OBJECTIVES: Direct electronic access to multiple electronic health record (EHR) systems through patient portals offers a novel avenue for decentralized research. Given the critical value of patient characterization, we sought to compare computable evaluation of health conditions from patient-portal EHR against the traditional self-report. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the nationwide Innovative Support for Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infections Registry (INSPIRE) study, which linked self-reported questionnaires with multiplatform patient-portal EHR data, we compared self-reported health conditions across different clinical domains against computable definitions based on diagnosis codes, medications, vital signs, and laboratory testing. We assessed their concordance using Cohen's Kappa and the prognostic significance of differentially captured features as predictors of 1-year all-cause hospitalization risk. RESULTS: Among 1683 participants (mean age 41 ± 15 years, 67% female, 63% non-Hispanic Whites), the prevalence of conditions varied substantially between EHR and self-report (-13.2% to +11.6% across definitions). Compared with comprehensive EHR phenotypes, self-report under-captured all conditions, including hypertension (27.9% vs 16.2%), diabetes (10.1% vs 6.2%), and heart disease (8.5% vs 4.3%). However, diagnosis codes alone were insufficient. The risk for 1-year hospitalization was better defined by the same features from patient-portal EHR (area under the receiver operating curve [AUROC] 0.79) than from self-report (AUROC 0.68). DISCUSSION: EHR-derived computable phenotypes identified a higher prevalence of comorbidities than self-report, with prognostic value of additionally identified features. However, definitions based solely on diagnosis codes often undercaptured self-reported conditions, suggesting a role of broader EHR elements. CONCLUSION: In this nationwide study, patient-portal-derived EHR data enabled extensive capture of patient characteristics across multiple EHR platforms, allowing better disease phenotyping compared with self-report.

Background: Although short-term outcomes of Long COVID have been described, longer-term physical and mental health outcomes of Long COVID are less well-established. This study sought to assess differences in long-term physical and mental health outcomes extending up to three years among those with current, resolved, and no Long COVID, as well as duration of Long COVID and vaccination status. Methods: This was a prospective, multisite, study of participants with SARS-CoV-2 infection from 12/7/2020-8/29/2022, with data collected through 4/2/2024. Surveys included validated tools for physical and mental health. Data were analyzed by Long COVID status (never-had, resolved, current), Long COVID duration and vaccination status. Findings: Of 3663 participants, 2604 (71.1%) never had Long COVID, 994 (27.1%) reported current Long COVID, and 65 (1.8%) reported resolved Long COVID. Compared to never having Long COVID, current Long COVID had lower/worse scores for Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) version 29 Physical (7.8; 95% confidence interval [CI] 7.3–8.3) and Mental Health (9.4; 95% CI 8.8–10.1) and higher likelihood of moderate-to-high stress (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 2.0; 95% CI 1.6–2.4), moderate-to-high loneliness (aOR: 1.6; 95% CI 1.4–2.0), moderate-to-severe fatigue (aOR: 3.0; 95% CI 2.5–3.7), insufficient activity (aOR for Speedy Nutrition and Physical Activity Assessment ≤4: 0.6; 95% CI 0.5–0.7; aOR for Exercise Vital Sign ≤150 min/week: 0.7, 95% CI 0.6–1.0), and worse dyspnea (aOR: 5.0; 95% CI 4.3–5.8). Resolved Long COVID had lower scores for PROMIS Physical by 2.0 (95% CI 0.2–3.8) and Mental Health by 2.3 (95% CI 0.2–4.4) than the never-had-Long COVID cohort. Number of COVID-19 vaccinations was associated with better outcomes across all measures. Interpretation: Among participants followed up to 3 years after initial infection, those with current Long COVID had worse physical and mental health outcomes. The majority of those with Long COVID did not resolve, with less than 2% having resolved Long COVID. The resolved Long COVID cohort had moderately worse physical and mental health compared with those never-having-Long COVID. COVID-19 vaccination was associated with better outcomes. Funding: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. © 2025 The Author(s)

BACKGROUND: Differences in acute COVID-19 associated morbidity based on race, ethnicity, and gender have been well described; however, less is known about differences in subsequent longer term health-related quality of life and well-being. METHODS: This prospective cohort study included symptomatic adults tested for SARS-CoV-2 who completed baseline and 3-month follow-up surveys. Using the PROMIS-29 tool, a validated measure of health and well-being, we compared outcomes at 3 months and change in outcomes from baseline to 3 months among groups with different races, ethnicities, and/or sexes. RESULTS: Among 6044 participants, 4113 (3202 COVID +) were included. Among COVID + participants, compared to non-Hispanic White participants, Black participants had better PROMIS T-scores for cognitive function (3.6 [1.1, 6.2]) and fatigue (- 4.3 [- 6.6, - 2.0]) at 3 months and experienced more improvement in fatigue over 3 months (- 2.7 [- 4.7, - 0.8]). At 3 months, compared with males, females had worse PROMIS T-scores for cognitive function (- 4.1 [- 5.6, - 2.6]), physical function (- 2.1 [- 3.1, - 1.0]), social participation (- 2.8 [- 4.2, - 1.5]), anxiety (2.8 [1.5, 4.1]), fatigue (5.1 [3.7, 6.4]), and pain interference (2.0 [0.9, 3.2]). Females experienced less improvement in fatigue over 3 months (3.1 [2.0, 4.3]). Transgender/non-binary/other gender participants had worse 3-month scores in all domains except for sleep disturbance and pain interference. CONCLUSIONS: Three months after the initial COVID-19 infection, Black participants reported better cognitive function and fatigue, while females and other gender minoritized groups experienced lower well-being. Future studies are necessary to better understand how and why social constructs, specifically race, ethnicity, and gender, influence differences in COVID-19-related health outcomes. Trials Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04610515.

INTRODUCTION: Data on ethnic and racial differences in symptoms and health-related impacts following SARS-CoV-2 infection are limited. We aimed to estimate the ethnic and racial differences in symptoms and health-related impacts 3 and 6 months after the first SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: Participants included adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection enrolled in a prospective multicenter US study between 12/11/2020 and 7/4/2022 as the primary cohort of interest, as well as a SARS-CoV-2-negative cohort to account for non-SARS-CoV-2-infection impacts, who completed enrollment and 3-month surveys (N = 3,161; 2,402 SARS-CoV-2-positive, 759 SARS-CoV-2-negative). Marginal odds ratios were estimated using GEE logistic regression for individual symptoms, health status, activity level, and missed work 3 and 6 months after COVID-19 illness, comparing each ethnicity or race to the referent group (non-Hispanic or white), adjusting for demographic factors, social determinants of health, substance use, pre-existing health conditions, SARS-CoV-2 infection status, COVID-19 vaccination status, and survey time point, with interactions between ethnicity or race and time point, ethnicity or race and SARS-CoV-2 infection status, and SARS-CoV-2 infection status and time point. RESULTS: Following SARS-CoV-2 infection, the majority of symptoms were similar over time between ethnic and racial groups. At 3 months, Hispanic participants were more likely than non-Hispanic participants to report fair/poor health (OR: 1.94; 95%CI: 1.36-2.78) and reduced activity (somewhat less, OR: 1.47; 95%CI: 1.06-2.02; much less, OR: 2.23; 95%CI: 1.38-3.61). At 6 months, differences by ethnicity were not present. At 3 months, Other/Multiple race participants were more likely than white participants to report fair/poor health (OR: 1.90; 95% CI: 1.25-2.88), reduced activity (somewhat less, OR: 1.72; 95%CI: 1.21-2.46; much less, OR: 2.08; 95%CI: 1.18-3.65). At 6 months, Asian participants were more likely than white participants to report fair/poor health (OR: 1.88; 95%CI: 1.13-3.12); Black participants reported more missed work (OR, 2.83; 95%CI: 1.60-5.00); and Other/Multiple race participants reported more fair/poor health (OR: 1.83; 95%CI: 1.10-3.05), reduced activity (somewhat less, OR: 1.60; 95%CI: 1.02-2.51; much less, OR: 2.49; 95%CI: 1.40-4.44), and more missed work (OR: 2.25; 95%CI: 1.27-3.98). DISCUSSION: Awareness of ethnic and racial differences in outcomes following SARS-CoV-2 infection may inform clinical and public health efforts to advance health equity in long-term outcomes.

Melioidosis, caused by Burkholderia pseudomallei, is a rare but potentially fatal bacterial disease endemic to tropical and subtropical regions worldwide. It is typically acquired through contact with contaminated soil or fresh water. Before this investigation, B. pseudomallei was not known to have been isolated from the environment in the continental United States. Here, we report on three patients living in the same Mississippi Gulf Coast county who presented with melioidosis within a 3-year period. They were infected by the same Western Hemisphere B. pseudomallei strain that was discovered in three environmental samples collected from the property of one of the patients. These findings indicate local acquisition of melioidosis from the environment in the Mississippi Gulf Coast region.

The SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant, first identified in October 2020, quickly became the dominant variant worldwide. We used publicly available data to explore the relationship between illness and death (peak case rates, death rates, case-fatality rates) and selected predictors (percentage vaccinated, percentage of the population >65 years, population density, testing volume, index of mitigation policies) in 45 high-income countries during the Delta wave using rank-order correlation and ordinal regression. During the Delta-dominant period, most countries reported higher peak case rates (57%) and lower peak case-fatality rates (98%). Higher vaccination coverage was protective against peak case rates (odds ratio 0.95, 95% CI 0.91-0.99) and against peak death rates (odds ratio 0.96, 95% CI 0.91-0.99). Vaccination coverage was vital to preventing infection and death from COVID-19 during the Delta wave. As new variants emerge, public health authorities should encourage the uptake of COVID-19 vaccination and boosters.

To further the understanding of post-COVID conditions, and provide a more nuanced description of symptom progression, resolution, emergence, and reemergence after SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-like illness, analysts examined data from the Innovative Support for Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infections Registry (INSPIRE), a prospective multicenter cohort study. This report includes analysis of data on self-reported symptoms collected from 1,296 adults with COVID-like illness who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 using a Food and Drug Administration-approved polymerase chain reaction or antigen test at the time of enrollment and reported symptoms at 3-month intervals for 12 months. Prevalence of any symptom decreased substantially between baseline and the 3-month follow-up, from 98.4% to 48.2% for persons who received a positive SARS-CoV-2 test results (COVID test-positive participants) and from 88.2% to 36.6% for persons who received negative SARS-CoV-2 test results (COVID test-negative participants). Persistent symptoms decreased through 12 months; no difference between the groups was observed at 12 months (prevalence among COVID test-positive and COVID test-negative participants = 18.3% and 16.1%, respectively; p>0.05). Both groups reported symptoms that emerged or reemerged at 6, 9, and 12 months. Thus, these symptoms are not unique to COVID-19 or to post-COVID conditions. Awareness that symptoms might persist for up to 12 months, and that many symptoms might emerge or reemerge in the year after COVID-like illness, can assist health care providers in understanding the clinical signs and symptoms associated with post-COVID-like conditions.

BACKGROUND: Reports on medium and long-term sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infections largely lack quantification of incidence and relative risk. We describe the rationale and methods of the Innovative Support for Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Registry (INSPIRE) that combines patient-reported outcomes with data from digital health records to understand predictors and impacts of SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHOD(S): INSPIRE is a prospective, multicenter, longitudinal study of individuals with symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection in eight regions across the US. Adults are eligible for enrollment if they are fluent in English or Spanish, reported symptoms suggestive of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, and if they are within 42 days of having a SARS-CoV-2 viral test (i.e., nucleic acid amplification test or antigen test), regardless of test results. Recruitment occurs in-person, by phone or email, and through online advertisement. A secure online platform is used to facilitate the collation of consent-related materials, digital health records, and responses to self-administered surveys. Participants are followed for up to 18 months, with patient-reported outcomes collected every three months via survey and linked to concurrent digital health data; follow-up includes no in-person involvement. Our planned enrollment is 4,800 participants, including 2,400 SARS-CoV-2 positive and 2,400 SARS-CoV-2 negative participants (as a concurrent comparison group). These data will allow assessment of longitudinal outcomes from SARS-CoV-2 infection and comparison of the relative risk of outcomes in individuals with and without infection. Patient-reported outcomes include self-reported health function and status, as well as clinical outcomes including health system encounters and new diagnoses. RESULT(S): Participating sites obtained institutional review board approval. Enrollment and follow-up are ongoing. CONCLUSION(S): This study will characterize medium and long-term sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection among a diverse population, predictors of sequelae, and their relative risk compared to persons with similar symptomatology but without SARS-CoV-2 infection. These data may inform clinical interventions for individuals with sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Copyright The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence, incidence, and interrelationships of persistent symptoms after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection vary. There are limited data on specific phenotypes of persistent symptoms. Using latent class analysis (LCA) modeling, we sought to identify whether specific phenotypes of COVID-19 were present 3 months and 6 months post-infection. METHODS: This was a multicenter study of symptomatic adults tested for SARS-CoV-2 with prospectively collected data on general symptoms and fatigue-related symptoms up to 6 months postdiagnosis. Using LCA, we identified symptomatically homogenous groups among COVID-positive and COVID-negative participants at each time period for both general and fatigue-related symptoms. RESULTS: Among 5963 baseline participants (4504 COVID-positive and 1459 COVID-negative), 4056 had 3-month and 2856 had 6-month data at the time of analysis. We identified 4 distinct phenotypes of post-COVID conditions (PCCs) at 3 and 6 months for both general and fatigue-related symptoms; minimal-symptom groups represented 70% of participants at 3 and 6 months. When compared with the COVID-negative cohort, COVID-positive participants had higher occurrence of loss of taste/smell and cognition problems. There was substantial class-switching over time; those in 1 symptom class at 3 months were equally likely to remain or enter a new phenotype at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: We identified distinct classes of PCC phenotypes for general and fatigue-related symptoms. Most participants had minimal or no symptoms at 3 and 6 months of follow-up. Significant proportions of participants changed symptom groups over time, suggesting that symptoms present during the acute illness may differ from prolonged symptoms and that PCCs may have a more dynamic nature than previously recognized. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT04610515.

BACKGROUND: While prior work examining severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants of concern focused on hospitalization and death, less is known about differences in clinical presentation. We compared the prevalence of acute symptoms across pre-Delta, Delta, and Omicron. METHODS: We conducted an analysis of the Innovative Support for Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infections Registry (INSPIRE), a cohort study enrolling symptomatic SARS-CoV-2-positive participants. We determined the association between the pre-Delta, Delta, and Omicron time periods and the prevalence of 21 coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) acute symptoms. RESULTS: We enrolled 4113 participants from December 2020 to June 2022. Pre-Delta vs Delta vs Omicron participants had increasing sore throat (40.9%, 54.6%, 70.6%; P < .001), cough (50.9%, 63.3%, 66.7%; P < .001), and runny noses (48.9%, 71.3%, 72.9%; P < .001). We observed reductions during Omicron in chest pain (31.1%, 24.2%, 20.9%; P < .001), shortness of breath (42.7%, 29.5%, 27.5%; P < .001), loss of taste (47.1%, 61.8%, 19.2%; P < .001), and loss of smell (47.5%, 55.6%, 20.0%; P < .001). After adjustment, those infected during Omicron had significantly higher odds of sore throat vs pre-Delta (odds ratio [OR], 2.76; 95% CI, 2.26-3.35) and Delta (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.69-2.28). CONCLUSIONS: Participants infected during Omicron were more likely to report symptoms of common respiratory viruses, such as sore throat, and less likely to report loss of smell and taste. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04610515.

Viral genomic surveillance has been a critical source of information during the COVID-19 pandemic, but publicly available data can be sparse, concentrated in wealthy countries, and often made public weeks or months after collection. We used publicly available viral genomic surveillance data submitted to GISAID and GenBank to examine sequencing coverage and lag time to submission during 2020-2021. We compared publicly submitted sequences by country with reported infection rates and population and also examined data based on country-level World Bank income status and World Health Organization region. We found that as global capacity for viral genomic surveillance increased, international disparities in sequencing capacity and timeliness persisted along economic lines. Our analysis suggests that increasing viral genomic surveillance coverage worldwide and decreasing turnaround times could improve timely availability of sequencing data to inform public health action.

BACKGROUND: Most research on SARS-CoV-2 variants focuses on initial symptomatology with limited data on longer-term sequelae. We sought to characterize the prevalence and differences in prolonged symptoms at three months post SARS-CoV-2-infection across the three major variant time-periods (pre-Delta, Delta, and Omicron). METHODS: This multicenter prospective cohort study of adults with acute illness tested for SARS-CoV-2 compared fatigue severity, fatigue symptoms, individual and organ system-based symptoms, and presence of ≥3 total symptoms across variants among COVID-positive and COVID-negative participants 3 months after their initial SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. Variant periods were defined by dates with ≥50% dominant strain. We performed a sensitivity analysis using ≥90% dominance threshold and multivariable logistic regression modeling to estimate the independent effects of each variant adjusting for socio-demographic characteristics, baseline health, and vaccine status. RESULTS: The study included 3,223 participants (2,402 COVID-positive and 821 COVID-negative). Among the COVID-positive cohort, 463 (19.3%) were pre-Delta, 1,198 (49.9%) during Delta, and 741 (30.8%) during Omicron. Prolonged severe fatigue was highest in the pre-Delta COVID-positive cohort compared with Delta and Omicron cohorts (16.7% vs 11.5% vs 12.3%, respectively; p = 0.017), as was presence of ≥3 prolonged symptoms (28.4% vs 21.7% vs 16.0%; p < 0.001). No difference was seen in the COVID-negative cohort between variant time-periods. In multivariable models, there was no difference in severe fatigue between variants. There was decreased odds of having ≥3 symptoms in Omicron compared with other variants; this was not significant after adjusting for vaccination status. CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged symptoms following SARS-CoV-2 infection were more common among participants infected during the pre-Delta period compared with Delta and Omicron periods; however, these differences were no longer significant after adjusting for vaccination status. This suggests a potential beneficial effect of vaccination on the risk of developing long-term symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Acanthamoeba is a free-living ameba that can cause severe disease affecting the central nervous system, skin, sinuses, and other organs, particularly in immunocompromised individuals. These rare but severe infections are often fatal, yet incompletely described. METHODS: Cases included were either reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Free-Living Ameba program or published in scientific literature. Characteristics of all patients in the United States with laboratory-confirmed non-keratitis Acanthamoeba infections were described using descriptive statistics, and associations with survival were determined using χ(2) and Fisher exact tests. RESULTS: Of 173 patients identified, 71% were male and the median age was 44 years (range, 0-87 years). Of these, 26 (15%) survived. Most patients (88%) had at least 1 immunocompromising condition, most commonly human immunodeficiency virus (39%), cancer (28%), and solid organ or hematopoietic stem cell transplant (28%). Granulomatous amebic encephalitis (GAE) was the most common disease presentation (71%). Skin (46%), sinuses (29%), lungs (13%), and bone (6%) were also involved. Nearly half of patients (47%) had involvement of >1 organ system. Survival was less frequent among those with GAE (3%, P < .001) compared with cutaneous disease, rhinosinusitis, or multiorgan disease not including GAE. Of 7 who received the currently recommended treatment regimen, 5 (71%) survived. CONCLUSIONS: Non-keratitis Acanthamoeba infections occur primarily in immunocompromised individuals and are usually fatal. Survival may be associated with disease presentation and treatment. Providers who care for at-risk patients should be aware of the various disease manifestations to improve early recognition and treatment.

We report 2 immunocompetent and otherwise healthy adults in the United States who had monkeypox and required hospitalization for viral myocarditis. Both patients were unvaccinated against orthopoxviruses. They had shortness of breath or chest pain and elevated cardiac biomarkers. No immediate complications were observed. They were discharged home after symptoms resolved.

IMPORTANCE: Long-term sequelae after symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection may impact well-being, yet existing data primarily focus on discrete symptoms and/or health care use. OBJECTIVE: To compare patient-reported outcomes of physical, mental, and social well-being among adults with symptomatic illness who received a positive vs negative test result for SARS-CoV-2 infection. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cohort study was a planned interim analysis of an ongoing multicenter prospective longitudinal registry study (the Innovative Support for Patients With SARS-CoV-2 Infections Registry [INSPIRE]). Participants were enrolled from December 11, 2020, to September 10, 2021, and comprised adults (aged 18 years) with acute symptoms suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 infection at the time of receipt of a SARS-CoV-2 test approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. The analysis included the first 1000 participants who completed baseline and 3-month follow-up surveys consisting of questions from the 29-item Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29; 7 subscales, including physical function, anxiety, depression, fatigue, social participation, sleep disturbance, and pain interference) and the PROMIS Short Form-Cognitive Function 8a scale, for which population-normed T scores were reported. EXPOSURES: SARS-CoV-2 status (positive or negative test result) at enrollment. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Mean PROMIS scores for participants with positive COVID-19 tests vs negative COVID-19 tests were compared descriptively and using multivariable regression analysis. RESULTS: Among 1000 participants, 722 (72.2%) received a positive COVID-19 result and 278 (27.8%) received a negative result; 406 of 998 participants (40.7%) were aged 18 to 34 years, 644 of 972 (66.3%) were female, 833 of 984 (84.7%) were non-Hispanic, and 685 of 974 (70.3%) were White. A total of 282 of 712 participants (39.6%) in the COVID-19-positive group and 147 of 275 participants (53.5%) in the COVID-19-negative group reported persistently poor physical, mental, or social well-being at 3-month follow-up. After adjustment, improvements in well-being were statistically and clinically greater for participants in the COVID-19-positive group vs the COVID-19-negative group only for social participation (=3.32; 95% CI, 1.84-4.80; P<.001); changes in other well-being domains were not clinically different between groups. Improvements in well-being in the COVID-19-positive group were concentrated among participants aged 18 to 34 years (eg, social participation: =3.90; 95% CI, 1.75-6.05; P<.001) and those who presented for COVID-19 testing in an ambulatory setting (eg, social participation: =4.16; 95% CI, 2.12-6.20; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this study, participants in both the COVID-19-positive and COVID-19-negative groups reported persistently poor physical, mental, or social well-being at 3-month follow-up. Although some individuals had clinically meaningful improvements over time, many reported moderate to severe impairments in well-being 3 months later. These results highlight the importance of including a control group of participants with negative COVID-19 results for comparison when examining the sequelae of COVID-19.

As of October 21, 2022, a total of 27,884 monkeypox cases (confirmed and probable) have been reported in the United States.(§) Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men have constituted a majority of cases, and persons with HIV infection and those from racial and ethnic minority groups have been disproportionately affected (1,2). During previous monkeypox outbreaks, severe manifestations of disease and poor outcomes have been reported among persons with HIV infection, particularly those with AIDS (3-5). This report summarizes findings from CDC clinical consultations provided for 57 patients aged ≥18 years who were hospitalized with severe manifestations of monkeypox(¶) during August 10-October 10, 2022, and highlights three clinically representative cases. Overall, 47 (82%) patients had HIV infection, four (9%) of whom were receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART) before monkeypox diagnosis. Most patients were male (95%) and 68% were non-Hispanic Black (Black). Overall, 17 (30%) patients received intensive care unit (ICU)-level care, and 12 (21%) have died. As of this report, monkeypox was a cause of death or contributing factor in five of these deaths; six deaths remain under investigation to determine whether monkeypox was a causal or contributing factor; and in one death, monkeypox was not a cause or contributing factor.** Health care providers and public health professionals should be aware that severe morbidity and mortality associated with monkeypox have been observed during the current outbreak in the United States (6,7), particularly among highly immunocompromised persons. Providers should test all sexually active patients with suspected monkeypox for HIV at the time of monkeypox testing unless a patient is already known to have HIV infection. Providers should consider early commencement and extended duration of monkeypox-directed therapy(††) in highly immunocompromised patients with suspected or laboratory-diagnosed monkeypox.(§§) Engaging all persons with HIV in sustained care remains a critical public health priority.

Monkeypox virus (MPXV) is an orthopoxvirus in the Poxviridae family. The current multinational monkeypox outbreak has now spread to 96 countries that have not historically reported monkeypox, with most cases occurring among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (1,2). The first monkeypox case in the United States associated with this outbreak was identified in May 2022 in Massachusetts (1); monkeypox has now been reported in all 50 states, the District of Columbia (DC), and one U.S. territory. MPXV is transmitted by close contact with infected persons or animals; infection results in a febrile illness followed by a diffuse vesiculopustular rash and lymphadenopathy. However, illness in the MPXV current Clade II outbreak has differed: the febrile prodrome is frequently absent or mild, and the rash often involves genital, anal, or oral regions (3,4). Although neuroinvasive disease has been previously reported with MPXV infection (5,6), it appears to be rare. This report describes two cases of encephalomyelitis in patients with monkeypox disease that occurred during the current U.S. outbreak. Although neurologic complications of acute MPXV infections are rare, suspected cases should be reported to state, tribal, local, or territorial health departments to improve understanding of the range of clinical manifestations of and treatment options for MPXV infections during the current outbreak.

Currently, no Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved treatments for human monkeypox are available. Tecovirimat (Tpoxx), however, is an antiviral drug that has demonstrated efficacy in animal studies and is FDA-approved for treating smallpox. Use of tecovirimat for treatment of monkeypox in the United States is permitted only through an FDA-regulated Expanded Access Investigational New Drug (EA-IND) mechanism. CDC holds a nonresearch EA-IND protocol that facilitates access to and use of tecovirimat for treatment of monkeypox.() The protocol includes patient treatment and adverse event reporting forms to monitor safety and ensure intended clinical use in accordance with FDA EA-IND requirements. The current multinational monkeypox outbreak, first detected in a country where Monkeypox virus infection is not endemic in May 2022, has predominantly affected gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) (1,2). To describe characteristics of persons treated with tecovirimat for Monkeypox virus infection, demographic and clinical data abstracted from available tecovirimat EA-IND treatment forms were analyzed. As of August 20, 2022, intake and outcome forms were available for 549 and 369 patients, respectively; 97.7% of patients were men, with a median age of 36.5 years. Among patients with available data, 38.8% were reported to be non-Hispanic White (White) persons, 99.8% were prescribed oral tecovirimat, and 93.1% were not hospitalized. Approximately one half of patients with Monkeypox virus infection who received tecovirimat were living with HIV infection. The median interval from initiation of tecovirimat to subjective improvement was 3 days and did not differ by HIV infection status. Adverse events were reported in 3.5% of patients; all but one adverse event were nonserious. These data support the continued access to and treatment with tecovirimat for patients with or at risk for severe disease in the ongoing monkeypox outbreak.

Since May 2022, approximately 20,000 cases of monkeypox have been identified in the United States, part of a global outbreak occurring in approximately 90 countries and currently affecting primarily gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) (1). Monkeypox virus (MPXV) spreads from person to person through close, prolonged contact; a small number of cases have occurred in populations who are not MSM (e.g., women and children), and testing is recommended for persons who meet the suspected case definition* (1). CDC previously developed five real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays for detection of orthopoxviruses from lesion specimens (2,3). CDC was granted 510(k) clearance for the nonvariola-orthopoxvirus (NVO)-specific PCR assay by the Food and Drug Administration. This assay was implemented within the Laboratory Response Network (LRN) in the early 2000s and became critical for early detection of MPXV and implementation of public health action in previous travel-associated cases as well as during the current outbreak (4-7). PCR assays (NVO and other Orthopoxvirus laboratory developed tests [LDT]) represent the primary tool for monkeypox diagnosis. These tests are highly sensitive, and cross-contamination from other MPXV specimens being processed, tested, or both alongside negative specimens can occasionally lead to false-positive results. This report describes three patients who had atypical rashes and no epidemiologic link to a monkeypox case or known risk factors; these persons received diagnoses of monkeypox based on late cycle threshold (Ct) values ≥34, which were false-positive test results. The initial diagnoses were followed by administration of antiviral treatment (i.e., tecovirimat) and JYNNEOS vaccine postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) to patients' close contacts. After receiving subsequent testing, none of the three patients was confirmed to have monkeypox. Knowledge gained from these and other cases resulted in changes to CDC guidance. When testing for monkeypox in specimens from patients without an epidemiologic link or risk factors or who do not meet clinical criteria (or where these are unknown), laboratory scientists should reextract and retest specimens with late Ct values (based on this report, Ct ≥34 is recommended) (8). CDC can be consulted for complex cases including those that appear atypical or questionable cases and can perform additional viral species- and clade-specific PCR testing and antiorthopoxvirus serologic testing.

The SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant emerged shortly after COVID-19 vaccines became available in 2021. We describe SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections in a highly vaccinated, well-monitored US Embassy community in Kampala, Uganda. Defining breakthrough infection rates in highly vaccinated populations can help determine public health messaging, guidance, and policy globally.

We aimed to describe frequency of COVID-19 exposure risk factors among patients presenting for medical care at an urban, public hospital serving mostly uninsured/Medicare/Medicaid clients and risk factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Consenting, adult patients seeking care at a public hospital from August to November 2020 were enrolled in this cross-sectional investigation. Saliva, anterior nasal and nasopharyngeal swabs were collected and tested for SARS-CoV-2 using RT-PCR. Participant demographics, close contact, and activities ≤14 days prior to enrollment were collected through interview. Logistic regression was used to identify risk factors associated with testing positive for SARS-CoV-2. Among 1,078 participants, 51.8% were male, 57.0% were aged ≥50 years, 81.3% were non-Hispanic Black, and 7.6% had positive SARS-CoV-2 tests. Only 2.7% reported COVID-19 close contact ≤14 days before enrollment; this group had 6.79 adjusted odds of testing positive (95%CI = 2.78-16.62) than those without a reported exposure. Among participants who did not report COVID-19 close contact, working in proximity to ≥10 people (adjusted OR = 2.17; 95%CI = 1.03-4.55), choir practice (adjusted OR = 11.85; 95%CI = 1.44-97.91), traveling on a plane (adjusted OR = 5.78; 95%CI = 1.70-19.68), and not participating in an essential indoor activity (i.e., grocery shopping, public transit use, or visiting a healthcare facility; adjusted OR = 2.15; 95%CI = 1.07-4.30) were associated with increased odds of testing positive. Among this population of mostly Black, non-Hispanic participants seeking care at a public hospital, we found several activities associated with testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection in addition to close contact with a case. Understanding high-risk activities for SARS-CoV-2 infection among different communities is important for issuing awareness and prevention strategies.

BACKGROUND: Reports on medium and long-term sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infections largely lack quantification of incidence and relative risk. We describe the rationale and methods of the Innovative Support for Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Registry (INSPIRE) that combines patient-reported outcomes with data from digital health records to understand predictors and impacts of SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: INSPIRE is a prospective, multicenter, longitudinal study of individuals with symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection in eight regions across the US. Adults are eligible for enrollment if they are fluent in English or Spanish, reported symptoms suggestive of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, and if they are within 42 days of having a SARS-CoV-2 viral test (i.e., nucleic acid amplification test or antigen test), regardless of test results. Recruitment occurs in-person, by phone or email, and through online advertisement. A secure online platform is used to facilitate the collation of consent-related materials, digital health records, and responses to self-administered surveys. Participants are followed for up to 18 months, with patient-reported outcomes collected every three months via survey and linked to concurrent digital health data; follow-up includes no in-person involvement. Our planned enrollment is 4,800 participants, including 2,400 SARS-CoV-2 positive and 2,400 SARS-CoV-2 negative participants (as a concurrent comparison group). These data will allow assessment of longitudinal outcomes from SARS-CoV-2 infection and comparison of the relative risk of outcomes in individuals with and without infection. Patient-reported outcomes include self-reported health function and status, as well as clinical outcomes including health system encounters and new diagnoses. RESULTS: Participating sites obtained institutional review board approval. Enrollment and follow-up are ongoing. CONCLUSIONS: This study will characterize medium and long-term sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection among a diverse population, predictors of sequelae, and their relative risk compared to persons with similar symptomatology but without SARS-CoV-2 infection. These data may inform clinical interventions for individuals with sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Self-collected specimens can expand access to SARS-CoV-2 testing. At a large inner-city hospital 1,082 participants self-collected saliva and anterior nasal swab (ANS) samples before healthcare workers collected nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) samples on the same day. To characterize patient preferences for self-collection, this investigation explored ability, comfort, and ease of ANS and saliva self-collection for SARS-CoV-2 testing along with associated patient characteristics, including medical history and symptoms of COVID-19. With nearly all participants successfully submitting a specimen, favorable ratings from most participants (at least >79% in ease and comfort), and equivocal preference between saliva and ANS, self-collection is a viable SARS-CoV-2 testing option.

We evaluated the performance of self-collected anterior nasal swab (ANS) and saliva samples compared with healthcare worker-collected nasopharyngeal swab specimens used to test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We used the same PCR diagnostic panel to test all self-collected and healthcare worker-collected samples from participants at a public hospital in Atlanta, Georgia, USA. Among 1,076 participants, 51.9% were men, 57.1% were >50 years of age, 81.2% were Black (non-Hispanic), and 74.9% reported >1 chronic medical condition. In total, 8.0% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Compared with nasopharyngeal swab samples, ANS samples had a sensitivity of 59% and saliva samples a sensitivity of 68%. Among participants tested 3-7 days after symptom onset, ANS samples had a sensitivity of 80% and saliva samples a sensitivity of 85%. Sensitivity varied by specimen type and patient characteristics. These findings can help physicians interpret PCR results for SARS-CoV-2.

Primary amebic meningoencephalitis is a rare, usually fatal disease, caused by Naegleria fowleri. This case highlights the challenging clinicopathologic diagnosis in a 13-year-old boy who swam in freshwater in northern Florida where a previous case had exposure to a body of water on the same property in 2009. © 2021

We compared the characteristics of hospitalized and nonhospitalized patients who had coronavirus disease in Atlanta, Georgia, USA. We found that risk for hospitalization increased with a patient's age and number of concurrent conditions. We also found a potential association between hospitalization and high hemoglobin A1c levels in persons with diabetes.

Communication interventions to enhance linkage to HIV care have been successful in sub-Saharan Africa but have not been assessed among refugees. Refugees and Ugandan nationals participating in HIV testing in Nakivale Refugee Settlement were offered weekly phone call and short message service (SMS) reminders. We assessed linkage to care and predictors of linkage within 90 days of testing, comparing Intervention participants to those unwilling or ineligible to participate (Non-Intervention). Of 208 individuals diagnosed with HIV, 101 (49%) participated in the intervention. No difference existed between Intervention and Non-intervention groups in linkage to care (73 [72%] vs. 76 [71%], p = 0.88). Excluding those who linked prior to receipt of intervention, the intervention improved linkage (69 [68%] vs. 50 [47%], p = 0.002). Participants were more likely to link if they were older (aOR 2.39 [1.31, 4.37], p = 0.005) or Ugandan nationals (aOR 3.76 [1.12, 12.66], p = 0.033). Although the communication intervention did not significantly improve linkage to HIV care, the linkage was improved when excluding those with same-day linkage. Excluding participants without a phone was a significant limitation; these data are meant to inform more rigorous designs moving forward. Innovative methods to improve linkage to HIV care for this vulnerable population are urgently needed.

This study describes the point prevalence of polymerase chain reaction tests positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among residents of a sample of Connecticut nursing homes in the first half of May 2020.

The first reported U.S. case of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was detected in January 2020 (1). As of June 15, 2020, approximately 2 million cases and 115,000 COVID-19-associated deaths have been reported in the United States.* Reports of U.S. patients hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection (the virus that causes COVID-19) describe high proportions of older, male, and black persons (2-4). Similarly, when comparing hospitalized patients with catchment area populations or nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients, high proportions have underlying conditions, including diabetes mellitus, hypertension, obesity, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, or chronic respiratory disease (3,4). For this report, data were abstracted from the medical records of 220 hospitalized and 311 nonhospitalized patients aged >/=18 years with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 from six acute care hospitals and associated outpatient clinics in metropolitan Atlanta, Georgia. Multivariable analyses were performed to identify patient characteristics associated with hospitalization. The following characteristics were independently associated with hospitalization: age >/=65 years (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 3.4), black race (aOR = 3.2), having diabetes mellitus (aOR = 3.1), lack of insurance (aOR = 2.8), male sex (aOR = 2.4), smoking (aOR = 2.3), and obesity (aOR = 1.9). Infection with SARS-CoV-2 can lead to severe outcomes, including death, and measures to protect persons from infection, such as staying at home, social distancing (5), and awareness and management of underlying conditions should be emphasized for those at highest risk for hospitalization with COVID-19. Measures that prevent the spread of infection to others, such as wearing cloth face coverings (6), should be used whenever possible to protect groups at high risk. Potential barriers to the ability to adhere to these measures need to be addressed.