This Viewpoint examines a recent report that used data from the 2022 National Survey on Drug Use and Health to estimate the opioid cascade of care, a framework to characterize the adult US populations who needed and received opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment, as well as discusses ways in which clinicians can close gaps in care. | eng

On May 13, 2020, Chicago established a free community-based testing (CBT) initiative for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, using reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). The initiative focused on demographic groups and geographic areas that were underrepresented in testing by clinical providers and had experienced high COVID-19 incidence, including Hispanic persons and those who have been economically marginalized. To assess the CBT initiative, the Chicago Department of Public Health (CDPH) compared demographic characteristics, economic marginalization, and test positivity between persons tested at CBT sites and persons tested in all other testing settings in Chicago. During May 13-November 14, a total of 253,904 SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests were conducted at CBT sites. Compared with those tested in all other testing settings in Chicago, persons tested at CBT sites were more likely to live in areas that are economically marginalized (38.6% versus 32.0%; p<0.001) and to be Hispanic (50.9% versus 20.7%; p<0.001). The cumulative percentage of positive test results at the CBT sites was higher than that at all other testing settings (11.1% versus 7.1%; p<0.001). These results demonstrate the ability of public health departments to establish community-based testing initiatives that reach communities with less access to testing in other settings and that experience disproportionately higher incidences of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: People experiencing homelessness are at increased risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but little is known about specific risk factors for infection within homeless shelters. METHODS: We performed widespread severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) polymerase chain reaction testing and collected risk factor information at all homeless shelters in Chicago with at least 1 reported case of COVID-19 (n = 21). Multivariable, mixed-effects log-binomial models were built to estimate adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs) for SARS-CoV-2 infection for both individual- and facility-level risk factors. RESULTS: During March 1 to May 1, 2020, 1717 shelter residents and staff were tested for SARS-CoV-2; 472 (27%) persons tested positive. Prevalence of infection was higher for residents (431 of 1435, 30%) than for staff (41 of 282, 15%) (prevalence ratio = 2.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.78-3.58). The majority of residents with SARS-CoV-2 infection (293 of 406 with available information about symptoms, 72%) reported no symptoms at the time of specimen collection or within the following 2 weeks. Among residents, sharing a room with a large number of people was associated with increased likelihood of infection (aPR for sharing with >20 people compared with single rooms = 1.76; 95% CI, 1.11-2.80), and current smoking was associated with reduced likelihood of infection (aPR = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.60-0.85). At the facility level, a higher proportion of residents leaving and returning each day was associated with increased prevalence (aPR = 1.08; 95% CI, 1.01-1.16), whereas an increase in the number of private bathrooms was associated with reduced prevalence (aPR for 1 additional private bathroom per 100 people = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.87-0.98). CONCLUSIONS: We identified a high prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infections in homeless shelters. Reducing the number of residents sharing dormitories might reduce the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection. When community transmission is high, limiting movement of persons experiencing homelessness into and out of shelters might also be beneficial.

SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has spread rapidly around the world since it was first recognized in late 2019. Most early reports of person-to-person SARS-CoV-2 transmission have been among household contacts, where the secondary attack rate has been estimated to exceed 10% (1), in health care facilities (2), and in congregate settings (3). However, widespread community transmission, as is currently being observed in the United States, requires more expansive transmission events between nonhousehold contacts. In February and March 2020, the Chicago Department of Public Health (CDPH) investigated a large, multifamily cluster of COVID-19. Patients with confirmed COVID-19 and their close contacts were interviewed to better understand nonhousehold, community transmission of SARS-CoV-2. This report describes the cluster of 16 cases of confirmed or probable COVID-19, including three deaths, likely resulting from transmission of SARS-CoV-2 at two family gatherings (a funeral and a birthday party). These data support current CDC social distancing recommendations intended to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission. U.S residents should follow stay-at-home orders when required by state or local authorities.

OBJECTIVES: Multiple invasive group A streptococcal (GAS) infections were reported to public health by a skilled nursing facility (Facility A) in Illinois between May 2014 and August 2016. Cases continued despite interventions including antibiotic prophylaxis for all residents and staff. Two other geographically close facilities reported contemporaneous outbreaks of GAS. We investigated potential reasons for ongoing transmission. METHODS: We obtained epidemiologic data from chart review of cases and review of facility and public health records from previous investigations into the outbreak. Infection control practices at Facility A were observed and evaluated. Whole genome sequencing (WGS) followed by phylogenetic analysis was performed on available isolates from the 3 facilities. RESULTS: From 2014-2016, 19 invasive and 60 non-invasive GAS infections were identified at Facility A occurring in 3 clusters. Infection control evaluations during clusters 2 and 3 identified hand hygiene compliance rates of 14-25%, appropriate PPE use in only 33% of observed instances, and deficient wound care practices. GAS isolates from residents and staff of all three facilities were subtype emm89.0; on phylogenetic analysis, Facility-A isolates were monophyletic and distinct. CONCLUSIONS: Inadequate infection control and improper wound care practices likely led to this 28-month long outbreak of severe infections in a skilled nursing facility. WGS and phylogenetic analysis suggested that intra-facility transmission of a single highly transmissible GAS strain was responsible for the outbreak in Facility A. Integration of genomic epidemiology tools with traditional epidemiology and infection control assessments was helpful in investigation of a facility-wide outbreak.

Risk factors for human-to-human transmission of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are largely unknown. After MERS-CoV infections occurred in an extended family in Saudi Arabia in 2014, relatives were tested by using real-time reverse transcription PCR (rRT-PCR) and serologic methods. Among 79 relatives, 19 (24%) were MERS-CoV positive; 11 were hospitalized, and 2 died. Eleven (58%) tested positive by rRT-PCR; 8 (42%) tested negative by rRT-PCR but positive by serology. Compared with MERS-CoV-negative adult relatives, MERS-CoV-positive adult relatives were older and more likely to be male and to have chronic medical conditions. Risk factors for household transmission included sleeping in an index patient's room and touching respiratory secretions from an index patient. Casual contact and simple proximity were not associated with transmission. Serology was more sensitive than standard rRT-PCR for identifying infected relatives, highlighting the value of including serology in future investigations.

Over the span of a few weeks during July and August 2014, events in West Africa changed perceptions of Ebola virus disease (EVD) from an exotic tropical disease to a priority for global health security. We describe observations during that time of a field team from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and personnel of the Liberian Ministry of Health and Social Welfare. We outline the early epidemiology of EVD within Liberia, including the practical limitations on surveillance and the effect on the country's health care system, such as infections among health care workers. During this time, priorities included strengthening EVD surveillance; establishing safe settings for EVD patient care (and considering alternative isolation and care models when Ebola Treatment Units were overwhelmed); improving infection control practices; establishing an incident management system; and working with Liberian airport authorities to implement EVD screening of departing passengers.

The current Ebola virus disease (Ebola) epidemic in West Africa is unprecedented in size and duration. Since the outbreak was recognized in March 2014, the World Health Organization (WHO) has reported 17,145 cases with 6,070 deaths, primarily in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone. Combined data show a case-fatality rate of approximately 70% in patients with a recorded outcome; a 30% survival rate means that thousands of patients have survived Ebola. An important component of a comprehensive Ebola response is the reintegration of Ebola survivors into their communities.

West Africa is experiencing the largest Ebola virus disease (Ebola) epidemic in recorded history. Health care workers (HCWs) are at increased risk for Ebola. In Liberia, as of August 14, 2014, a total of 810 cases of Ebola had been reported, including 10 clusters of Ebola cases among HCWs working in facilities that were not Ebola treatment units (non-ETUs). The Liberian Ministry of Health and Social Welfare and CDC investigated these clusters by reviewing surveillance data, interviewing county health officials, HCWs, and contact tracers, and visiting health care facilities. Ninety-seven cases of Ebola (12% of the estimated total) were identified among HCWs; 62 HCW cases (64%) were part of 10 distinct clusters in non-ETU health care facilities, primarily hospitals. Early recognition and diagnosis of Ebola in patients who were the likely source of introduction to the HCWs (i.e., source patients) was missed in four clusters. Inconsistent recognition and triage of cases of Ebola, overcrowding, limitations in layout of physical spaces, lack of training in the use of and adequate supply of personal protective equipment (PPE), and limited supervision to ensure consistent adherence to infection control practices all were observed. Improving infection control infrastructure in non-ETUs is essential for protecting HCWs. Since August, the Liberian Ministry of Health and Social Welfare with a consortium of partners have undertaken collaborative efforts to strengthen infection control infrastructure in non-ETU health facilities.

On March 30, 2014, the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare (MOHSW) of Liberia alerted health officials at Firestone Liberia, Inc. (Firestone) of the first known case of Ebola virus disease (Ebola) inside the Firestone rubber tree plantation of Liberia. The patient, who was the wife of a Firestone employee, had cared for a family member with confirmed Ebola in Lofa County, the epicenter of the Ebola outbreak in Liberia during March-April 2014. To prevent a large outbreak among Firestone's 8,500 employees, their dependents, and the surrounding population, the company responded by 1) establishing an incident management system, 2) instituting procedures for the early recognition and isolation of Ebola patients, 3) enforcing adherence to standard Ebola infection control guidelines, and 4) providing differing levels of management for contacts depending on their exposure, including options for voluntary quarantine in the home or in dedicated facilities. In addition, Firestone created multidisciplinary teams to oversee the outbreak response, address case detection, manage cases in a dedicated unit, and reintegrate convalescent patients into the community. The company also created a robust risk communication, prevention, and social mobilization campaign to boost community awareness of Ebola and how to prevent transmission. During August 1-September 23, a period of intense Ebola transmission in the surrounding areas, 71 cases of Ebola were diagnosed among the approximately 80,000 Liberians for whom Firestone provides health care (cumulative incidence = 0.09%). Fifty-seven (80%) of the cases were laboratory confirmed; 39 (68%) of these cases were fatal. Aspects of Firestone's response appear to have minimized the spread of Ebola in the local population and might be successfully implemented elsewhere to limit the spread of Ebola and prevent transmission to health care workers (HCWs).

The ongoing Ebola virus disease (Ebola) outbreak in West Africa is the largest and most sustained Ebola epidemic recorded, with 6,574 cases. Among the five affected countries of West Africa (Liberia, Sierra Leone, Guinea, Nigeria, and Senegal), Liberia has had the highest number cases (3,458). This epidemic has severely strained the public health and health care infrastructure of Liberia, has resulted in restrictions in civil liberties, and has disrupted international travel. As part of the initial response, the Liberian Ministry of Health and Social Welfare (MOHSW) developed a national task force and technical expert committee to oversee the management of the Ebola-related activities. During the third week of July 2014, CDC deployed a team of epidemiologists, data management specialists, emergency management specialists, and health communicators to assist MOHSW in its response to the growing Ebola epidemic. One aspect of CDC's response was to work with MOHSW in instituting incident management system (IMS) principles to enhance the organization of the response. This report describes MOHSW's Ebola response structure as of mid-July, the plans made during the initial assessment of the response structure, the implementation of interventions aimed at improving the system, and plans for further development of the response structure for the Ebola epidemic in Liberia.

The ongoing Ebola virus disease (Ebola) epidemic in West Africa, like previous Ebola outbreaks, has been characterized by amplification in health care settings and increased risk for health care workers (HCWs), who often do not have access to appropriate personal protective equipment. In many locations, Ebola treatment units (ETUs) have been established to optimize care of patients with Ebola while maintaining infection control procedures to prevent transmission of Ebola virus. These ETUs are considered essential to containment of the epidemic. In July 2014, CDC assisted the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare of Liberia in investigating a cluster of five Ebola cases among HCWs who became ill while working in an ETU, an adjacent general hospital, or both. No common source of exposure or chain of transmission was identified. However, multiple opportunities existed for transmission of Ebola virus to HCWs, including exposure to patients with undetected Ebola in the hospital, inadequate use of personal protective equipment during cleaning and disinfection of environmental surfaces in the hospital, and potential transmission from an ill HCW to another HCW. No evidence was found of a previously unrecognized mode of transmission. Prevention recommendations included reinforcement of existing infection control guidance for both ETUs and general medical care settings, including measures to prevent cross-transmission in co-located facilities.

IMPORTANCE: Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) producing the New Delhi metallo-beta-lactamase (NDM) are rare in the United States, but have the potential to add to the increasing CRE burden. Previous NDM-producing CRE clusters have been attributed to person-to-person transmission in health care facilities. OBJECTIVE: To identify a source for, and interrupt transmission of, NDM-producing CRE in a northeastern Illinois hospital. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Outbreak investigation among 39 case patients at a tertiary care hospital in northeastern Illinois, including a case-control study, infection control assessment, and collection of environmental and device cultures; patient and environmental isolate relatedness was evaluated with pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE). Following identification of a likely source, targeted patient notification and CRE screening cultures were performed. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Association between exposure and acquisition of NDM-producing CRE; results of environmental cultures and organism typing. RESULTS: In total, 39 case patients were identified from January 2013 through December 2013, 35 with duodenoscope exposure in 1 hospital. No lapses in duodenoscope reprocessing were identified; however, NDM-producing Escherichia coli was recovered from a reprocessed duodenoscope and shared more than 92% similarity to all case patient isolates by PFGE. Based on the case-control study, case patients had significantly higher odds of being exposed to a duodenoscope (odds ratio [OR], 78 [95% CI, 6.0-1008], P < .001). After the hospital changed its reprocessing procedure from automated high-level disinfection with ortho-phthalaldehyde to gas sterilization with ethylene oxide, no additional case patients were identified. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this investigation, exposure to duodenoscopes with bacterial contamination was associated with apparent transmission of NDM-producing E coli among patients at 1 hospital. Bacterial contamination of duodenoscopes appeared to persist despite the absence of recognized reprocessing lapses. Facilities should be aware of the potential for transmission of bacteria including antimicrobial-resistant organisms via this route and should conduct regular reviews of their duodenoscope reprocessing procedures to ensure optimal manual cleaning and disinfection.

BACKGROUND: Isoniazid preventive therapy (IPT) prevents tuberculosis (TB) in people living with HIV (human immunodeficiency virus, PLWH). Symptom screening without chest radiographs (CXRs) was established as the strategy for excluding TB disease among PLWH seeking IPT in Botswana's 2001 pilot project. This strategy was evaluated in 2004-2006 among candidates screened for an IPT clinical trial. METHODS: PLWH referred from clinics and HIV testing centers were screened for TB symptoms. All asymptomatic candidates received CXRs; those with abnormal CXRs were investigated further. RESULTS: Among 2732 asymptomatic candidates screened, 302 (11%) had abnormal CXRs potentially compatible with TB; TB disease was diagnosed in 43 of these 302 (14%), or 43 (1.6%) of the 2732 asymptomatic candidates. While not associated with CD4 lymphocyte counts < 200 cells/mm(3), TB was associated with a positive tuberculin skin test (relative risk 2.1, 95%CI 1.1-4.0). IPT was initiated in 113 (62%) of 182 asymptomatic PLWH with abnormal CXRs; 8/113 (7%) subsequently developed TB, and 7/8 (88%) successfully completed anti-tuberculosis treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalences of abnormal CXRs and TB were respectively 2.6- and 8.9-fold higher among asymptomatic PLWH screened for the trial than in the pilot. A cost-effectiveness analysis is needed to determine whether the benefits of symptom screening alone are offset by the risk of inducing INH resistance by excluding CXRs during screening.