Chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection can lead to substantial morbidity and mortality. Although treatment is not considered curative, antiviral treatment, monitoring, and liver cancer surveillance can reduce morbidity and mortality. Effective vaccines to prevent hepatitis B are available. This report updates and expands CDC's previously published Recommendations for Identification and Public Health Management of Persons with Chronic Hepatitis B Virus Infection (MMWR Recomm Rep 2008;57[No. RR-8]) regarding screening for HBV infection in the United States. New recommendations include hepatitis B screening using three laboratory tests at least once during a lifetime for adults aged ≥18 years. The report also expands risk-based testing recommendations to include the following populations, activities, exposures, or conditions associated with increased risk for HBV infection: persons incarcerated or formerly incarcerated in a jail, prison, or other detention setting; persons with a history of sexually transmitted infections or multiple sex partners; and persons with a history of hepatitis C virus infection. In addition, to provide increased access to testing, anyone who requests HBV testing should receive it, regardless of disclosure of risk, because many persons might be reluctant to disclose stigmatizing risks.

BACKGROUND: Clinical severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may vary over time; trends in clinical severity at admission during the pandemic among hospitalized patients in the United States have been incompletely described, so a historical record of severity over time is lacking. METHODS: We classified 466677 hospital admissions for COVID-19 from April 2020 to April 2021 into 4 mutually exclusive severity grades based on indicators present on admission (from most to least severe): Grade 4 included intensive care unit (ICU) admission and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV); grade 3 included non-IMV ICU and/or noninvasive positive pressure ventilation; grade 2 included diagnosis of acute respiratory failure; and grade 1 included none of the above indicators. Trends were stratified by sex, age, race/ethnicity, and comorbid conditions. We also examined severity in states with high vs low Alpha (B.1.1.7) variant burden. RESULTS: Severity tended to be lower among women, younger adults, and those with fewer comorbidities compared to their counterparts. The proportion of admissions classified as grade 1 or 2 fluctuated over time, but these less-severe grades comprised a majority (75%-85%) of admissions every month. Grades 3 and 4 consistently made up a minority of admissions (15%-25%), and grade 4 showed consistent decreases in all subgroups, including states with high Alpha variant burden. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical severity among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 has varied over time but has not consistently or markedly worsened over time. The proportion of admissions classified as grade 4 decreased in all subgroups. There was no consistent evidence of worsening severity in states with higher vs lower Alpha prevalence.

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.

Since February 12, 2020, approximately 6.5 million cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the cause of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and 190,000 SARS-CoV-2-associated deaths have been reported in the United States (1,2). Symptoms associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection are milder in children compared with adults (3). Persons aged <21 years constitute 26% of the U.S. population (4), and this report describes characteristics of U.S. persons in that population who died in association with SARS-CoV-2 infection, as reported by public health jurisdictions. Among 121 SARS-CoV-2-associated deaths reported to CDC among persons aged <21 years in the United States during February 12-July 31, 2020, 63% occurred in males, 10% of decedents were aged <1 year, 20% were aged 1-9 years, 70% were aged 10-20 years, 45% were Hispanic persons, 29% were non-Hispanic Black (Black) persons, and 4% were non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native (AI/AN) persons. Among these 121 decedents, 91 (75%) had an underlying medical condition,* 79 (65%) died after admission to a hospital, and 39 (32%) died at home or in the emergency department (ED).(†) These data show that nearly three quarters of SARS-CoV-2-associated deaths among infants, children, adolescents, and young adults have occurred in persons aged 10-20 years, with a disproportionate percentage among young adults aged 18-20 years and among Hispanics, Blacks, AI/ANs, and persons with underlying medical conditions. Careful monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 infections, deaths, and other severe outcomes among persons aged <21 years remains particularly important as schools reopen in the United States. Ongoing evaluation of effectiveness of prevention and control strategies will also be important to inform public health guidance for schools and parents and other caregivers.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal agencies face a number of challenges in interpreting and reconciling short-duration (seconds to minutes) readings from mobile and handheld air sensors with the longer duration averages (hours to days) associated with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the criteria pollutants-particulate matter (PM), ozone, carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur oxides. Similar issues are equally relevant to the hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) where chemical-specific health effect reference values are the best indicators of exposure limits; values which are often based on a lifetime of continuous exposure. A multi-agency, staff-level Air Sensors Health Group (ASHG) was convened in 2013. ASHG represents a multi-institutional collaboration of Federal agencies devoted to discovery and discussion of sensor technologies, interpretation of sensor data, defining the state of sensor-related science across each institution, and provides consultation on how sensors might effectively be used to meet a wide range of research and decision support needs. ASHG focuses on several fronts: improving the understanding of what hand-held sensor technologies may be able to deliver; communicating what hand-held sensor readings can provide to a number of audiences; the challenges of how to integrate data generated by multiple entities using new and unproven technologies; and defining best practices in communicating health-related messages to various audiences. This review summarizes the challenges, successes, and promising tools of those initial ASHG efforts and Federal agency progress on crafting similar products for use with other NAAQS pollutants and the HAPs. NOTE: The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessary represent the opinions of their Federal Agencies or the US Government. Mention of product names does not constitute endorsement.

Genomic technologies should demonstrate analytical and clinical validity and clinical utility prior to wider adoption in clinical practice. However, the question of clinical utility remains unanswered for many genomic technologies. In this paper, we propose three building blocks for rapid generation of evidence on clinical utility of promising genomic technologies that underpin clinical and policy decisions. We define promising genomic tests as those that have proven analytical and clinical validity. First, risk-sharing agreements could be implemented between payers and manufacturers to enable temporary coverage that would help incorporate promising technologies into routine clinical care. Second, existing data networks, such as the Sentinel Initiative and the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet) could be leveraged, augmented with genomic information to track the use of genomic technologies and monitor clinical outcomes in millions of people. Third, endorsement and engagement from key stakeholders will be needed to establish this collaborative model for rapid evidence generation; all stakeholders will benefit from better information regarding the clinical utility of these technologies. This collaborative model can create a multipurpose and reusable national resource that generates knowledge from data gathered as part of routine care to drive evidence-based clinical practice and health system changes.