Rabies vaccine failures in domestic animals can have severe public health consequences and are not consistently publicized. This study describes trends in rabies vaccine failures among dogs and cats in the US reported to the CDC's National Rabies Surveillance System between 2002 and 2022 to characterize the efficacy of rabies vaccines and evaluate the economic and public health burdens of nonvaccination. Thirty-nine of 1,525 rabid dogs (2.56%) and 30 of 5,530 rabid cats (0.54%) were documented as having a history of rabies vaccination, and 15 true vaccine failures (11 dogs and 4 cats) were identified among these during the study period. Dogs and cats with up-to-date vaccination were 130.8 and 93.6 times less likely, respectively, to contract rabies than nonvaccinated counterparts. Current rabies vaccination practices will likely prevent $166 million in public health- and healthcare-related costs over the following 10 years; high rates of rabies vaccination in dogs and cats in the US greatly reduce medical costs for the human health sector. Effective coordination between local and national surveillance is essential for assessing epidemiological patterns in animal rabies cases, including vaccination failures. The companion Currents in One Health by Payette-Stroman et al, AJVR, October 2025, addresses patterns of domestic rabies burden in livestock.

Rabies in livestock in the United States (US) poses a significant public health concern due to the potential for human exposure and economic losses to producers. Understanding the epidemiology of rabies in livestock supports broader One Health goals by enhancing early detection of viral incursions and protecting both animal and human health. This study assessed the epidemiology of rabies in livestock in the US from 2012 to 2021 using surveillance data reported to the National Rabies Surveillance System. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to estimate economic losses, including livestock value and human postexposure prophylaxis. A total of 947 rabid livestock were reported during the study period, with cattle accounting for 65.9% of cases. Skunk rabies virus variants were the most frequently identified variants (53.5%), and more than half of all rabid livestock were reported in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Virginia, and North Carolina. When adjusted for livestock population, the highest infection rates occurred in the northeastern US. Estimated economic losses totaled $18.6 million (range, $9.8 to $39.6 million) assuming detection rates of 100% (lower bound) and 66% detection (upper bound). Rabid livestock are routinely detected in the US, with the highest number of rabies infections concentrated in 2 states, Texas and Virginia. Economic losses due to rabid livestock are sizeable, driven primarily by postexposure prophylaxis costs. Livestock vaccination should consider regional risk, animal value, and the potential for human exposure. The companion Currents in One Health by Nathan et al, JAVMA, forthcoming 2025, addresses patterns of rabies vaccine failures in domesticated animals.

BACKGROUND: The reduction in cardiovascular disease (CVD) events with edetate disodium (EDTA) in the Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy (TACT) suggested that chelation of toxic metals might provide novel opportunities to reduce CVD in patients with diabetes. Lead and cadmium are vasculotoxic metals chelated by EDTA. We present baseline characteristics for participants in TACT2, a randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled trial designed as a replication of the TACT trial limited to patients with diabetes. METHODS: TACT2 enrolled 1,000 participants with diabetes and prior myocardial infarction, age 50 years or older between September 2016 and December 2020. Among 959 participants with at least one infusion, 933 had blood and/or urine metals measured at the Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention using the same methodology as in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). We compared metal levels in TACT2 to a contemporaneous subset of NHANES participants with CVD, diabetes and other inclusion criteria similar to TACT2's participants. RESULTS: At baseline, the median (interquartile range, IQR) age was 67 (60, 72) years, 27% were women, 78% reported white race, mean (SD) BMI was 32.7 (6.6) kg/m(2), 4% reported type 1 diabetes, 46.8% were treated with insulin, 22.3% with GLP1-receptor agonists or SGLT-2 inhibitors, 90.2% with aspirin, warfarin or P2Y12 inhibitors, and 86.5% with statins. Blood lead was detectable in all participants; median (IQR) was 9.19 (6.30, 13.9) μg/L. Blood and urine cadmium were detectable in 97% and median (IQR) levels were 0.28 (0.18, 0.43) μg/L and 0.30 (0.18, 0.51) μg/g creatinine, respectively. Metal levels were largely similar to those in the contemporaneous NHANES subset. CONCLUSIONS: TACT2 participants were characterized by high use of medication to treat CVD and diabetes and similar baseline metal levels as in the general US population. TACT2 will determine whether chelation therapy reduces the occurrence of subsequent CVD events in this high-risk population. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov. Identifier: NCT02733185. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02733185.

IMPORTANCE: Treatment challenges exist for younger adults with type 1 (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D). Health care coverage, access to, and use of diabetes care are not well delineated in these high-risk populations. OBJECTIVE: To compare patterns of health care coverage, access to, and use of diabetes care and determine their associations with glycemia among younger adults with T1D and with T2D. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cohort study analyzed data from a survey that was jointly developed by 2 large, national cohort studies: the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth (SEARCH) study, an observational study of individuals with youth-onset T1D or T2D, and the Treatment Options for Type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth (TODAY) study, a randomized clinical trial (2004-2011) followed by an observational study (2012-2020). The interviewer-directed survey was administered during in-person study visits in both studies between 2017 and 2019. Data analyses were performed between May 2021 and October 2022. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Survey questions addressed health care coverage, usual sources of diabetes care, and frequency of care use. Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels were assayed in a central laboratory. Patterns of health care factors and HbA1c levels were compared by diabetes type. RESULTS: The analysis included 1371 participants (mean [range] age, 25 [18-36] years; 824 females [60.1%]), of whom 661 had T1D and 250 had T2D from the SEARCH study and 460 had T2D from the TODAY study. Participants had a mean (SD) diabetes duration of 11.8 (2.8) years. More participants with T1D than T2D in both the SEARCH and TODAY studies reported health care coverage (94.7%, 81.6%, and 86.7%), access to diabetes care (94.7%, 78.1%, and 73.4%), and use of diabetes care (88.1%, 80.5%, and 73.6%). Not having health care coverage was associated with significantly higher mean (SE) HbA1c levels in participants with T1D in the SEARCH study (no coverage, 10.8% [0.5%]; public, 9.4% [0.2%]; private, 8.7% [0.1%]; P < .001) and participants with T2D from the TODAY study (no coverage, 9.9% [0.3%]; public, 8.7% [0.2%]; private, 8.7% [0.2%]; P = .004). Medicaid expansion vs without expansion was associated with more health care coverage (participants with T1D: 95.8% vs 90.2%; participants with T2D in SEARCH: 86.1% vs 73.9%; participants with T2D in TODAY: 93.6% vs 74.2%) and lower HbA1c levels (participants with T1D: 9.2% vs 9.7%; participants with T2D in SEARCH: 8.4% vs 9.3%; participants with T2D in TODAY: 8.7% vs 9.3%). The T1D group incurred higher median (IQR) monthly out-of-pocket expenses than the T2D group ($74.50 [$10.00-$309.00] vs $10.00 [$0-$74.50]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Results of this study suggested that lack of health care coverage and of an established source of diabetes care were associated with significantly higher HbA1c levels for participants with T1D, but inconsistent results were found for participants with T2D. Increased access to diabetes care (eg, through Medicaid expansion) may be associated with improved health outcomes, but additional strategies are needed, particularly for individuals with T2D.

Segmentation of viral genomes into multiple RNAs creates the potential for replication of incomplete viral genomes (IVGs). Here we use a single-cell approach to quantify influenza A virus IVGs and examine their fitness implications. We find that each segment of influenza A/Panama/2007/99 (H3N2) virus has a 58% probability of being replicated in a cell infected with a single virion. Theoretical methods predict that IVGs carry high costs in a well-mixed system, as 3.6 virions are required for replication of a full genome. Spatial structure is predicted to mitigate these costs, however, and experimental manipulations of spatial structure indicate that local spread facilitates complementation. A virus entirely dependent on co-infection was used to assess relevance of IVGs in vivo. This virus grows robustly in guinea pigs, but is less infectious and does not transmit. Thus, co-infection allows IVGs to contribute to within-host spread, but complete genomes may be critical for transmission.

OBJECTIVE: The Action for Health in Diabetes (Look AHEAD) study previously reported that intensive lifestyle intervention (ILI) reduced incident depressive symptoms and improved health-related quality of life (HRQOL) over nearly 10 years of intervention compared with a control group (the diabetes support and education group [DSE]) in participants with type 2 diabetes and overweight or obesity. The present study compared incident depressive symptoms and changes in HRQOL in these groups for an additional 6 years following termination of the ILI in September 2012. METHODS: A total of 1,945 ILI participants and 1,900 DSE participants completed at least one of four planned postintervention assessments at which weight, mood (via the Patient Health Questionnaire-9), antidepressant medication use, and HRQOL (via the Medical Outcomes Scale, Short Form-36) were measured. RESULTS: ILI participants and DSE participants lost 3.1 (0.3) and 3.8 (0.3) kg [represented as mean (SE); p = 0.10], respectively, during the 6-year postintervention follow-up. No significant differences were observed between groups during this time in incident mild or greater symptoms of depression, antidepressant medication use, or in changes on the physical component summary or mental component summary scores of the Short Form-36. In both groups, mental component summary scores were higher than physical component summary scores. CONCLUSIONS: Prior participation in the ILI, compared with the DSE group, did not appear to improve subsequent mood or HRQOL during 6 years of postintervention follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Because of the increased risk for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) initially prioritized COVID-19 vaccination for persons in long-term care facilities (LTCF), persons aged ≥65 years, and persons aged 16-64 years with high-risk medical conditions when there is limited vaccine supply. We compared characteristics and severe outcomes of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the United States between early and later in the pandemic categorized by groups at higher risk of severe COVID-19. METHODS: Observational study of sampled patients aged ≥18 years who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and admitted to one of 14 academic hospitals in the United States during March-June and October-December 2020. Demographic and clinical information were gathered from electronic health record data. RESULTS: Among 647 patients, 91% met ≥1 of the following risk factors for severe COVID-19 [91% March-June (n=434); 90% October-December (n=213)]; 19% were LTCF residents, 45% were aged ≥65-years, and 84% had ≥1 high-risk condition. The proportion of patients who resided in a LTCF declined significantly (25% vs. 6%) from early to later pandemic periods. Compared with patients at lower risk for severe COVID-19, in-hospital mortality was higher among patients at high risk for severe COVID-19 (20% vs. 7%); these differences were consistently observed between March-June and October-December. CONCLUSIONS: Most adults hospitalized with COVID-19 were those recommended to be prioritized for vaccination based on risk for developing severe COVID-19. These findings highlight the urgency to vaccinate patients at high risk for severe COVID-19 and monitor vaccination impact on hospitalizations and outcomes.

Adults aged ≥65 years are at increased risk for severe outcomes from COVID-19 and were identified as a priority group to receive the first COVID-19 vaccines approved for use under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) in the United States (1-3). In an evaluation at 24 hospitals in 14 states,* the effectiveness of partial or full vaccination(†) with Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccines against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was assessed among adults aged ≥65 years. Among 417 hospitalized adults aged ≥65 years (including 187 case-patients and 230 controls), the median age was 73 years, 48% were female, 73% were non-Hispanic White, 17% were non-Hispanic Black, 6% were Hispanic, and 4% lived in a long-term care facility. Adjusted vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19-associated hospitalization among adults aged ≥65 years was estimated to be 94% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 49%-99%) for full vaccination and 64% (95% CI = 28%-82%) for partial vaccination. These findings are consistent with efficacy determined from clinical trials in the subgroup of adults aged ≥65 years (4,5). This multisite U.S. evaluation under real-world conditions suggests that vaccination provided protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalization among adults aged ≥65 years. Vaccination is a critical tool for reducing severe COVID-19 in groups at high risk.

The emergence and spread of SARS-CoV-2 lineage B.1.1.7, first detected in the United Kingdom, has become a global public health concern because of its increased transmissibility. Over 2,500 COVID-19 cases associated with this variant have been detected in the United States (US) since December 2020, but the extent of establishment is relatively unknown. Using travel, genomic, and diagnostic data, we highlight that the primary ports of entry for B.1.1.7 in the US were in New York, California, and Florida. Furthermore, we found evidence for many independent B.1.1.7 establishments starting in early December 2020, followed by interstate spread by the end of the month. Finally, we project that B.1.1.7 will be the dominant lineage in many states by mid- to late March. Thus, genomic surveillance for B.1.1.7 and other variants urgently needs to be enhanced to better inform the public health response.

During December 3, 2020-January 31, 2021, CDC, in collaboration with the University of Utah Health and Economic Recovery Outreach Project,* Utah Department of Health (UDOH), Salt Lake County Health Department, and one Salt Lake county school district, offered free, in-school, real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) saliva testing as part of a transmission investigation of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, in elementary school settings. School contacts(†) of persons with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, including close contacts, were eligible to participate (1). Investigators approached parents or guardians of student contacts by telephone, and during January, using school phone lines to offer in-school specimen collection; the testing procedures were explained in the preferred language of the parent or guardian. Consent for participants was obtained via an electronic form sent by e-mail. Analyses examined participation (i.e., completing in-school specimen collection for SARS-CoV-2 testing) in relation to factors(§) that were programmatically important or could influence likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 testing, including race, ethnicity, and SARS-CoV-2 incidence in the community (2). Crude prevalence ratios (PRs) were calculated using univariate log-binomial regression.(¶) This activity was reviewed by CDC and was conducted consistent with federal law and CDC policy.*.

INTRODUCTION: Healthcare workers (HCWs) in Zambia have become infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease (COVID-19). However, SARS-CoV-2 prevalence among HCWs is not known in Zambia. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional SARS-CoV-2 prevalence survey among Zambian HCWs in twenty health facilities in six districts in July 2020. Participants were tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Prevalence estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), adjusted for health facility clustering, were calculated for each test separately and a combined measure for those who had PCR and ELISA performed. RESULTS: In total, 660 HCWs participated in the study, with 450 (68.2%) providing nasopharyngeal swab for PCR and 575 (87.1%) providing a blood specimen for ELISA. Sixty-six percent of participants were females and the median age was 31.5 years (interquartile range 26.2-39.8 years). The overall prevalence of the combined measure was 9.3% (95% CI 3.8%-14.7%). PCR-positive prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 was 6.6% (95% CI 2.0%-11.1%) and ELISA-positive prevalence was 2.2% (95% CI 0.5%-3.9%). CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 prevalence among HCWs was similar to a population-based estimate (10.6%) during a period of community transmission in Zambia. Public health measures such as establishing COVID-19 treatment centers before the first cases, screening for COVID-19 symptoms among patients accessing health facilities, infection prevention and control trainings, and targeted distribution of personal protective equipment based on exposure risk might have prevented increased SARS-CoV-2 transmission among Zambian HCWs.

BACKGROUND: Between March and December, 2020, more than 20 000 laboratory-confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection were reported in Zambia. However, the number of SARS-CoV-2 infections is likely to be higher than the confirmed case counts because many infected people have mild or no symptoms, and limitations exist with regard to testing capacity and surveillance systems in Zambia. We aimed to estimate SARS-CoV-2 prevalence in six districts of Zambia in July, 2020, using a population-based household survey. METHODS: Between July 4 and July 27, 2020, we did a cross-sectional cluster-sample survey of households in six districts of Zambia. Within each district, 16 standardised enumeration areas were randomly selected as primary sampling units using probability proportional to size. 20 households from each standardised enumeration area were selected using simple random sampling. All members of selected households were eligible to participate. Consenting participants completed a questionnaire and were tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection using real-time PCR (rtPCR) and anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies using ELISA. Prevalence estimates, adjusted for the survey design, were calculated for each diagnostic test separately, and combined. We applied the prevalence estimates to census population projections for each district to derive the estimated number of SARS-CoV-2 infections. FINDINGS: Overall, 4258 people from 1866 households participated in the study. The median age of participants was 18·2 years (IQR 7·7-31·4) and 50·6% of participants were female. SARS-CoV-2 prevalence for the combined measure was 10·6% (95% CI 7·3-13·9). The rtPCR-positive prevalence was 7·6% (4·7-10·6) and ELISA-positive prevalence was 2·1% (1·1-3·1). An estimated 454 708 SARS-CoV-2 infections (95% CI 312 705-596 713) occurred in the six districts between March and July, 2020, compared with 4917 laboratory-confirmed cases reported in official statistics from the Zambia National Public Health Institute. INTERPRETATION: The estimated number of SARS-CoV-2 infections was much higher than the number of reported cases in six districts in Zambia. The high rtPCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 prevalence was consistent with observed community transmission during the study period. The low ELISA-positive SARS-CoV-2 prevalence might be associated with mitigation measures instituted after initial cases were reported in March, 2020. Zambia should monitor patterns of SARS-CoV-2 prevalence and promote measures that can reduce transmission. FUNDING: US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The first laboratory-confirmed cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the illness caused by SARS-CoV-2, in Zambia were detected in March 2020 (1). Beginning in July, the number of confirmed cases began to increase rapidly, first peaking during July-August, and then declining in September and October (Figure). After 3 months of relatively low case counts, COVID-19 cases began rapidly rising throughout the country in mid-December. On December 18, 2020, South Africa published the genome of a SARS-CoV-2 variant strain with several mutations that affect the spike protein (2). The variant included a mutation (N501Y) associated with increased transmissibility.(†)(,)(§) SARS-CoV-2 lineages with this mutation have rapidly expanded geographically.(¶)(,)** The variant strain (PANGO [Phylogenetic Assignment of Named Global Outbreak] lineage B.1.351(††)) was first detected in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa from specimens collected in early August, spread within South Africa, and appears to have displaced the majority of other SARS-CoV-2 lineages circulating in that country (2). As of January 10, 2021, eight countries had reported cases with the B.1.351 variant. In Zambia, the average number of daily confirmed COVID-19 cases increased 16-fold, from 44 cases during December 1-10 to 700 during January 1-10, after detection of the B.1.351 variant in specimens collected during December 16-23. Zambia is a southern African country that shares substantial commerce and tourism linkages with South Africa, which might have contributed to the transmission of the B.1.351 variant between the two countries.

INTRODUCTION: Relatively limited data are available regarding paediatric COVID-19. Although most children appear to have mild or asymptomatic infections, infants and those with comorbidities are at increased risk of experiencing more severe illness and requiring hospitalisation due to COVID-19. The recent but uncommon association of SARS-CoV-2 infection with development of a multisystem inflammatory syndrome has heightened the importance of understanding paediatric SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Paediatric Emergency Research Network-COVID-19 cohort study is a rapid, global, prospective cohort study enrolling 12 500 children who are tested for acute SARS-CoV-2 infection. 47 emergency departments across 12 countries on four continents will participate. At enrolment, regardless of SARS-CoV-2 test results, all children will have the same information collected, including clinical, epidemiological, laboratory, imaging and outcome data. Interventions and outcome data will be collected for hospitalised children. For all children, follow-up at 14 and 90 days will collect information on further medical care received, and long-term sequelae, respectively. Statistical models will be designed to identify risk factors for infection and severe outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Sites will seek ethical approval locally, and informed consent will be obtained. There is no direct risk or benefit of study participation. Weekly interim analysis will allow for real-time data sharing with regional, national, and international policy makers. Harmonisation and sharing of investigation materials with WHO, will contribute to synergising global efforts for the clinical characterisation of paediatric COVID-19. Our findings will enable the implementation of countermeasures to reduce viral transmission and severe COVID-19 outcomes in children. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04330261.

BACKGROUND: Symptoms of mild COVID-19 illness are non-specific and may persist for prolonged periods. Effects on quality of life of persistent poor physical or mental health associated with COVID-19 are not well understood. METHODS: Adults aged ≥18 years with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and matched control patients who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 infection at outpatient facilities associated with 11 medical centers in the United States were interviewed to assess symptoms, illness duration, and health-related quality of life. Duration of symptoms, health-related quality of life measures, and days of poor physical health by symptoms experienced during illness were compared between case patients and controls using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. Symptoms associated with COVID-19 case status were evaluated by multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 320 participants included, 157 were COVID-19 cases and 163 were SARS-CoV-2 negative controls. Loss of taste or smell was reported by 63% of cases and 6% of controls and was strongly associated with COVID-19 in logistic regression models (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 32.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 12.6-83.1). COVID-19 cases were more likely than controls to have experienced fever, body aches, weakness, or fatigue during illness, and to report ≥1 persistent symptom more than 14 days after symptom onset (50% vs 32%, P < .001). Cases reported significantly more days of poor physical health during the past 14 days than controls (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Differentiating COVID-19 from other acute illnesses will require widespread diagnostic testing, especially during influenza seasons. Persistent COVID-19-related symptoms may negatively affect quality of life, even among those initially presenting with mild illness.

BACKGROUND: While persons who receive immigrant and refugee visas are screened for active tuberculosis before admission into the United States, nonimmigrant visa applicants (NIVs) are not routinely screened and may enter the United States with infectious tuberculosis. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the costs and benefits of expanding pre-departure tuberculosis screening requirements to a subset of NIVs who arrive from a moderate (Mexico) or high (India) incidence tuberculosis country with temporary work visas. METHODS: We developed a decision tree model to evaluate the program costs and estimate the numbers of active tuberculosis cases that may be diagnosed in the United States in two scenarios: 1) "Screening": screening and treatment for tuberculosis among NIVs in their home country with recommended U.S. follow-up for NIVs at elevated risk of active tuberculosis; and, 2) "No Screening" in their home country so that cases would be diagnosed passively and treatment occurs after entry into the United States. Costs were assessed from multiple perspectives, including multinational and U.S.-only perspectives. RESULTS: Under "Screening" versus "No Screening", an estimated 179 active tuberculosis cases and 119 hospitalizations would be averted in the United States annually via predeparture treatment. From the U.S.-only perspective, this program would result in annual net cost savings of about $3.75 million. However, rom the multinational perspective, the screening program would cost $151,388 per U.S. case averted for Indian NIVs and $221,088 per U.S. case averted for Mexican NIVs. CONCLUSION: From the U.S.-only perspective, the screening program would result in substantial cost savings in the form of reduced treatment and hospitalization costs. NIVs would incur increased pre-departure screening and treatment costs.

Most persons infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), develop virus-specific antibodies within several weeks, but antibody titers might decline over time. Understanding the timeline of antibody decline is important for interpreting SARS-CoV-2 serology results. Serum specimens were collected from a convenience sample of frontline health care personnel at 13 hospitals and tested for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 during April 3-June 19, 2020, and again approximately 60 days later to assess this timeline. The percentage of participants who experienced seroreversion, defined as an antibody signal-to-threshold ratio >1.0 at baseline and <1.0 at the follow-up visit, was assessed. Overall, 194 (6.0%) of 3,248 participants had detectable antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 at baseline (1). Upon repeat testing approximately 60 days later (range = 50-91 days), 146 (93.6%) of 156 participants experienced a decline in antibody response indicated by a lower signal-to-threshold ratio at the follow-up visit, compared with the baseline visit, and 44 (28.2%) experienced seroreversion. Participants with higher initial antibody responses were more likely to have antibodies detected at the follow-up test than were those who had a lower initial antibody response. Whether decay in these antibodies increases risk for reinfection and disease remains unanswered. However, these results suggest that serology testing at a single time point is likely to underestimate the number of persons with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and a negative serologic test result might not reliably exclude prior infection.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness (CE) of an intensive lifestyle intervention (ILI) compared with standard diabetes support and education (DSE) in adults with overweight/obesity and type 2 diabetes, as implemented in the Action for Health in Diabetes study. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Data were from 4,827 participants during their first 9 years of the study participation from 2001 to 2012. Information on Health Utilities Index Mark 2 (HUI-2) and HUI-3, Short-Form 6D (SF-6D), and Feeling Thermometer (FT), cost of delivering the interventions, and health expenditures was collected during the study. CE was measured by incremental CE ratios (ICERs) in costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Future costs and QALYs were discounted at 3% annually. Costs were in 2012 U.S. dollars. RESULTS: Over the 9 years studied, the mean cumulative intervention costs and mean cumulative health care expenditures were $11,275 and $64,453 per person for ILI and $887 and $68,174 for DSE. Thus, ILI cost $6,666 more per person than DSE. Additional QALYs gained by ILI were not statistically significant measured by the HUIs and were 0.07 and 0.15, respectively, measured by SF-6D and FT. The ICERs ranged from no health benefit with a higher cost based on HUIs to $96,458/QALY and $43,169/QALY, respectively, based on SF-6D and FT. CONCLUSIONS: Whether ILI was cost-effective over the 9-year period is unclear because different health utility measures led to different conclusions.

Since March 2020, large-scale efforts to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), have continued. Mitigation measures to reduce workplace exposures have included work site policies to support flexible work site options, including telework, whereby employees work remotely without commuting to a central place of work.* Opportunities to telework have varied across industries among U.S. jobs where telework options are feasible (1). However, little is known about the impact of telework on risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection. A case-control investigation was conducted to compare telework between eligible symptomatic persons who received positive SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test results (case-patients, 153) and symptomatic persons with negative test results (control-participants, 161). Eligible participants were identified in outpatient health care facilities during July 2020. Among employed participants who reported on their telework status during the 2 weeks preceding illness onset (248), the percentage who were able to telework on a full- or part-time basis was lower among case-patients (35%; 42 of 120) than among control-participants (53%; 68 of 128) (p<0.01). Case-patients were more likely than were control-participants to have reported going exclusively to an office or school setting (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.8; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.2-2.7) in the 2 weeks before illness onset. The association was also observed when further restricting to the 175 participants who reported working in a profession outside the critical infrastructure(†) (aOR = 2.1; 95% CI = 1.3-3.6). Providing the option to work from home or telework when possible, is an important consideration for reducing the risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection. In industries where telework options are not available, worker safety measures should continue to be scaled up to reduce possible worksite exposures.

Zambia is a landlocked, lower-middle income country in southern Africa, with a population of 17 million (1). The first known cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Zambia occurred in a married couple who had traveled to France and were subject to port-of-entry surveillance and subsequent remote monitoring of travelers with a history of international travel for 14 days after arrival. They were identified as having suspected cases on March 18, 2020, and tested for COVID-19 after developing respiratory symptoms during the 14-day monitoring period. In March 2020, the Zambia National Public Health Institute (ZNPHI) defined a suspected case of COVID-19 as 1) an acute respiratory illness in a person with a history of international travel during the 14 days preceding symptom onset; or 2) acute respiratory illness in a person with a history of contact with a person with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in the 14 days preceding symptom onset; or 3) severe acute respiratory illness requiring hospitalization; or 4) being a household or close contact of a patient with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. This definition was adapted from World Health Organization (WHO) interim guidance issued March 20, 2020, on global surveillance for COVID-19 (2) to also include asymptomatic contacts of persons with confirmed COVID-19. Persons with suspected COVID-19 were identified through various mechanisms, including port-of-entry surveillance, contact tracing, health care worker (HCW) testing, facility-based inpatient screening, community-based screening, and calls from the public into a national hotline administered by the Disaster Management and Mitigation Unit and ZNPHI. Port-of-entry surveillance included an arrival screen consisting of a temperature scan, report of symptoms during the preceding 14 days, and collection of a history of travel and contact with persons with confirmed COVID-19 in the 14 days before arrival in Zambia, followed by daily remote telephone monitoring for 14 days. Travelers were tested for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, if they were symptomatic upon arrival or developed symptoms during the 14-day monitoring period. Persons with suspected COVID-19 were tested as soon as possible after evaluation for respiratory symptoms or within 7 days of last known exposure (i.e., travel or contact with a confirmed case). All COVID-19 diagnoses were confirmed using real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing (SARS-CoV-2 Nucleic Acid Detection Kit, Maccura) of nasopharyngeal specimens; all patients with confirmed COVID-19 were admitted into institutional isolation at the time of laboratory confirmation, which was generally within 36 hours. COVID-19 patients were deemed recovered and released from isolation after two consecutive PCR-negative test results ≥24 hours apart. A Ministry of Health memorandum was released on April 13, 2020, mandating testing in public facilities of 1) all persons admitted to medical and pediatric wards regardless of symptoms; 2) all patients being admitted to surgical and obstetric wards, regardless of symptoms; 3) any outpatient with fever, cough, or shortness of breath; and 4) any facility or community death in a person with respiratory symptoms, and 5) biweekly screening of all HCWs in isolation centers and health facilities where persons with COVID-19 had been evaluated. This report describes the first 100 COVID-19 cases reported in Zambia, during March 18-April 28, 2020.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has had a substantial impact on racial and ethnic minority populations and essential workers in the United States, but the role of geographic social and economic inequities (i.e., deprivation) in these disparities has not been examined (1,2). As of July 9, 2020, Utah had reported 27,356 confirmed COVID-19 cases. To better understand how area-level deprivation might reinforce ethnic, racial, and workplace-based COVID-19 inequities (3), the Utah Department of Health (UDOH) analyzed confirmed cases of infection with SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19), COVID-19 hospitalizations, and SARS-CoV-2 testing rates in relation to deprivation as measured by Utah's Health Improvement Index (HII) (4). Age-weighted odds ratios (weighted ORs) were calculated by weighting rates for four age groups (≤24, 25-44, 45-64, and ≥65 years) to a 2000 U.S. Census age-standardized population. Odds of infection increased with level of deprivation and were two times greater in high-deprivation areas (weighted OR = 2.08; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.99-2.17) and three times greater (weighted OR = 3.11; 95% CI = 2.98-3.24) in very high-deprivation areas, compared with those in very low-deprivation areas. Odds of hospitalization and testing also increased with deprivation, but to a lesser extent. Local jurisdictions should use measures of deprivation and other social determinants of health to enhance transmission reduction strategies (e.g., increasing availability and accessibility of SARS-CoV-2 testing and distributing prevention guidance) to areas with greatest need. These strategies might include increasing availability and accessibility of SARS-CoV-2 testing, contact tracing, isolation options, preventive care, disease management, and prevention guidance to facilities (e.g., clinics, community centers, and businesses) in areas with high levels of deprivation.

With rapid and accurate molecular influenza testing now widely available in clinical settings, influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies can prospectively select participants for enrollment based on real-time results rather than enrolling all eligible patients regardless of influenza status, as in the traditional test-negative design (TND). Thus, we explore advantages and disadvantages of modifying the TND for estimating VE by using real-time, clinically available viral testing results paired with acute respiratory infection eligibility criteria for identifying influenza cases and test-negative controls prior to enrollment. This modification, which we have called the real-time test-negative design (rtTND), has the potential to improve influenza VE studies by optimizing the case-to-test-negative control ratio, more accurately classifying influenza status, improving study efficiency, reducing study cost, and increasing study power to adequately estimate VE. Important considerations for limiting biases in the rtTND include the need for comprehensive clinical influenza testing at study sites and accurate influenza tests.

Increases in injection drug use (IDU) as a result of increasing levels of opioid misuse in the United States may increase risk for new, rapidly transmitted HIV infections in communities with otherwise low HIV prevalence.1 Changing characteristics and geographic locations of persons at risk for HIV infection due to injection-related risk behavior present ongoing challenges to partner services for HIV prevention. These jurisdictions have historically had less need for HIV-related partner services and therefore less investment in HIV outbreak preparedness and prevention infrastructure. Jurisdictions with low HIV prevalence have also had to rely on cluster investigation methods that were developed for primary use in urban areas. In early 2019, the US strategic plan to end the HIV epidemic in the United States within 10 years was announced, which prioritizes the rapid detection and response to emerging clusters of HIV infection to further reduce new transmissions as 1 of the 4 main pillars of the initiative.2

Community and close contact exposures continue to drive the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. CDC and other public health authorities recommend community mitigation strategies to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 (1,2). Characterization of community exposures can be difficult to assess when widespread transmission is occurring, especially from asymptomatic persons within inherently interconnected communities. Potential exposures, such as close contact with a person with confirmed COVID-19, have primarily been assessed among COVID-19 cases, without a non-COVID-19 comparison group (3,4). To assess community and close contact exposures associated with COVID-19, exposures reported by case-patients (154) were compared with exposures reported by control-participants (160). Case-patients were symptomatic adults (persons aged ≥18 years) with SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing. Control-participants were symptomatic outpatient adults from the same health care facilities who had negative SARS-CoV-2 test results. Close contact with a person with known COVID-19 was more commonly reported among case-patients (42%) than among control-participants (14%). Case-patients were more likely to have reported dining at a restaurant (any area designated by the restaurant, including indoor, patio, and outdoor seating) in the 2 weeks preceding illness onset than were control-participants (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.5-3.8). Restricting the analysis to participants without known close contact with a person with confirmed COVID-19, case-patients were more likely to report dining at a restaurant (aOR = 2.8, 95% CI = 1.9-4.3) or going to a bar/coffee shop (aOR = 3.9, 95% CI = 1.5-10.1) than were control-participants. Exposures and activities where mask use and social distancing are difficult to maintain, including going to places that offer on-site eating or drinking, might be important risk factors for acquiring COVID-19. As communities reopen, efforts to reduce possible exposures at locations that offer on-site eating and drinking options should be considered to protect customers, employees, and communities.

Health care personnel (HCP) caring for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) might be at high risk for contracting SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Understanding the prevalence of and factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection among frontline HCP who care for COVID-19 patients are important for protecting both HCP and their patients. During April 3-June 19, 2020, serum specimens were collected from a convenience sample of frontline HCP who worked with COVID-19 patients at 13 geographically diverse academic medical centers in the United States, and specimens were tested for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2. Participants were asked about potential symptoms of COVID-19 experienced since February 1, 2020, previous testing for acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, and their use of personal protective equipment (PPE) in the past week. Among 3,248 participants, 194 (6.0%) had positive test results for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Seroprevalence by hospital ranged from 0.8% to 31.2% (median = 3.6%). Among the 194 seropositive participants, 56 (29%) reported no symptoms since February 1, 2020, 86 (44%) did not believe that they previously had COVID-19, and 133 (69%) did not report a previous COVID-19 diagnosis. Seroprevalence was lower among personnel who reported always wearing a face covering (defined in this study as a surgical mask, N95 respirator, or powered air purifying respirator [PAPR]) while caring for patients (5.6%), compared with that among those who did not (9.0%) (p = 0.012). Consistent with persons in the general population with SARS-CoV-2 infection, many frontline HCP with SARS-CoV-2 infection might be asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic during infection, and infection might be unrecognized. Enhanced screening, including frequent testing of frontline HCP, and universal use of face coverings in hospitals are two strategies that could reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

An entirely plasmid-based reverse genetics (RG) system was recently developed for rotavirus (RV), opening new avenues for in-depth molecular dissection of RV biology, immunology, and pathogenesis. Several improvements to further optimize the RG efficiency have now been described. However, only a small number of individual RV strains have been recovered to date. None of the current methods have supported the recovery of murine RV, impeding the study of RV replication and pathogenesis in an in vivo suckling mouse model. Here, we describe useful modifications to the RG system that significantly improve rescue efficiency of multiple RV strains. In addition to the 11 RVA segment-specific (+)ssRNAs, a chimeric plasmid was transfected, from which the capping enzyme NP868R of African swine fever virus (ASFV) and the T7 RNA polymerase were expressed. Secondly, a genetically modified MA104 cell line was used in which several compounds of the innate immune were degraded. Using this RG system, we successfully recovered the simian RV RRV strain, the human RV CDC-9 strain, a reassortant between murine RV D6/2 and simian RV SA11 strains, and several reassortants and reporter RVs. All these recombinant RVs were rescued at a high efficiency (≥80% success rate) and could not be reliably rescued using several recently published RG strategies (<20%). This improved system represents an important tool and great potential for the rescue of other hard-to-recover RV strains such as low replicating attenuated vaccine candidates or low cell culture passage clinical isolates from humans or animals.IMPORTANCE Group A rotavirus (RV) remains as the single most important cause of severe acute gastroenteritis among infants and young children worldwide. An entirely plasmid-based reverse genetics (RG) system was recently developed opening new ways for in-depth molecular study of RV. Despite several improvements to further optimize the RG efficiency, it has been reported that current strategies do not enable the rescue of all cultivatable RV strains. Here, we described helpful modification to the current strategies and established a tractable RG system for the rescue of the simian RRV strain, the human CDC-9 strain and a murine-like RV strain, which is suitable for both in vitro and in vivo studies. This improved RV reverse genetics system will facilitate study of RV biology in both in vitro and in vivo systems that will facilitate the improved design of RV vaccines, better antiviral therapies and expression vectors.

Improved understanding of the overall distribution of workplace coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreaks by industry sector could help direct targeted public health action; however, this has not been described. The Utah Department of Health (UDOH) analyzed COVID-19 surveillance data to describe workplace outbreaks by industry sectors. In this report, workplaces refer to non-health care, noncongregate-living, and noneducational settings. As of June 5, 2020, UDOH reported 277 COVID-19 outbreaks, 210 (76%) of which occurred in workplaces. Approximately 12% (1,389 of 11,448) of confirmed COVID-19 cases in Utah were associated with workplace outbreaks. The 210 workplace outbreaks occurred in 15 of 20 industry sectors;* nearly one half of all workplace outbreaks occurred in three sectors: Manufacturing (43; 20%), Construction (32; 15%) and Wholesale Trade (29; 14%); 58% (806 of 1,389) of workplace outbreak-associated cases occurred in these three sectors. Although 24% of Utah's workforce in all 15 affected sectors identified as Hispanic or Latino (Hispanic) or a race other than non-Hispanic white (nonwhite(†)) (1), 73% (970 of 1,335) of workplace outbreak-associated COVID-19 cases were in persons who identified as Hispanic or nonwhite. Systemic social inequities have resulted in the overrepresentation of Hispanic and nonwhite workers in frontline occupations where exposure to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, might be higher (2); extra vigilance in these sectors is needed to ensure prevention and mitigation strategies are applied equitably and effectively to workers of racial and ethnic groups disproportionately affected by COVID-19. Health departments can adapt workplace guidance to each industry sector affected by COVID-19 to account for different production processes and working conditions.

Recent epidemiologic, virologic, and modeling reports support the possibility of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission from persons who are presymptomatic (SARS-CoV-2 detected before symptom onset) or asymptomatic (SARS-CoV-2 detected but symptoms never develop). SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the absence of symptoms reinforces the value of measures that prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 by infected persons who may not exhibit illness despite being infectious. Critical knowledge gaps include the relative incidence of asymptomatic and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, the public health interventions that prevent asymptomatic transmission, and the question of whether asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection confers protective immunity.

Prolonged symptom duration and disability are common in adults hospitalized with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Characterizing return to baseline health among outpatients with milder COVID-19 illness is important for understanding the full spectrum of COVID-19-associated illness and tailoring public health messaging, interventions, and policy. During April 15-June 25, 2020, telephone interviews were conducted with a random sample of adults aged ≥18 years who had a first positive reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, at an outpatient visit at one of 14 U.S. academic health care systems in 13 states. Interviews were conducted 14-21 days after the test date. Respondents were asked about demographic characteristics, baseline chronic medical conditions, symptoms present at the time of testing, whether those symptoms had resolved by the interview date, and whether they had returned to their usual state of health at the time of interview. Among 292 respondents, 94% (274) reported experiencing one or more symptoms at the time of testing; 35% of these symptomatic respondents reported not having returned to their usual state of health by the date of the interview (median = 16 days from testing date), including 26% among those aged 18-34 years, 32% among those aged 35-49 years, and 47% among those aged ≥50 years. Among respondents reporting cough, fatigue, or shortness of breath at the time of testing, 43%, 35%, and 29%, respectively, continued to experience these symptoms at the time of the interview. These findings indicate that COVID-19 can result in prolonged illness even among persons with milder outpatient illness, including young adults. Effective public health messaging targeting these groups is warranted. Preventative measures, including social distancing, frequent handwashing, and the consistent and correct use of face coverings in public, should be strongly encouraged to slow the spread of SARS-CoV-2.

Descriptions of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the United States have focused primarily on hospitalized patients. Reports documenting exposures to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, have generally been described within congregate settings, such as meat and poultry processing plants (1) and long-term care facilities (2). Understanding individual behaviors and demographic characteristics of patients with COVID-19 and risks for severe illness requiring hospitalization can inform efforts to reduce transmission. During April 15-May 24, 2020, telephone interviews were conducted with a random sample of adults aged >/=18 years who had positive reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test results for SARS-CoV-2 in outpatient and inpatient settings at 11 U.S. academic medical centers in nine states. Respondents were contacted 14-21 days after SARS-CoV-2 testing and asked about their demographic characteristics, underlying chronic conditions, symptoms experienced on the date of testing, and potential exposures to SARS-CoV-2 during the 2 weeks before illness onset (or the date of testing among those who did not report symptoms at the time of testing). Among 350 interviewed patients (271 [77%] outpatients and 79 [23%] inpatients), inpatients were older, more likely to be Hispanic and to report dyspnea than outpatients. Fewer inpatients (39%, 20 of 51) reported a return to baseline level of health at 14-21 days than did outpatients (64%, 150 of 233) (p = 0.001). Overall, approximately one half (46%) of patients reported known close contact with someone with COVID-19 during the preceding 2 weeks. This was most commonly a family member (45%) or a work colleague (34%). Approximately two thirds (64%, 212 of 333) of participants were employed; only 35 of 209 (17%) were able to telework. These findings highlight the need for screening, case investigation, contact tracing, and isolation of infected persons to control transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection during periods of community transmission. The need for enhanced measures to ensure workplace safety, including ensuring social distancing and more widespread use of cloth face coverings, are warranted (3).