Nonoccupational postexposure prophylaxis (nPEP) for HIV is recommended when a nonoccupational (e.g., sexual, needle, or other) exposure to nonintact skin or mucous membranes that presents a substantial risk for HIV transmission has occurred, and the source has HIV without sustained viral suppression or their viral suppression information is not known. A rapid HIV test (also referred to as point-of-care) or laboratory-based antigen/antibody combination HIV test is recommended before nPEP initiation. Health care professionals should ensure the first dose of nPEP is provided as soon as possible, and ideally within 24 hours, but no later than 72 hours after exposure. The initial nPEP dose should not be delayed due to pending results of any laboratory-based testing, and the recommended length of nPEP course is 28 days. The recommendations in these guidelines update the 2016 nPEP guidelines (CDC. Updated guidelines for antiretroviral postexposure prophylaxis after sexual, injection drug use, or other nonoccupational exposure to HIV - United States, 2016. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2017). These 2025 nPEP guidelines update recommendations and considerations for use of HIV nPEP in the United States to include newer antiretroviral (ARV) agents, updated nPEP indication considerations, and emerging nPEP implementation strategies. The guidelines also include considerations for testing and nPEP regimens for persons exposed who have received long-acting injectable ARVs in the past. Lastly, testing recommendations for persons who experienced sexual assault were updated to align with the most recent CDC sexually transmitted infection treatment guidelines. These guidelines are divided into two sections: Recommendations and CDC Guidance. The preferred regimens for most adults and adolescents are now bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide or dolutegravir plus (tenofovir alafenamide or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate) plus (emtricitabine or lamivudine). However, the regimen can be tailored to the clinical circumstances. Medical follow-up for persons prescribed nPEP also should be tailored to the clinical situation; recommended follow-up includes a visit at 24 hours (remote or in person) with a medical provider, and clinical follow-up 4-6 weeks and 12 weeks after exposure for laboratory testing. Persons initiating nPEP should be informed that pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV (PrEP) can reduce their risk for acquiring HIV if they will have repeat or continuing exposure to HIV after the end of the nPEP course. Health care professionals should offer PrEP options to persons with ongoing indications for PrEP and create an nPEP-to-PrEP transition plan for persons who accept PrEP.

CONTEXT: Asthma is a chronic respiratory disease increasingly prevalent in the U.S., particularly among children and certain minority groups. This umbrella review sought to assess and summarize existing systematic reviews of asthma-related interventions that might be carried out or supported by state or community asthma control programs, and to identify gaps in knowledge. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Eleven databases were searched through September 2010, using terms related to four concepts: asthma, review, intervention, and NOT medication. Reviews of the effectiveness of medications, medical procedures, complementary and alternative medicine, psychological interventions, family therapy, and nutrients or nutritional supplements were excluded. Two coders screened each record and extracted data from the included reviews. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Data analysis was conducted from May to December 2010. Of 42 included reviews, 19 assessed the effectiveness of education and/or self-management, nine the reduction of indoor triggers, nine interventions to improve the provision of health care, and five examined other interventions. Several reviews found consistent evidence of effectiveness for self-management education, and one review determined that comprehensive home-based interventions including the reduction of multiple indoor asthma triggers are effective for children. Other reviews found limited or insufficient evidence because of study limitations. CONCLUSIONS: State or community asthma control programs should prioritize (1) implementing interventions for which the present review found evidence of effectiveness and (2) evaluating promising interventions that have not yet been adequately assessed.

Asthma, a common chronic respiratory disease and major source of morbidity in the U.S., affects more than 20 million Americans, can substantially reduce quality of life, and has more than doubled in prevalence since 1980.1 Asthma is also a major cause of hospital use1 and results in very high direct and indirect costs (over $32.7 billion in healthcare costs spent annually when adjusted to 2007 U.S. dollars).2 In 2001, asthma was ranked the 25th leading cause of disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) lost worldwide3 and is a leading cause of school absences for U.S. children.4 | Asthma is inextricably linked with the home environment and occupant health. Conditions in the home environment must be addressed to treat asthma adequately.5, 6 | The recommendations presented below are based on findings from the accompanying systematic review of home-based, multi-trigger, multicomponent environmental interventions to reduce asthma morbidity, published in this supplement.7 The findings on economic efficiency are from a systematic review of economic evaluations of such interventions, also in this supplement.8

CONTEXT: A recent systematic review of home-based, multi-trigger, multicomponent interventions with an environmental focus showed their effectiveness in reducing asthma morbidity among children and adolescents. These interventions included home visits by trained personnel to assess the level of and reduce adverse effects of indoor environmental pollutants, and educate households with an asthma client to reduce exposure to asthma triggers. The purpose of the present review is to identify economic values of these interventions and present ranges for the main economic outcomes (e.g., program costs, benefit-cost ratios, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Using methods previously developed for Guide to Community Preventive Services economic reviews, a systematic review was conducted to evaluate the economic efficiency of home-based, multi-trigger, multicomponent interventions with an environmental focus to improve asthma-related morbidity outcomes. A total of 1551 studies were identified in the search period (1950 to June 2008), and 13 studies were included in this review. Program costs are reported for all included studies; cost-benefit results for three; and cost-effectiveness results for another three. Information on program cost was provided with varying degrees of completeness: six of the studies did not provide a list of components included in their program cost description (limited cost information), three studies provided a list of program cost components but not a cost per component (partial cost information), and four studies provided both a list of program cost components and costs per component (satisfactory cost information). EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Program costs per participant per year ranged from $231-$14,858 (in 2007 U.S.$). The major factors affecting program cost, in addition to completeness, were the level of intensity of environmental remediation (minor, moderate, or major), type of educational component (environmental education or self-management), the professional status of the home visitor, and the frequency of visits by the home visitor. Benefit-cost ratios ranged from 5.3-14.0, implying that for every dollar spent on the intervention, the monetary value of the resulting benefits, such as averted medical costs or averted productivity losses, was $5.30-$14.00 (in 2007 U.S.$). The range in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios was $12-$57 (in 2007 U.S.$) per asthma symptom-free day, which means that these interventions achieved each additional symptom-free day for net costs varying from $12-$57. CONCLUSIONS: The benefits from home-based, multi-trigger, multicomponent interventions with an environmental focus can match or even exceed their program costs. Based on cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness studies, the results of this review show that these programs provide a good value for dollars spent on the interventions.

CONTEXT: Asthma exacerbations are commonly triggered by exposure to allergens and irritants within the home. The purpose of this review was to evaluate evidence that interventions that target reducing these triggers through home visits may be beneficial in improving asthma outcomes. The interventions involve home visits by trained personnel to conduct two or more components that address asthma triggers in the home. Intervention components focus on reducing exposures to a range of asthma triggers (allergens and irritants) through environmental assessment, education, and remediation. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Using methods previously developed for the Guide to Community Preventive Services, a systematic review was conducted to evaluate the evidence on effectiveness of home-based, multi-trigger, multicomponent interventions with an environmental focus to improve asthma-related morbidity outcomes. The literature search identified over 10,800 citations. Of these, 23 studies met intervention and quality criteria for inclusion in the final analysis. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: In the 20 studies targeting children and adolescents, the number of days with asthma symptoms (symptom-days) was reduced by 0.8 days per 2 weeks, which is equivalent to 21.0 symptom-days per year (range of values: reduction of 0.6 to 2.3 days per year); school days missed were reduced by 12.3 days per year (range of values: reduction of 3.4 to 31.2 days per year); and the number of asthma acute care visits were reduced by 0.57 visits per year (interquartile interval: reduction of 0.33 to 1.71 visits per year). Only three studies reported outcomes among adults with asthma, finding inconsistent results. CONCLUSIONS: Home-based, multi-trigger, multicomponent interventions with an environmental focus are effective in improving overall quality of life and productivity in children and adolescents with asthma. The effectiveness of these interventions in adults is inconclusive due to the small number of studies and inconsistent results. Additional studies are needed to (1) evaluate the effectiveness of these interventions in adults and (2) determine the individual contributions of the various intervention components.