HIV cluster detection and response (CDR) provides a framework for identifying rapid HIV transmission and guiding implementation of proven HIV prevention and care strategies. Characterizing the relative benefits of CDR is important for guiding policy makers in resource allocation for HIV prevention. We sought to understand how many HIV infections would need to be averted by CDR activities to achieve various return-on-investment (ROI) thresholds. We conducted an ROI analysis of CDR in 2022, incorporating costs and benefits across US jurisdictions funded for HIV surveillance and prevention. Setting ROI thresholds between 1 and 5, we estimated the number of HIV infections that would need to be averted annually by CDR activities to reach ROI thresholds. A scenario was considered cost saving if the ROI > 1. Based on the number of people in national priority molecular clusters and estimated transmission in these clusters, we determined the percent reduction in transmission within these clusters that would be required to achieve the threshold number of HIV infections averted. The number of HIV infections needing to be averted annually ranged from 19 infections (ROI = 1) to 94 infections (ROI = 5). Among 657 HIV transmissions within national priority molecular clusters, the percent reduction in HIV transmission needed to meet ROI thresholds ranged from 2.9% (ROI = 1) to 14.3% (ROI = 5). In conclusion, CDR activities would need to avert a minimal number of HIV infections nationally to achieve cost savings.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how symptoms or symptom clusters of Post-COVID Conditions (PCC) impact an individual's return to pre-COVID health. METHODS: We used four state-level COVID-19 case reporting systems and patient-reported survey data to identify patients with PCC and associations with an individual's return to pre-COVID health after laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Participants had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test between March-December 2020. Weighted regression models were used to 1) estimate prevalence of PCC; 2) identify risk factors associated with developing PCC; and 3) examine associations between PCC symptom clusters and return to pre-COVID health. Factor analysis was used to statistically identify post-COVID symptom clusters. FINDINGS: Prevalence of PCC in this population-based sample was 29·9% for persons with SARS-CoV-2 infection, during the pre-delta variant period (March-December 2020); 77·2% of persons experiencing PCC had not returned to pre-COVID health within 8-60 weeks after infection. Female sex, acute COVID-19 illness severity, and number of pre-existing comorbidities were significant risk factors associated with PCC. Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome-like symptoms, upper-respiratory symptoms, and gastrointestinal symptoms were significantly associated with not returning to pre-COVID health. INTERPRETATION: Understanding PCC symptom clustering may provide insight into pathophysiology, severity of PCC, and management for patients who have not returned to their usual state of health after SARS-CoV-2 infection. Tracking PCC can help measure the impact of COVID-19 vaccination and acute COVID-19-specific treatments on reducing PCC in the US.

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.

HIV-associated immunosuppression may increase 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 CD4 < 350 cells/mm3 or who were not engaged in HIV care had increased risk of hospitalization.

The cost of HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) medication and care is a key barrier to PrEP use. Using population-based surveys and published information, we estimated the number of people with uncovered costs for PrEP care among US adults with PrEP indications, stratified by HIV transmission risk group, insurance status, and income. Accounting for existing PrEP payer mechanisms, we estimated annual uncovered costs for PrEP medication, clinical visits, and laboratory testing based on the 2021 PrEP clinical practice guideline. Of 1.2 million US adults with PrEP indications in 2018, we estimated that 49,860 (4 percent) of them had PrEP-related uncovered costs, including 32,350 men who have sex with men, 7,600 heterosexual women, 5,070 heterosexual men, and 4,840 people who inject drugs. Of those 49,860 people with uncovered costs, 3,160 (6 percent) incurred $18.9 million in uncovered costs for PrEP medication, clinical visits, and lab testing, and 46,700 (94 percent) incurred $83.5 million in uncovered costs for only clinical visits and lab testing. The total annual uncovered costs for adults with PrEP indications were $102.4 million in 2018. The proportion of people with uncovered costs for PrEP is less than 5 percent among adults with PrEP indications, but the magnitude of costs is significant.

INTRODUCTION: Hispanic/Latino men who have sex with men (MSM) and transgender women (TGW) are disproportionately affected by HIV in the U.S. This study evaluated HIV prevention services and outcomes among Hispanic/Latino MSM and TGW in the targeted highly effective interventions to reduce the HIV epidemic (THRIVE) demonstration project and consider lessons learned. METHODS: The authors described the THRIVE demonstration project services provided to Hispanic/Latino MSM and TGW in 7 U.S. jurisdictions from 2015 to 2020. HIV prevention service outcomes were compared between 1 site with (2,147 total participants) and 6 sites without (1,129 total participants) Hispanic/Latino-oriented pre-exposure prophylaxis clinical services, and Poisson regression was used to estimate the adjusted RR between sites and pre-exposure prophylaxis outcomes. Analyses were conducted from 2021 to 2022. RESULTS: The THRIVE demonstration project served 2,898 and 378 Hispanic/Latino MSM and TGW, respectively, with 2,519 MSM (87%) and 320 TGW (85%) receiving ≥1 HIV screening test. Among 2,002 MSM and 178 TGW eligible for pre-exposure prophylaxis, 1,011 (50%) MSM and 98 (55%) TGW received pre-exposure prophylaxis prescriptions, respectively. MSM and TGW were each 2.0 times more likely to be linked to pre-exposure prophylaxis (95% CI=1.4, 2.9 and 95% CI=1.2, 3.6, respectively) and 1.6 and 2.1 times more likely to be prescribed pre-exposure prophylaxis (95% CI=1.1, 2.2 and 95% CI=1.1, 4.1), respectively, at the site providing Hispanic/Latino-oriented pre-exposure prophylaxis clinical services than at other sites and adjusted for age group. CONCLUSIONS: The THRIVE demonstration project delivered comprehensive HIV prevention services to Hispanic/Latino MSM and TGW. Hispanic/Latino-oriented clinical settings may improve HIV prevention service delivery to persons in Hispanic/Latino communities.

In 2019, the West Virginia (WV) Bureau for Public Health identified 15 HIV diagnoses among people who inject drugs (PWID) in Kanawha County, an area disproportionately affected by the opioid crisis; previously, annual diagnoses were less than 5. We investigated health care use and service delivery among PWID during the outbreak to identify opportunities to improve HIV- and opioid-related interventions.

Of 65 cases during an HIV outbreak among persons who inject drugs (PWID) in Kanawha County, West Virginia during 2019-2021, 61 (94%) had hepatitis C diagnosed at a median of 46 months prior to HIV diagnosis. Hepatitis C diagnosis among PWID should trigger improved access to prevention and treatment services.

During October 2019, the West Virginia Bureau for Public Health (WVBPH) noted that an increasing number of persons who inject drugs (PWID) in Kanawha County received a diagnosis of HIV. The number of HIV diagnoses among PWID increased from less than five annually during 2016-2018 to 11 during January-October 2019 (Figure). Kanawha County (with an approximate population of 180,000*) has high rates of opioid use disorder and overdose deaths, which have been increasing since 2016,(†) and the county is located near Cabell County, which experienced an HIV outbreak among PWID during 2018-2019 (1,2). In response to the increase in HIV diagnoses among PWID in 2019, WVBPH released a Health Advisory(§); and WVBPH and Kanawha-Charleston Health Department (KCHD) convened an HIV task force, conducted care coordination meetings, received CDC remote assistance to support response activities, and expanded HIV testing and outreach.

Introduction: Case investigation and contact tracing are important tools to limit the spread of SARS-CoV-2, particularly when implemented efficiently. Our objective was to evaluate participation in and timeliness of COVID-19 contact tracing and whether these measures changed over time. Methods: We retrospectively assessed COVID-19 case investigation and contact tracing surveillance data from the Washington State centralized program for August 1-31, 2020 and October 1-31, 2020. We combined SARS-CoV-2 testing reports with contact tracing data to compare completeness, reporting of contacts, and program timeliness. Results: For August and October respectively, 4,600 (of 12,521) and 2,166 (of 16,269) individuals with COVID-19 were referred to the state program for case investigation. Investigators called 100% of referred individuals; 65% (August) and 76% (October) were interviewed. Of individuals interviewed, 33% reported contacts in August and 45% in October, with only mild variation by age, sex, race/ethnicity, and urbanicity. In August, 992 individuals with COVID-19 reported a total of 2,584 contacts (mean, 2.6), and in October, 739 individuals reported 2,218 contacts (mean, 3.0). Among contacts, 86% and 78% participated in interviews for August and October. The median time elapsed from specimen collection to contact interview was 4 days in August and 3 days in October, and from symptom onset to contact interview was 7 days in August and 6 days in October. Conclusions: While contact tracing improved with time, the proportion of individuals disclosing contacts remained below 50% and differed minimally by demographic characteristics. The longest time interval occurred between symptom onset and test result notification. Improving elicitation of contacts and timeliness of contact tracing may further decrease SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is highly effective at preventing HIV acquisition and is a critical tool in the Ending the HIV Epidemic in the U.S. initiative. However, major racial and ethnic disparities across the pre-exposure prophylaxis continuum, secondary to structural inequities and systemic racism, threaten progress. Many barriers, operating at the individual, network, healthcare, and structural levels, impede PrEP access and uptake within Black and Hispanic/Latino communities. This review provides an overview of those barriers and the innovative and collaborative solutions that health departments, healthcare organizations, and community partners have implemented to increase PrEP provision and uptake among disproportionately affected communities. Promising strategies at the individual and network levels focus on increasing patient support throughout the PrEP continuum, positioning and training community members to expand knowledge of and interest in PrEP, and leveraging mobile technologies to support PrEP uptake. Healthcare-level solutions include expanding the venues and types of healthcare professionals that can provide PrEP, and structural- and policy-level options focus on financial assistance programs and health insurance expansion. Key research gaps include demonstrating that pilot studies and interventions remain effective at scale and across varied contexts. Although the last 2 decades have provided effective tools to end the HIV epidemic, realizing this vision for the U.S. will require addressing persistent and pervasive HIV-related disparities in Black and Hispanic/Latino communities. Federal, state, and local partners should expand efforts to address longstanding health and structural inequities and partner with disproportionately affected communities to rapidly expand PrEP scale-up.

Long-term symptoms often associated with COVID-19 (post-COVID conditions or long COVID) are an emerging public health concern that is not well understood. Prevalence of post-COVID conditions has been reported among persons who have had COVID-19 (range = 5%-80%), with differences possibly related to different study populations, case definitions, and data sources (1). Few studies of post-COVID conditions have comparisons with the general population of adults with negative test results for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, limiting ability to assess background symptom prevalence (1). CDC used a nonprobability-based Internet panel established by Porter Novelli Public Services* to administer a survey to a nationwide sample of U.S. adults aged ≥18 years to compare the prevalence of long-term symptoms (those lasting >4 weeks since onset) among persons who self-reported ever receiving a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result with the prevalence of similar symptoms among persons who reported always receiving a negative test result. The weighted prevalence of ever testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 was 22.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 20.6%-23.8%). Approximately two thirds of respondents who had received a positive test result experienced long-term symptoms often associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Compared with respondents who received a negative test result, those who received a positive test result reported a significantly higher prevalence of any long-term symptom (65.9% versus 42.9%), fatigue (22.5% versus 12.0%), change in sense of smell or taste (17.3% versus 1.7%), shortness of breath (15.5% versus 5.2%), cough (14.5% versus 4.9%), headache (13.8% versus 9.9%), and persistence (>4 weeks) of at least one initially occurring symptom (76.2% versus 69.6%). Compared with respondents who received a negative test result, a larger proportion of those who received a positive test result reported believing that receiving a COVID-19 vaccine made their long-term symptoms better (28.7% versus 15.7%). Efforts to address post-COVID conditions should include helping health care professionals recognize the most common post-COVID conditions and optimize care for patients with persisting symptoms, including messaging on potential benefits of COVID-19 vaccination.

As of June 30, 2021, 33.5 million persons in the United States had received a diagnosis of COVID-19 (1). Although most patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, recover within a few weeks, some experience post-COVID-19 conditions. These range from new or returning to ongoing health problems that can continue beyond 4 weeks. Persons who were asymptomatic at the time of infection can also experience post-COVID-19 conditions. Data on post-COVID-19 conditions are emerging and information on rehabilitation needs among persons recovering from COVID-19 is limited. Using data acquired during January 2020-March 2021 from Select Medical* outpatient rehabilitation clinics, CDC compared patient-reported measures of health, physical endurance, and health care use between patients who had recovered from COVID-19 (post-COVID-19 patients) and patients needing rehabilitation because of a current or previous diagnosis of a neoplasm (cancer) who had not experienced COVID-19 (control patients). All patients had been referred to outpatient rehabilitation. Compared with control patients, post-COVID-19 patients had higher age- and sex-adjusted odds of reporting worse physical health (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.8), pain (aOR = 2.3), and difficulty with physical activities (aOR = 1.6). Post-COVID-19 patients also had worse physical endurance, measured by the 6-minute walk test(†) (6MWT) (p<0.001) compared with control patients. Among patients referred to outpatient rehabilitation, those recovering from COVID-19 had poorer physical health and functional status than those who had cancer, or were recovering from cancer but not COVID-19. Patients recovering from COVID-19 might need additional clinical support, including tailored physical and mental health rehabilitation services.

IMPORTANCE: Contact tracing is a multistep process to limit SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Gaps in the process result in missed opportunities to prevent COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To quantify proportions of cases and their contacts reached by public health authorities and the amount of time needed to reach them and to compare the risk of a positive COVID-19 test result between contacts and the general public during 4-week assessment periods. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional study took place at 13 health departments and 1 Indian Health Service Unit in 11 states and 1 tribal nation. Participants included all individuals with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and their named contacts. Local COVID-19 surveillance data were used to determine the numbers of persons reported to have laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 who were interviewed and named contacts between June and October 2020. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: For contacts, the numbers who were identified, notified of their exposure, and agreed to monitoring were calculated. The median time from index case specimen collection to contact notification was calculated, as were numbers of named contacts subsequently notified of their exposure and monitored. The prevalence of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test among named and tested contacts was compared with that jurisdiction's general population during the same 4 weeks. RESULTS: The total number of cases reported was 74 185. Of these, 43 931 (59%) were interviewed, and 24 705 (33%) named any contacts. Among the 74 839 named contacts, 53 314 (71%) were notified of their exposure, and 34 345 (46%) agreed to monitoring. A mean of 0.7 contacts were reached by telephone by public health authorities, and only 0.5 contacts per case were monitored. In general, health departments reporting large case counts during the assessment (≥5000) conducted smaller proportions of case interviews and contact notifications. In 9 locations, the median time from specimen collection to contact notification was 6 days or less. In 6 of 8 locations with population comparison data, positive test prevalence was higher among named contacts than the general population. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cross-sectional study of US local COVID-19 surveillance data, testing named contacts was a high-yield activity for case finding. However, this assessment suggests that contact tracing had suboptimal impact on SARS-CoV-2 transmission, largely because 2 of 3 cases were either not reached for interview or named no contacts when interviewed. These findings are relevant to decisions regarding the allocation of public health resources among the various prevention strategies and for the prioritization of case investigations and contact tracing efforts.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate participation in COVID-19 case investigation and contact tracing in central Washington State between June 15 and July 12, 2020. METHODS: In this retrospective observational evaluation we combined SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR and antigen test reports from the Washington Disease Reporting System with community case investigation and contact tracing data for 3 health districts (comprising 5 counties) in central Washington State. All 3 health districts have large Hispanic communities disproportionately affected by COVID-19. RESULTS: Investigators attempted to call all referred individuals with COVID-19 (n = 4,987); 71% were interviewed. Of those asked about close contacts (n = 3,572), 68% reported having no close contacts, with similar proportions across ethnicity, sex, and age group. The 968 individuals with COVID-19 who named specific contacts (27% of those asked) reported a total of 2,293 contacts (mean of 2.4 contacts per individual with COVID-19); 85% of listed contacts participated in an interview. CONCLUSIONS: Most individuals with COVID-19 reported having no close contacts. Increasing community engagement and public messaging, as well as understanding and addressing barriers to participation, are crucial for CICT to contribute meaningfully to controlling the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.