indoors, and testing (4). The risk for medically significant illness increases with age, disability status, and underlying medical conditions but is considerably reduced by immunity derived from vaccination, previous infection, or both, as well as timely access to effective biomedical prevention measures and treatments (3,5). CDC's public health recommendations change in response to evolving science, the availability of biomedical and public health tools, and changes in context, such as levels of immunity in the population and currently circulating variants. CDC recommends a strategic approach to minimizing the impact of COVID-19 on health and society that relies on vaccination and therapeutics to prevent severe illness; use of multicomponent prevention measures where feasible; and particular emphasis on protecting persons at high risk for severe illness. Efforts to expand access to vaccination and therapeutics, including the use of preexposure prophylaxis for persons who are immunocompromised, antiviral agents, and therapeutic monoclonal antibodies, should be intensified to reduce the risk for medically significant illness and death. Efforts to protect persons at high risk for severe illness must ensure that all persons have access to information to understand their individual risk, as well as efficient and equitable access to vaccination, therapeutics, testing, and other prevention measures. Current priorities for preventing medically significant illness should focus on ensuring that persons 1) understand their risk, 2) take steps to protect themselves and others through vaccines, therapeutics, and nonpharmaceutical interventions when needed, 3) receive testing and wear masks if they have been exposed, and 4) receive testing if they are symptomatic, and isolate for ≥5 days if they are infected.

Updated U.S. Public Health Service Guideline for Testing of Transplant Candidates Aged <12 Years for Infection with HIV, Hepatitis B Virus, and Hepatitis C Virus - United States, 2022

The U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) has periodically published recommendations about reducing the risk for transmission of HIV, hepatitis B virus (HBV), and hepatitis C virus (HCV) through solid organ transplantation (1-4). Updated guidance published in 2020 included the recommendation that all transplant candidates receive HIV, HBV, and HCV testing during hospital admission for transplant surgery to more accurately assess their pretransplant infection status and to better identify donor transmitted infection (4). In 2021, CDC was notified that this recommendation might be unnecessary for pediatric organ transplant candidates because of the low likelihood of infection after the perinatal period and out of concern that the volume of blood drawn for testing could negatively affect critically ill children.* CDC and other partners reviewed surveillance data from CDC on estimates of HIV, HBV, and HCV infection rates in the United States and data from the Organ Procurement & Transplantation Network (OPTN)^† on age and weight distributions among U.S. transplant recipients. Feedback from the transplant community was also solicited to understand the impact of changes to the existing policy on organ transplantation. The 2020 PHS guideline was accordingly updated to specify that solid organ transplant candidates aged <12 years at the time of transplantation who have received postnatal infectious disease testing are exempt from the recommendation for HIV, HBV, and HCV testing during hospital admission for transplantation.

HIV Testing Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic - United States, 2019-2020

HIV testing is a core strategy for the Ending the HIV Epidemic in the U.S. (EHE) initiative, which has the aim of reducing new HIV infections by at least 90% by 2030.* During 2016-2017, jurisdictions with the highest HIV diagnosis rates were those with higher prevalences of HIV testing; past-year HIV testing was higher among persons who reported recent HIV risk behaviors compared with those who did not report these risks (1). During 2020-2021, the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted health care delivery, including HIV testing in part because many persons avoided services to comply with COVID-19 risk mitigation efforts (2). In addition, public health departments redirected some sexual health services to COVID-19-related activities.^† CDC analyzed data from four national data collection systems to assess the numbers of HIV tests performed and HIV infections diagnosed in the United States in the years before (2019) and during (2020) the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2020, HIV diagnoses reported to CDC decreased by 17% compared with those reported in 2019. This decrease was preceded by decreases in HIV testing during the same period, particularly among priority populations including Black or African American (Black) gay men, Hispanic or Latino (Hispanic) gay men, bisexual men, other men who have sex with men (MSM), and transgender persons in CDC-funded jurisdictions. To compensate for testing and diagnoses missed during the COVID-19 pandemic and to accelerate the EHE initiative, CDC encourages partnerships among federal organizations, state and local health departments, community-based organizations, and health care systems to increase access to HIV testing services, including strategies such as self-testing and routine opt-out screening in health care settings.

Developing Treatment Guidelines During a Pandemic Health Crisis: Lessons Learned From COVID-19

The development of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines began in March 2020 in response to a request from the White House Coronavirus Task Force. Within 4 days of the request, the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel was established and the first meeting took place (virtually-as did subsequent meetings). The Panel comprises 57 individuals representing 6 governmental agencies, 11 professional societies, and 33 medical centers, plus 2 community members, who have worked together to create and frequently update the guidelines on the basis of evidence from the most recent clinical studies available. The initial version of the guidelines was completed within 2 weeks and posted online on 21 April 2020. Initially, sparse evidence was available to guide COVID-19 treatment recommendations. However, treatment data rapidly accrued based on results from clinical studies that used various study designs and evaluated different therapeutic agents and approaches. Data have continued to evolve at a rapid pace, leading to 24 revisions and updates of the guidelines in the first year. This process has provided important lessons for responding to an unprecedented public health emergency: Providers and stakeholders are eager to access credible, current treatment guidelines; governmental agencies, professional societies, and health care leaders can work together effectively and expeditiously; panelists from various disciplines, including biostatistics, are important for quickly developing well-informed recommendations; well-powered randomized clinical trials continue to provide the most compelling evidence to guide treatment recommendations; treatment recommendations need to be developed in a confidential setting free from external pressures; development of a user-friendly, web-based format for communicating with health care providers requires substantial administrative support; and frequent updates are necessary as clinical evidence rapidly emerges.

Guidance for Implementing COVID-19 Prevention Strategies in the Context of Varying Community Transmission Levels and Vaccination Coverage

COVID-19 vaccination remains the most effective means to achieve control of the pandemic. In the United States, COVID-19 cases and deaths have markedly declined since their peak in early January 2021, due in part to increased vaccination coverage (1). However, during June 19-July 23, 2021, COVID-19 cases increased approximately 300% nationally, followed by increases in hospitalizations and deaths, driven by the highly transmissible B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant* of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Available data indicate that the vaccines authorized in the United States (Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and Janssen [Johnson & Johnson]) offer high levels of protection against severe illness and death from infection with the Delta variant and other currently circulating variants of the virus (2). Despite widespread availability, vaccine uptake has slowed nationally with wide variation in coverage by state (range = 33.9%-67.2%) and by county (range = 8.8%-89.0%).^† Unvaccinated persons, as well as persons with certain immunocompromising conditions (3), remain at substantial risk for infection, severe illness, and death, especially in areas where the level of SARS-CoV-2 community transmission is high. The Delta variant is more than two times as transmissible as the original strains circulating at the start of the pandemic and is causing large, rapid increases in infections, which could compromise the capacity of some local and regional health care systems to provide medical care for the communities they serve. Until vaccination coverage is high and community transmission is low, public health practitioners, as well as schools, businesses, and institutions (organizations) need to regularly assess the need for prevention strategies to avoid stressing health care capacity and imperiling adequate care for both COVID-19 and other non-COVID-19 conditions. CDC recommends five critical factors be considered to inform local decision-making: 1) level of SARS-CoV-2 community transmission; 2) health system capacity; 3) COVID-19 vaccination coverage; 4) capacity for early detection of increases in COVID-19 cases; and 5) populations at increased risk for severe outcomes from COVID-19. Among strategies to prevent COVID-19, CDC recommends all unvaccinated persons wear masks in public indoor settings. Based on emerging evidence on the Delta variant (2), CDC also recommends that fully vaccinated persons wear masks in public indoor settings in areas of substantial or high transmission. Fully vaccinated persons might consider wearing a mask in public indoor settings, regardless of transmission level, if they or someone in their household is immunocompromised or is at increased risk for severe disease, or if someone in their household is unvaccinated (including children aged <12 years who are currently ineligible for vaccination).

The CDC HIV Outbreak Coordination Unit: Developing a Standardized, Collaborative Approach to HIV Outbreak Assessment and Response

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and state, territorial, and local health departments have expanded efforts to detect and respond to HIV clusters and outbreaks in the United States. In July 2017, CDC created the HIV Outbreak Coordination Unit (OCU) to ensure consistent and collaborative assessment of requests from health departments for consultation or support on possible HIV clusters and outbreaks of elevated concern. The HIV OCU is a multidisciplinary, cross-organization functional unit within CDC's Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention. HIV OCU members have expertise in areas such as outbreak detection and investigation, prevention, laboratory services, surveillance and epidemiology, policy, communication, and operations. HIV OCU discussions facilitate problem solving, coordination, and situational awareness. Between HIV OCU meetings, designated CDC staff members communicate regularly with health departments to provide support and assessment. During July 2017-December 2019, the HIV OCU reviewed 31 possible HIV clusters and outbreaks (ie, events) in 22 states that were detected by CDC, health departments, or local partners; 17 events involved HIV transmission associated with injection drug use, and other events typically involved sexual transmission or overall increases in HIV diagnoses. CDC supported health departments remotely or on site with planning and prioritization; data collection, management, and analysis; communications; laboratory support; multistate coordination; and expansion of HIV prevention services. The HIV OCU has augmented CDC's support of HIV cluster and outbreak assessment and response at health departments and had important internal organizational benefits. Health departments may benefit from developing or strengthening similar units to coordinate detection and response efforts within and across public health agencies and advance the national Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative.

Maximizing Fit for Cloth and Medical Procedure Masks to Improve Performance and Reduce SARS-CoV-2 Transmission and Exposure, 2021

Universal masking is one of the prevention strategies recommended by CDC to slow the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (1). As of February 1, 2021, 38 states and the District of Columbia had universal masking mandates. Mask wearing has also been mandated by executive order for federal property* as well as on domestic and international transportation conveyances.† Masks substantially reduce exhaled respiratory droplets and aerosols from infected wearers and reduce exposure of uninfected wearers to these particles. Cloth masks§ and medical procedure masks¶ fit more loosely than do respirators (e.g., N95 facepieces). The effectiveness of cloth and medical procedure masks can be improved by ensuring that they are well fitted to the contours of the face to prevent leakage of air around the masks' edges. During January 2021, CDC conducted experimental simulations using pliable elastomeric source and receiver headforms to assess the extent to which two modifications to medical procedure masks, 1) wearing a cloth mask over a medical procedure mask (double masking) and 2) knotting the ear loops of a medical procedure mask where they attach to the mask's edges and then tucking in and flattening the extra material close to the face (knotted and tucked masks), could improve the fit of these masks and reduce the receiver's exposure to an aerosol of simulated respiratory droplet particles of the size considered most important for transmitting SARS-CoV-2. The receiver's exposure was maximally reduced (>95%) when the source and receiver were fitted with modified medical procedure masks. These laboratory-based experiments highlight the importance of good fit to optimize mask performance. Until vaccine-induced population immunity is achieved, universal masking is a highly effective means to slow the spread of SARS-CoV-2** when combined with other protective measures, such as physical distancing, avoiding crowds and poorly ventilated indoor spaces, and good hand hygiene. Innovative efforts to improve the fit of cloth and medical procedure masks to enhance their performance merit attention.

Prevalence, Incidence, and Clearance of Human Papillomavirus Types Covered by Current Vaccines in Men With Human Immunodeficiency Virus in the SUN Study

BACKGROUND

High-risk anal human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is prevalent among men living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV); the association between 9-valent (9v) high-risk HPV (HR-HPV) vaccine types and abnormal cytology has not been well characterized.

METHODS

We followed a prospective cohort study of persons with HIV at 7 HIV clinics in 4 US cities from March 2004 through June 2012. Annually, providers collected separate anal swabs for HPV detection and cytopathologic examination. Among men, we examined prevalence, incidence, and clearance of 9v HR-HPV vaccine types, compared with other HR types, and associations with abnormal cytology to assess potential vaccine impact.

RESULTS

Baseline prevalence of any anal 9v HR-HPV type among men who have sex with men (MSM) and men who have sex with women (MSW) was 74% and 25% (P < .001), respectively. Among 299 MSM, abnormal cytology was detected in 161 (54%) MSM and was associated with the presence of any 9v HR-HPV (relative risk [RR], 1.8 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.3-2.6]; P < .001). Among 61 MSW, abnormal anal cytology was detected in 12 (20%) and was associated with the presence of any 9v HR-HPV (RR, 4.3 [95% CI, 1.6-11.5]; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Among men with HIV, the prevalence of the 7 HR-HPV types in the 9v vaccine was high and was associated with abnormal cytology. These findings indicate that men with HIV could benefit from prophylactic administration of the 9v HPV vaccine.

Performance of Oropharyngeal Swab Testing Compared With Nasopharyngeal Swab Testing for Diagnosis of Coronavirus Disease 2019-United States, January 2020-February 2020

Among 146 nasopharyngeal (NP) and oropharyngeal (OP) swab pairs collected ≤7 days after illness onset, Real-Time Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction assay for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR) diagnostic results were 95.2% concordant. However, NP swab cycle threshold values were lower (indicating more virus) in 66.7% of concordant-positive pairs, suggesting NP swabs may more accurately detect the amount of SARS-CoV-2.

Association of Immunosuppression and Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Viremia With Anal Cancer Risk in Persons Living With HIV in the United States and Canada

BACKGROUND

People living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV; PLWH) have a markedly elevated anal cancer risk, largely due to loss of immunoregulatory control of oncogenic human papillomavirus infection. To better understand anal cancer development and prevention, we determined whether recent, past, cumulative, or nadir/peak CD4+ T-cell count (CD4) and/or HIV-1 RNA level (HIV RNA) best predict anal cancer risk.

METHODS

We studied 102 777 PLWH during 1996-2014 from 21 cohorts participating in the North American AIDS Cohort Collaboration on Research and Design. Using demographics-adjusted, cohort-stratified Cox models, we assessed associations between anal cancer risk and various time-updated CD4 and HIV RNA measures, including cumulative and nadir/peak measures during prespecified moving time windows. We compared models using the Akaike information criterion.

RESULTS

Cumulative and nadir/peak CD4 or HIV RNA measures from approximately 8.5 to 4.5 years in the past were generally better predictors for anal cancer risk than their corresponding more recent measures. However, the best model included CD4 nadir (ie, the lowest CD4) from approximately 8.5 years to 6 months in the past (hazard ratio [HR] for <50 vs ≥500 cells/µL, 13.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.5-51.0) and proportion of time CD4 <200 cells/µL from approximately 8.5 to 4.5 years in the past (a cumulative measure; HR for 100% vs 0%, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.5-6.6).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results are consistent with anal cancer promotion by severe, prolonged HIV-induced immunosuppression. Nadir and cumulative CD4 may represent useful markers for identifying PLWH at higher anal cancer risk.

SARS-CoV-2 Transmission From People Without COVID-19 Symptoms

Importance

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the etiology of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), is readily transmitted person to person. Optimal control of COVID-19 depends on directing resources and health messaging to mitigation efforts that are most likely to prevent transmission, but the relative importance of such measures has been disputed.

Objective

To assess the proportion of SARS-CoV-2 transmissions in the community that likely occur from persons without symptoms.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This decision analytical model assessed the relative amount of transmission from presymptomatic, never symptomatic, and symptomatic individuals across a range of scenarios in which the proportion of transmission from people who never develop symptoms (ie, remain asymptomatic) and the infectious period were varied according to published best estimates. For all estimates, data from a meta-analysis was used to set the incubation period at a median of 5 days. The infectious period duration was maintained at 10 days, and peak infectiousness was varied between 3 and 7 days (-2 and +2 days relative to the median incubation period). The overall proportion of SARS-CoV-2 was varied between 0% and 70% to assess a wide range of possible proportions.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Level of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from presymptomatic, never symptomatic, and symptomatic individuals.

Results

The baseline assumptions for the model were that peak infectiousness occurred at the median of symptom onset and that 30% of individuals with infection never develop symptoms and are 75% as infectious as those who do develop symptoms. Combined, these baseline assumptions imply that persons with infection who never develop symptoms may account for approximately 24% of all transmission. In this base case, 59% of all transmission came from asymptomatic transmission, comprising 35% from presymptomatic individuals and 24% from individuals who never develop symptoms. Under a broad range of values for each of these assumptions, at least 50% of new SARS-CoV-2 infections was estimated to have originated from exposure to individuals with infection but without symptoms.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this decision analytical model of multiple scenarios of proportions of asymptomatic individuals with COVID-19 and infectious periods, transmission from asymptomatic individuals was estimated to account for more than half of all transmissions. In addition to identification and isolation of persons with symptomatic COVID-19, effective control of spread will require reducing the risk of transmission from people with infection who do not have symptoms. These findings suggest that measures such as wearing masks, hand hygiene, social distancing, and strategic testing of people who are not ill will be foundational to slowing the spread of COVID-19 until safe and effective vaccines are available and widely used.

SARS-CoV-2 Serologic Assay Needs for the Next Phase of the US COVID-19 Pandemic Response

BACKGROUND

There is a need for validated and standardized severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) quantitative immunoglobulin G (IgG) and neutralization assays that can be used to understand the immunology and pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and support the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic response.

METHODS

Literature searches were conducted to identify English language publications from peer-reviewed journals and preprints from January 2020 through November 6, 2020. Relevant publications were reviewed for mention of IgG or neutralization assays for SARS-CoV-2, or both, and the methods of reporting assay results.

RESULTS

Quantitative SARS-CoV-2 IgG results have been reported from a limited number of studies; most studies used in-house laboratory-developed tests in limited settings, and only two semiquantitative tests have received US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). As of November 6, 2020, there is only one SARS-CoV-2 neutralization assay with FDA EUA. Relatively few studies have attempted correlation of quantitative IgG titers with neutralization results to estimate surrogates of protection. The number of individuals tested is small compared with the magnitude of the pandemic, and persons tested are not representative of disproportionately affected populations. Methods of reporting quantitative results are not standardized to enable comparisons and meta-analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Lack of standardized SARS-CoV-2 quantitative IgG and neutralization assays precludes comparison of results from published studies. Interassay and interlaboratory validation and standardization of assays will support efforts to better understand antibody kinetics and longevity of humoral immune responses postillness, surrogates of immune protection, and vaccine immunogenicity and efficacy. Public-private partnerships could facilitate realization of these advances in the United States and worldwide.

Summary of Guidance for Public Health Strategies to Address High Levels of Community Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and Related Deaths, December 2020

In the 10 months since the first confirmed case of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was reported in the United States on January 20, 2020 (1), approximately 13.8 million cases and 272,525 deaths have been reported in the United States. On October 30, the number of new cases reported in the United States in a single day exceeded 100,000 for the first time, and by December 2 had reached a daily high of 196,227.* With colder weather, more time spent indoors, the ongoing U.S. holiday season, and silent spread of disease, with approximately 50% of transmission from asymptomatic persons (2), the United States has entered a phase of high-level transmission where a multipronged approach to implementing all evidence-based public health strategies at both the individual and community levels is essential. This summary guidance highlights critical evidence-based CDC recommendations and sustainable strategies to reduce COVID-19 transmission. These strategies include 1) universal face mask use, 2) maintaining physical distance from other persons and limiting in-person contacts, 3) avoiding nonessential indoor spaces and crowded outdoor spaces, 4) increasing testing to rapidly identify and isolate infected persons, 5) promptly identifying, quarantining, and testing close contacts of persons with known COVID-19, 6) safeguarding persons most at risk for severe illness or death from infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, 7) protecting essential workers with provision of adequate personal protective equipment and safe work practices, 8) postponing travel, 9) increasing room air ventilation and enhancing hand hygiene and environmental disinfection, and 10) achieving widespread availability and high community coverage with effective COVID-19 vaccines. In combination, these strategies can reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission, long-term sequelae or disability, and death, and mitigate the pandemic's economic impact. Consistent implementation of these strategies improves health equity, preserves health care capacity, maintains the function of essential businesses, and supports the availability of in-person instruction for kindergarten through grade 12 schools and preschool. Individual persons, households, and communities should take these actions now to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission from its current high level. These actions will provide a bridge to a future with wide availability and high community coverage of effective vaccines, when safe return to more everyday activities in a range of settings will be possible.

Human Immunodeficiency Virus Epidemic Control in the United States: An Assessment of Proposed UNAIDS Metrics, 2010-2015

Epidemic control is necessary to eliminate human immunodeficiency virus infections. We assessed epidemic control in the United States by applying 4 proposed UNAIDS metrics to national surveillance data collected between 2010 and 2015. Although epidemic control in the United States is possible, progress by UNAIDS metrics has been mixed.

Hydroxychloroquine and Chloroquine Prescribing Patterns by Provider Specialty Following Initial Reports of Potential Benefit for COVID-19 Treatment - United States, January-June 2020

Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, primarily used to treat autoimmune diseases and to prevent and treat malaria, received national attention in early March 2020, as potential treatment and prophylaxis for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (1). On March 20, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for chloroquine phosphate and hydroxychloroquine sulfate in the Strategic National Stockpile to be used by licensed health care providers to treat patients hospitalized with COVID-19 when the providers determine the potential benefit outweighs the potential risk to the patient.* Following reports of cardiac and other adverse events in patients receiving hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 (2), on April 24, 2020, FDA issued a caution against its use^† and on June 15, rescinded its EUA for hydroxychloroquine from the Strategic National Stockpile.^§ Following the FDA's issuance of caution and EUA rescindment, on May 12 and June 16, the federal COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel issued recommendations against the use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine to treat COVID-19; the panel also noted that at that time no medication could be recommended for COVID-19 pre- or postexposure prophylaxis outside the setting of a clinical trial (3). However, public discussion concerning the effectiveness of these drugs on outcomes of COVID-19 (4,5), and clinical trials of hydroxychloroquine for prophylaxis of COVID-19 continue.^¶ In response to recent reports of notable increases in prescriptions for hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine (6), CDC analyzed outpatient retail pharmacy transaction data to identify potential differences in prescriptions dispensed by provider type during January-June 2020 compared with the same period in 2019. Before 2020, primary care providers and specialists who routinely prescribed hydroxychloroquine, such as rheumatologists and dermatologists, accounted for approximately 97% of new prescriptions. New prescriptions by specialists who did not typically prescribe these medications (defined as specialties accounting for ≤2% of new prescriptions before 2020) increased from 1,143 prescriptions in February 2020 to 75,569 in March 2020, an 80-fold increase from March 2019. Although dispensing trends are returning to prepandemic levels, continued adherence to current clinical guidelines for the indicated use of these medications will ensure their availability and benefit to patients for whom their use is indicated (3,4), because current data on treatment and pre- or postexposure prophylaxis for COVID-19 indicate that the potential benefits of these drugs do not appear to outweigh their risks.

Assessing Solid Organ Donors and Monitoring Transplant Recipients for Human Immunodeficiency Virus, Hepatitis B Virus, and Hepatitis C Virus Infection - U.S. Public Health Service Guideline, 2020

The recommendations in this report supersede the U.S Public Health Service (PHS) guideline recommendations for reducing transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B virus (HBV), and hepatitis C virus (HCV) through organ transplantation (Seem DL, Lee I, Umscheid CA, Kuehnert MJ. PHS guideline for reducing human immunodeficiency virus, hepatitis B virus, and hepatitis C virus transmission through organ transplantation. Public Health Rep 2013;128:247-343), hereafter referred to as the 2013 PHS guideline. PHS evaluated and revised the 2013 PHS guideline because of several advances in solid organ transplantation, including universal implementation of nucleic acid testing of solid organ donors for HIV, HBV, and HCV; improved understanding of risk factors for undetected organ donor infection with these viruses; and the availability of highly effective treatments for infection with these viruses. PHS solicited feedback from its relevant agencies, subject-matter experts, additional stakeholders, and the public to develop revised guideline recommendations for identification of risk factors for these infections among solid organ donors, implementation of laboratory screening of solid organ donors, and monitoring of solid organ transplant recipients. Recommendations that have changed since the 2013 PHS guideline include updated criteria for identifying donors at risk for undetected donor HIV, HBV, or HCV infection; the removal of any specific term to characterize donors with HIV, HBV, or HCV infection risk factors; universal organ donor HIV, HBV, and HCV nucleic acid testing; and universal posttransplant monitoring of transplant recipients for HIV, HBV, and HCV infections. The recommendations are to be used by organ procurement organization and transplant programs and are intended to apply only to solid organ donors and recipients and not to donors or recipients of other medical products of human origin (e.g., blood products, tissues, corneas, and breast milk). The recommendations pertain to transplantation of solid organs procured from donors without laboratory evidence of HIV, HBV, or HCV infection. Additional considerations when transplanting solid organs procured from donors with laboratory evidence of HCV infection are included but are not required to be incorporated into Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network policy. Transplant centers that transplant organs from HCV-positive donors should develop protocols for obtaining informed consent, testing and treating recipients for HCV, ensuring reimbursement, and reporting new infections to public health authorities.

Evidence Supporting Transmission of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 While Presymptomatic or Asymptomatic

Recent epidemiologic, virologic, and modeling reports support the possibility of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission from persons who are presymptomatic (SARS-CoV-2 detected before symptom onset) or asymptomatic (SARS-CoV-2 detected but symptoms never develop). SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the absence of symptoms reinforces the value of measures that prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 by infected persons who may not exhibit illness despite being infectious. Critical knowledge gaps include the relative incidence of asymptomatic and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, the public health interventions that prevent asymptomatic transmission, and the question of whether asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection confers protective immunity.

HIV prescriptions on the frontlines: Primary care providers' use of antiretrovirals for prevention in the Southeast United States, 2017

HIV disproportionately affects persons in Southeast United States. Primary care providers (PCPs) are vital for HIV prevention. Data are limited about their prescribing of antiretrovirals (ARVs) for prevention, including non-occupational post-exposure prophylaxis (nPEP), pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), and antiretroviral therapy (ART). We examined these practices to assess gaps. During April-August 2017, we conducted an online survey of PCPs in Atlanta, Baltimore, Baton Rouge, Miami, New Orleans, and Washington, DC to assess HIV-related knowledge, attitudes and practices. Adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to estimate correlates of nPEP, PrEP and ART prescribing practices. Adjusting for MSA and specialty, the weighted sample (n = 820, 29.6% adjusted response rate) comprised 60.2% white and 59.4% females. PCPs reported ever prescribing nPEP (31.0%), PrEP (18.1%), and ART (27.2%). Prescribing nPEP was associated with nPEP familiarity (aPR = 2.63, 95% CI 1.59, 4.35) and prescribing PrEP (aPR = 3.57, 95% CI 2.78, 4.55). Prescribing PrEP was associated with PrEP familiarity (aPR = 4.35, 95% CI 2.63, 7.14), prescribing nPEP (aPR = 5.00, 95% CI 2.00, 12.50), and providing care for persons with HIV (aPR = 1.56, 95% CI 1.06, 2.27). Prescribing ART was associated with nPEP familiarity (aPR = 1.89, 95% CI 1.27, 2.78) and practicing in outpatient public practice versus hospital-based facilities (aPR = 2.14 95% CI 1.51, 3.04), and inversely associated with collaborations involving specialists (aPR = 0.60, 95% CI 0.42, 0.86). A minority of PCPs surveyed from the Southeast report ever prescribing ARVs for prevention. Future efforts should include enhancing HIV care coordination and developing strategies to increase use of biomedical tools.

Changes in HIV antiretroviral prescribing practices in the United States

We analyzed nationally representative medical record data from the Medical Monitoring Project (MMP) to estimate prevalence of antiretroviral (ARV) agents prescribed for US adults with diagnosed HIV and to examine recent changes in prescribing practices. The MMP uses a multi-stage sample survey methodology to produce nationally representative annual estimates of characteristics of adults with diagnosed HIV in the US and Puerto Rico. We compared weighted prevalence of most recent ARV prescriptions from 3368 adults interviewed during June 2015–May 2016 and from 3717 adults interviewed during June 2016–May 2017. We also compared weighted prevalence of the first ARV prescriptions among those who initiated ART during these time periods. Among patients initiating antiretroviral therapy (ART), prescription of non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) as part of initial regimen decreased across the time periods from 38.5% to 26.6% ( P = 0.01). Prescription of protease inhibitors (PI) did not change (17.0% and 14.5%). Prescription of integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs) increased (54.7 to 70.2%, P = 0.004) due mostly to increased prescription of dolutegravir (13.9% to 32.5%). Among all patients, prescription of NNRTIs remained stable across (44.5% and 43.2%). Prescriptions of PIs decreased significantly, from 36.5% to 32.4% ( P = 0.006), as did prescription of individual PIs except darunavir. In contrast, prescription of INSTIs increased from 43.4% to 50.7% ( P < 0.001), due mostly to increased prescription of dolutegravir and elvitegravir. ART prescribing practices changed rapidly across the examined time periods. Following guidelines, INSTI prescription increased significantly among all U.S adults with diagnosed HIV, including adults initiating ART.

Prevalence and Incidence of Anal and Cervical High-Risk Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Types Covered by Current HPV Vaccines Among HIV-Infected Women in the SUN Study

Background

Nonavalent (9v) human papilloma virus vaccine targets high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) types 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, 58, and low-risk 6, 11. We examined prevalence, incidence, and clearance of anal and cervical HR-HPV in HIV-infected women.

Methods

The SUN Study enrolled 167 US women in 2004-2006. Anal and cervical specimens were collected annually for cytology and identification of 37 HPV types: 14 HR included: 9v 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, 58; non-9v 35, 39, 51, 56, 59, 66, 68.

Results

Baseline characteristics of 126 women included: median age 38 years; 57% non-Hispanic black; 67% HIV RNA < 400 copies/mL; 90% CD4 counts ≥200 cells/mm3. HPV prevalence at anus and cervix was 90% and 83%; for 9v HR-HPV types, 67% and 51%; non-9v HR-HPV, 54% and 29%, respectively. The 9v and non-9v HR-HPV incidence rates/100 person-years were similar (10.4 vs 9.5; 8.5 vs 8.3, respectively); 9v clearance rates were 42% and 61%; non-9v 46% and 59%, in anus and cervix, respectively.

Conclusions

Anal HR-HPV prevalence was higher than cervical, with lower clearance; incidence was similar. Although prevalence of non-9v HR-HPV was substantial, 9v HR-HPV types were generally more prevalent. These findings support use of nonavalent vaccine in HIV-infected women.

Quantifying the risk of undetected HIV, hepatitis B virus, or hepatitis C virus infection in Public Health Service increased risk donors

To reduce the risk of HIV, hepatitis B virus (HBV), and hepatitis C virus (HCV) transmission through organ transplantation, donors are universally screened for these infections by nucleic acid tests (NAT). Deceased organ donors are classified as "increased risk" if they engaged in specific behaviors during the 12 months before death. We developed a model to estimate the risk of undetected infection for HIV, HBV, and HCV among NAT-negative donors specific to the type and timing of donors' potential risk behavior to guide revisions to the 12-month timeline. Model parameters were estimated, including risk of disease acquisition for increased risk groups, number of virions that multiply to establish infection, virus doubling time, and limit of detection by NAT. Monte Carlo simulation was performed. The risk of undetected infection was <1/1 000 000 for HIV after 14 days, for HBV after 35 days, and for HCV after 7 days from the time of most recent potential exposure to the day of a negative NAT. The period during which reported donor risk behaviors result in an "increased risk" designation can be safely shortened.

Prevalence, Incidence, and Clearance of Anal High-Risk Human Papillomavirus Infection Among HIV-Infected Men in the SUN Study

Background

The natural history of anal human papilloma virus (HPV) infection among human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected men is unknown.

Methods

Annually, from 2004 to 2012, we examined baseline prevalence, incidence, and clearance of anal HPV infection at 48 months, and associated factors among HIV-infected men.

Results

We examined 403 men who have sex with men (MSM) and 96 men who have sex with women (MSW) (median age 42 years for both, 78% versus 81% prescribed cART, median CD4+ T-lymphocyte cell count 454 versus 379 cells/mm3, and 74% versus 75% had undetectable viral load, respectively). Type 16 prevalence among MSM and MSW was 38% versus 14% (P < .001), and incidence 24% versus 7% (P = .001). Type 18 prevalence was 24% versus 8% (P < .001), and incidence 13% versus 4% (P = .027). Among MSM and MSW, clearance of prevalent HPV 16 and HPV 18 was 31% and 60% (P = .392), and 47% and 25% (P = .297), respectively. Among MSM, receptive anal sex (with or without a condom) was associated with persistent HPV 16 (OR 2.24, P < .001).

Conclusions

MSM had higher prevalence and incidence of HPV than MSW, but similar clearance. Receptive anal sex may predict cancer risk among HIV-infected MSM.

Lower serum adiponectin level is associated with lipodystrophy among HIV-infected men in the Study to Understand the Natural History of HIV/AIDS in the Era of Effective Therapy (SUN) study

OBJECTIVES

Adiponectin levels are inversely related to cardiovascular risk and are low in diabetics and obese persons. We examined the association between adiponectin concentration and HIV-associated lipodystrophy, which remains unclear.

METHODS

The Study to Understand the Natural History of HIV/AIDS in the Era of Effective Therapy (SUN) was a prospective cohort study of HIV-infected adults conducted in four US cities. Lean body and fat masses were assessed using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scans. Using baseline data from 2004 to 2006, we defined lipodystrophy using a sex-specific fat mass ratio and performed cross-sectional analyses of associated risks using multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

Among 440 male participants (median age 42 years; 68% non-Hispanic white; 88% prescribed combination antiretroviral therapy; median CD4 lymphocyte count 468 cells/μL; 76% with viral load < 400 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL; 5% diabetic; median body mass index 25 kg/m² ), median concentrations of leptin and adiponectin were 3.04 ng/L [interquartile range (IQR) 1.77-5.43 ng/L] and 8005 μg/mL (IQR 4950-11 935 μg/mL), respectively. The prevalence of lipodystrophy was 14%. Lipodystrophy was significantly associated with increasing age [prevalence ratio (PR) 1.50; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10-2.06, per 10 years], adiponectin < 8005 μg/mL (PR 5.02; 95% CI 2.53-9.95), ever stavudine use (PR 2.26; 95% CI 1.36-3.75), CD4 cell count > 500 cells/μL (PR 2.59; 95% CI 1.46-4.61), viral load < 400 copies/mL (PR 3.98; 95% CI 1.25-12.6), highly sensitive C-reactive protein < 1.61 mg/L (PR 1.91; 95% CI 1.11-3.28) and smoking (PR 0.42; 95% CI 0.22-0.78).

CONCLUSIONS

Among men in this HIV-infected cohort, the prevalence of lipodystrophy was similar to previous estimates for persons living with HIV, and was associated with lower adiponectin levels, potentially indicating increased cardiovascular disease risk.

Modes of Transmission of Zika Virus

For >60 years, Zika virus (ZIKV) has been recognized as an arthropod-borne virus with Aedes species mosquitoes as the primary vector. However in the past 10 years, multiple alternative routes of ZIKV transmission have been identified. We review the available data on vector and non-vector-borne modes of transmission and interventions undertaken, to date, to reduce the risk of human infection through these routes. Although much has been learned during the outbreak in the Americas on the underlying mechanisms and pathogenesis of non-vector-borne ZIKV infections, significant gaps remain in our understanding of the relative incidence of, and risk from, these modes compared to mosquito transmission. Additional research is urgently needed on the risk, pathogenesis, and effectiveness of measures to mitigate non-vector-borne ZIKV transmission.