In March 2020, three New York City (NYC) Department of Health and Mental Hygiene Tuberculosis (TB) clinics suspended most in-person services due to the COVID-19 pandemic and rapidly implemented telehealth to provide remote TB care. We conducted a prospective cohort study of patients with TB or latent TB infection (LTBI), who received treatment from TB clinics between April 2020 and December 2022, to compare telehealth and in-clinic services. To evaluate the success and breadth of the telehealth program, we compared patients who utilized telehealth with those who did not, analyzing differences in demographic characteristics and key outcomes, including utilization of telehealth, appointment completion, and treatment completion. "Telehealth patients" completed at least one scheduled telehealth visit during the study period. We conducted bivariate analyses comparing telehealth versus in-clinic patients. 56% (497/885) of patients with TB and 45% (954/2127) of patients with LTBI had a telehealth visit. Among patients with TB, no disparities in proportions of telehealth and in-clinic patients were observed for age (p = 0.31) or primary language spoken (p = 0.37). Among patients with LTBI, younger patients were more likely to use telehealth (p < 0.001). Using mixed-effects logistic regression models, the AOR of completing a telehealth visit was lower compared to in-clinic for patients with TB (0.77, CI:0.65-0.91). However, excluding April to June 2020, the AORs of completing a telehealth visit were comparable to an in-clinic visit for patients with TB (0.94, CI:0.77-1.14) and for patients with LTBI (0.96, CI:0.82-1.13). Among 641 patients with drug-susceptible TB, 95% (333/352) of telehealth patients completed treatment within one year compared to 88% (254/289) of in-clinic patients (p = 0.002). This result is limited to the descriptive summary of this study population. During the COVID-19 pandemic, NYC Health Department provided telehealth to many patients with TB and LTBI of diverse demographics, and telehealth services were mostly comparable to in-clinic services.

Background: Influenza outbreaks can occur among passengers and crews during the Alaska summertime cruise season. Ill travellers represent a potential source for introduction of novel or antigenically drifted influenza virus strains to the United States. From May to September 2013-2015, the Alaska Division of Public Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and two cruise lines implemented a laboratory-based public health surveillance project to detect influenza and other respiratory viruses among ill crew members and passengers on select cruise ships in Alaska. Methods: Cruise ship medical staff collected 2-3 nasopharyngeal swab specimens per week from passengers and crew members presenting to the ship infirmary with acute respiratory illness (ARI). Specimens were tested for respiratory viruses at the Alaska State Virology Laboratory (ASVL); a subset of specimens positive for influenza virus were sent to CDC for further antigenic characterization. Results: Of 410 nasopharyngeal specimens, 83% tested positive for at least one respiratory virus; 71% tested positive for influenza A or B virus. Antigenic characterization of pilot project specimens identified strains matching predominant circulating seasonal influenza virus strains, which were included in the northern or southern hemisphere influenza vaccines during those years. Results were relatively consistent across age groups, recent travel history, and influenza vaccination status. Onset dates of illness relative to date of boarding differed between northbound (occurring later in the voyage) and southbound (occurring within the first days of the voyage) cruises. Conclusions: The high yield of positive results indicated that influenza was common among passengers and crews sampled with ARI. This finding reinforces the need to bolster influenza prevention and control activities on cruise ships. Laboratory-based influenza surveillance on cruise ships may augment inland influenza surveillance and inform control activities. However, these benefits should be weighed against the costs and operational limitations of instituting laboratory-based surveillance programs on ships.