Background: Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) is a serious, debilitating illness affecting millions of people worldwide. Patients with ME/CFS often feel misunderstood and report facing barriers to healthcare utilization. Objective: We report on a Voice of the Patient (VOP) series that used tenets from photovoice and hermeneutic phenomenology methods. The approach prioritized respecting and engaging patients as they share individual experiences of living with ME/CFS. Methods: We developed a 5-step process that could be replicated for interviewing patients in their own words. The process prioritized respecting patients while developing, documenting, and sharing individual accounts of living with ME/CFS. The standardized process for gathering each VOP story enabled individuals to share and participate on their own terms. Results: Over four years, eight VOP stories were completed and posted on CDC's ME/CFS website. The stories received over 196,000 page views. Each story was completed in approximately six months. Participants expressed gratitude for the opportunity to share experiences and were appreciative of the process that involved them in the development of stories. Conclusions: Qualitative methods guided the process for participants taking a central role in sharing stories, which in turn may help educate about patient experiences with ME/CFS. Standardization of steps enabled consistency and transparency. Building flexibility into the process allowed interviewing a range of people with ME/CFS (i.e. bed bound to working) and enabled patients to give narratives in their voice. This process may help to share experiences of people with other chronic diseases or infection associated chronic conditions. © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.

Volume 3, no. 4, e00965-15, 2015. Page 1: The byline and affiliation line should read as given above.

Volume 2, no. 6, e01274-14, 2014. Page 1: The first sentence of the third paragraph should read as follows. “The average size of the ETEC genomes in this study was 4.88 Mb; 2013EL-1320 (Table 1) had the smallest genome, at 4.71 Mb, and F6097 (Table 1) had the largest genome, at 5.18 Mb.” | | Page 1: In the last column of Table 1, the country/location of outbreak for ETEC isolates 2013EL-1319 and 2013EL-1320 should read “Haiti.”

Volume 3, no. 3, e00564-15, 2015. Page 1: The title should read as given above and the number of enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli (ETEC) serogroup O6 strains in the study should be given as nine throughout because one of the ETEC strains was confirmed to be a non-O6 strain. | | Page 1: The third and fourth sentences of the second paragraph should read as follows. “The average size of the ETEC genomes in this study was 4.92 Mb; B1020-2 (Table 1) had the smallest genome, at 4.77 Mb, and K1884-sc (Table 1) had the largest genome, at 4.99 Mb. The average number of coding sequences (CDSs) in the ETEC genomes in this study was 4,809.” | | Page 1: In Table 1, the data for ETEC strain F6700 should be omitted because F6700 is a non-O6 strain.

Together with plague, smallpox and typhus, epidemics of dysentery have been a major scourge of human populations for centuries(1). A previous genomic study concluded that Shigella dysenteriae type 1 (Sd1), the epidemic dysentery bacillus, emerged and spread worldwide after the First World War, with no clear pattern of transmission(2). This is not consistent with the massive cyclic dysentery epidemics reported in Europe during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries(1,3,4) and the first isolation of Sd1 in Japan in 1897(5). Here, we report a whole-genome analysis of 331 Sd1 isolates from around the world, collected between 1915 and 2011, providing us with unprecedented insight into the historical spread of this pathogen. We show here that Sd1 has existed since at least the eighteenth century and that it swept the globe at the end of the nineteenth century, diversifying into distinct lineages associated with the First World War, Second World War and various conflicts or natural disasters across Africa, Asia and Central America. We also provide a unique historical perspective on the evolution of antibiotic resistance over a 100-year period, beginning decades before the antibiotic era, and identify a prevalent multiple antibiotic-resistant lineage in South Asia that was transmitted in several waves to Africa, where it caused severe outbreaks of disease.

In October 2023, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted to approve the Recommended Adult Immunization Schedule for Ages 19 Years or Older, United States, 2024. The 2024 adult immunization schedule, available at www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/imz/adult.html, summarizes ACIP recommendations in the cover page, tables, notes, appendix, and addendum (Figure). The full ACIP recommendations for each vaccine are available at www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/index.html. The 2024 schedule has also been approved by the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and by the American College of Physicians (www.acponline.org), the American Academy of Family Physicians (www.aafp.org), the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (www.acog.org), the American College of Nurse-Midwives (www.midwife.org), the American Academy of Physician Associates (www.aapa.org), the American Pharmacists Association (www.pharmacist.com), and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (www.shea-online.org).

At its October 2023 meeting, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices* (ACIP) approved the Recommended Adult Immunization Schedule for Ages 19 Years or Older, United States, 2024. The adult immunization schedule, which can be found on the CDC immunization schedule website (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules), is published annually to consolidate and summarize updates to ACIP recommendations on the vaccination of adults and to assist health care providers in implementing current ACIP recommendations. The 2024 immunization schedule includes several changes to the cover page, tables, notes, and appendix from the 2023 immunization schedule.(†) In addition, the 2024 adult immunization schedule includes a new addendum section that summarizes new or updated ACIP recommendations that will occur before the next annual update to the adult immunization schedule. Health care providers are advised to use the cover page, tables, notes, appendix, and addendum together to determine recommended vaccinations for patient populations.

At its October 2023 meeting, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices* (ACIP) approved the Recommended Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule for Ages 18 Years or Younger, United States, 2024. The child and adolescent immunization schedule, which can be found on the CDC immunization schedule website (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules), is published annually to consolidate and summarize updates to ACIP recommendations on the vaccination of children and adolescents and to assist health care providers in implementing current ACIP recommendations. The 2024 immunization schedule includes several changes to the cover page, tables, notes, and appendix from the 2023 immunization schedule.(†) In addition, the 2024 child and adolescent immunization schedule includes a new addendum section to summarize new or updated ACIP recommendations that will occur before the next annual update to the child and adolescent immunization schedule. Health care providers are advised to use the cover page, tables, notes, appendix, and addendum together to identify the recommended immunizations for patient populations.

We detected a novel GII.4 variant with an amino acid insertion at the start of epitope A in viral protein 1 of noroviruses from the United States, Gabon, South Africa, and the United Kingdom collected during 2017-2022. Early identification of GII.4 variants is crucial for assessing pandemic potential and informing vaccine development.

The authors regret the oversight of table labeling and placement in the manuscript. Particularly, the misrepresentation of Box 1 as Table 6; this is incorrectly labeled, and we sincerely apologize for this oversight. The Table 6 icon at the bottom of page 55 should be placed at the bottom of page 52 as Box 1, and the Table 6 at the top of page 57 should be moved up as Box 1 to page 52, before the results section. | | The authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused.

Fast, efficient public health actions require well-organized and coordinated systems that can supply timely and accurate knowledge. Public databases of pathogen genomic data, such as the International Nucleotide Sequence Database Collaboration (INSDC), have become essential tools for efficient public health decisions. However, these international resources began primarily for academic purposes, rather than for surveillance or interventions. Now, queries need to access not only the whole genomes of multiple pathogens but also make connections using robust contextual metadata to identify issues of public health relevance. Databases that over time developed a patchwork of submission formats and requirements need to be consistently organized and coordinated internationally to allow effective searches.To help resolve these issues, we propose a common pathogen data structure called the Pathogen Data Object Model (DOM) that will formalize the minimum pieces of sequence data and contextual data necessary for general public health uses, while recognizing that submitters will likely withhold a wide range of non-public contextual data. Further, we propose contributors use the Pathogen DOM for all pathogen submissions (bacterial, viral, fungal, and parasites), which will simplify data submissions and provide a consistent and transparent data structure for downstream data analyses. We also highlight how improved submission tools can support the Pathogen DOM, offering users additional easy-to-use methods to ensure this structure is followed.

The Council of Science Editors (CSE) is an international organization of more than 500 editorial professionals in the scientific, scientific publishing, and information science communities. The organization’s goal is to serve as an authoritative resource on current and emerging issues in the communication of scientific information (1). Similar to other scholarly publishing organizations, CSE continues to facilitate important conversations and training regarding why, how, and where principles of diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) should be integrated into scholarly publishing. With guidance from CSE members with expertise in DEIA in scholarly publishing, and the approval of CSE’s Board of Directors, the organization established the DEI Committee in 2021 (which was expanded to the DEIA Committee in 2023). The purpose of the DEIA Committee is “to support the organization in building capacity among its leadership, members, and the profession at large to deliver programmatic activities and training that integrate [DEIA] best practices in science editing, publication management, scholarly publishing and communication, member recruitment, participation, and engagement” (2). | | Since the committee’s inception, CSE has implemented and/or participated in 8 broad-ranging DEIA-related activities: 1) adding new content to CSE’s Recommendations for Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications (3) related to DEIA best practices in scholarly publishing; 2) completing a DEIA sensitivity review of Scientific Style and Format (4), the CSE style manual, for its upcoming 9th edition, scheduled for publication in 2024; 3) a DEIA-related symposium to update members on CSE’s progress in achieving DEIA-related objectives and activities identified in CSE’s Strategic Plan (2); 4) establishing a DEIA column in Science Editor (5), CSE’s quarterly magazine; 5) implementing an inaugural 1-day DEIA short course to a range of professionals in scholarly publishing; 6) implementing its Ethics Clinic on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (6); 7) actively serving as a member organization for the Coalition for Diversity & Inclusion in Scholarly Communications (C4DISC) (3); and 8) establishing CSE’s DEIA Scholarly Resources web page (7).

Kurth L, Doney B, Halldin C. Short Report: Prevalence of airflow obstruction among ever-employed US adults aged 18–79 years by longest held occupation group: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2007–2010. Occup Environ Med 2016;73:482–6. | The title that reads: “Prevalence of airflow obstruction among ever-employed US adults aged 18–79 years by longest held occupation group: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2007–2010” should read “Prevalence of airflow obstruction among ever-employed US adults aged 18–79 years by longest held occupation group: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2007–2008”. | All references on page 482 to ‘the 2007–2010 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES)’ and/or ‘2007–2010 NHANES data’ should read ‘the 2007–2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES)’ and ‘2007–2008 NHANES data’. | The sentences on page 482 that read “The US population, 18–79 years, was studied using NHANES data from the combined cross-sectional 2007–2008 and 2009–2010 survey cycles. These were the most current NHANES cycles available with longest held occupation and spirometry data” should read “The US population, 18–79 years, was studied using NHANES data from the cross-sectional 2007–2008 survey cycle”. | The sentences on page 483 that read “In the 2007–2010 NHANES, 11 891 persons aged 18–79 years who provided interview data were eligible for the spirometry component of the physical examination. Of those, 1,867 were excluded from spirometry for safety reasons, health reasons, or other reasons, and 501 had poor quality spirometry data” should read “In the 2007–2008 NHANES, 5789 persons aged 18–79 years who provided interview data were eligible for the spirometry component of the physical examination. Of those, 1030 were excluded from spirometry for safety reasons, health reasons, or other reasons, and 246 had poor quality spirometry data”. | The sentence on page 483 that reads “During 2007–2010, 4,172 NHANES participants had valid spirometry, height, and longest held occupation data, and were included in the study” should read “During 2007–2008, 4,172 NHANES participants had valid spirometry, height, and longest held occupation data, and were included in the study”. | The sentence on page 483 that reads “We analyzed NHANES data from 2007 to 2010 and estimated that the prevalence of spirometry-defined airflow obstruction among ever-employed US adults aged 18–79 years was 13.7%” should read “We analyzed NHANES data from 2007 to 2008 and estimated that the prevalence of spirometry-defined airflow obstruction among ever-employed US adults aged 18–79 years was 13.7%”. | The following sentence on page 484 should be deleted: “Even by combining data from the NHANES 2007–2008 and 2009–2010 survey cycles to improve the reliability of prevalence estimates, the prevalence estimates for some occupation groups were unreliable. The inclusion of NHANES occupation data from the 2011–2012 survey cycle, once it is released, may help us compute reliable prevalence estimates for additional occupation groups”. | The sentence on page 484 that reads “The prevalence of spirometry-defined airflow obstruction among ever-employed US adults from 2007 to 2010 varied by demographic characteristics and occupational factors, and was generally…” should read “The prevalence of spirometry-defined airflow obstruction among ever-employed US adults from 2007 to 2008 varied by demographic characteristics and occupational factors, and was generally…”. | The title of Table 1 on page 483 that reads “Age-specific and age-standardised prevalence of airflow obstruction among ever-employed US adults aged 18–79 years by smoking status for selected demographic characteristics and occupational factors––NHANES 2007–2010” should read “Age-specific and age-standardised prevalence of airflow obstruction among ever-employed US adults aged 18–79 years by smoking status for selected demographic characteristics and occupational factors––NHANES 2007–2008”.

Particles and crystals constitute a unique class of toxic agents that humans are constantly exposed to both endogenously and from the environment. Deposition of particulates in the body is associated with a range of diseases and toxicity. The mechanism by which particulates cause disease remains poorly understood due to the lack of mechanistic insights into particle-biological interactions. Recent research has revealed that many particles and crystals activate the NLRP3 inflammasome, an intracellular pattern-recognition receptor. Activated NLRP3 forms a supramolecular complex with an adaptor protein to activate caspase 1, which in turn activates IL-1β and IL-18 to instigate inflammation. Genetic ablation and pharmacological inhibition of NLRP3 inflammasome dampen inflammatory responses to particulates. Nonetheless, how particulates activate NLRP3 remains a challenging question. From this perspective, we discuss our current understanding of and progress on revealing the function and mode of action of the NLRP3 inflammasome in mediating adaptive and pathologic responses to particulates in health and disease. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Volume 64 is January 2024. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

A matched case-control evaluated infectious etiologies in children <3 years in post-rotavirus vaccine intussusception surveillance. Adenovirus and adenovirus types C, A, and B were detected more frequently in cases versus controls at statistically significant values. Wild-type rotavirus, rotavirus vaccine strains, and human herpesvirus were not associated with intussusception.

Introduction Influenza epidemics and pandemics cause significant morbidity and mortality. An effective response to a potential pandemic requires the infrastructure to rapidly detect, characterize, and potentially contain new and emerging influenza strains at a population level. The objective of this study is to use data gathered simultaneously from community and hospital sites to develop a model of how influenza enters and spreads in a population.Methods and Analysis Starting in the 2018-19 season, we have been enrolling individuals with acute respiratory illness from community sites throughout the Seattle metropolitan area, including clinics, childcare facilities, Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, workplaces, college campuses, and homeless shelters. At these sites, we collect clinical data and mid-nasal swabs from individuals with at least two acute respiratory symptoms. Additionally, we collect residual nasal swabs and data from individuals who seek care for respiratory symptoms at four regional hospitals. Samples are tested using a multiplex molecular assay, and influenza whole genome sequencing is performed for samples with influenza detected. Geospatial mapping and computational modeling platforms are in development to characterize the regional spread of influenza and other respiratory pathogens.Ethics and Dissemination The study was approved by the University of Washington’s Institutional Review Board. Results will be disseminated through talks at conferences, peer-reviewed publications, and on the study website (www.seattleflu.org).Strengths and limitations of this study- Large-scale multiple-arm study of respiratory illness characterization with collection of samples from individuals in the community as well as in ambulatory care and hospital settings- Integration of sociodemographic, clinical, and geospatial data on a regional level- Multiplex molecular testing for multiple viral and bacterial pathogens and whole genome sequencing of influenza for detailed molecular epidemiologic characterization and transmission mapping- Geographically and socioeconomically diverse sampling of community-based acute respiratory illnessesCompeting Interest StatementAmanda Adler, Elisabeth Brandstetter, Michael Famulare, Chris D. Frazar, Peter D. Han, Reena K. Gulati, James Hadfield, Michael L. Jackson, Anahita Kiavand, Louise E. Kimball, Kirsten Lacombe, Jennifer Logue, Victoria Lyon, Kira L. Newman, Thomas R. Sibley, Jay Shendure, Lea Starita, Monica L. Zigman Suchsland, and Caitlin Wolf declare no competing interests. Helen Y Chu receives research support from Sanofi, Cepheid, and Genentech/Roche and is a consultant for Merck. Janet Englund receives research support to her institution from Astrazeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Novavax and is a consultant for Sanofi Pasteur and Meissa Vaccines.Funding StatementThe Seattle Flu Study is funded through the Brotman Baty Institute. The funder was not involved in the design of the study, does not have any ownership over the management and conduct of the study, the data, or the rights to publishAuthor DeclarationsAll relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.YesAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable YesThe data will be accessed only by authorized individuals on the study team. Access to deidentified, aggregated data and analysis code will be publicly available on the study web page (www.seattleflu.org). http://www.seattleflu.org

Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in severe shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) necessary to protect front-line healthcare personnel. These shortages underscore the urgent need for simple, efficient, and inexpensive methods to decontaminate SARS-CoV-2-exposed PPE enabling safe reuse of masks and respirators. Efficient decontamination must be available not only in low-resourced settings, but also in well-resourced settings affected by PPE shortages. Methylene blue (MB) photochemical treatment, hitherto with many clinical applications including those used to inactivate virus in plasma, presents a novel approach for widely applicable PPE decontamination. Dry heat (DH) treatment is another potential low-cost decontamination method.Methods MB and light (MBL) and DH treatments were used to inactivate coronavirus on respirator and mask material. We tested three N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs), two medical masks (MMs), and one cloth community mask (CM). FFR/MM/CM materials were inoculated with SARS-CoV-2 (a Betacoronavirus), murine hepatitis virus (MHV) (a Betacoronavirus), or porcine respiratory coronavirus (PRCV) (an Alphacoronavirus), and treated with 10 µM MB followed by 50,000 lux of broad-spectrum light or 12,500 lux of red light for 30 minutes, or with 75°C DH for 60 minutes. In parallel, we tested respirator and mask integrity using several standard methods and compared to the FDA-authorized vaporized hydrogen peroxide plus ozone (VHP+O3) decontamination method. Intact FFRs/MMs/CM were subjected to five cycles of decontamination (5CD) to assess integrity using International Standardization Organization (ISO), American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) test methods.Findings Overall, MBL robustly and consistently inactivated all three coronaviruses with at least a 4-log reduction. DH yielded similar results, with the exception of MHV, which was only reduced by 2-log after treatment. FFR/MM integrity was maintained for 5 cycles of MBL or DH treatment, whereas one FFR failed after 5 cycles of VHP+O3. Baseline performance for the CM was variable, but reduction of integrity was minimal.Interpretation Methylene blue with light and DH treatment decontaminated masks and respirators by inactivating three tested coronaviruses without compromising integrity through 5CD. MBL decontamination of masks is effective, low-cost and does not require specialized equipment, making it applicable in all-resource settings. These attractive features support the utilization and continued development of this novel PPE decontamination method.Competing Interest StatementAuthors Thomas S. Lendvay, James Chen are Co-Founders and equity owners of Singletto, Inc. (Seattle, WA, USA) Authors Yi Cui and Steven Chu are Co-Founders and equity owners of 4C Air, Inc. (Sunnyvale, CA)Funding StatementThis study was funded by Open Philanthropy; Amazon Inc./University of Washington Catalyst Award; University of Liege (Belgium) and the Walloon Region, Belgium; Li Ka Shing Institute; Alberta Health Services; and an Anonymous donor to the University of Washington, Department of Urology.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Stanford University and Alberta Health Services/University of Calgary were exempt from IRB as the human fit testing was considered Quality Improvement. ERB for clinical specimen use: A clinical saliva specimen with a SARS-CoV-2 was provided by Dr. John Conly from Calgary, Alberta with Calgary ERB approval (ID# Pro00099761).All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective inte ventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesData will be freely shared post publication on reasonable request by contacting the corresponding author of the study.

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) of amplicons is used in a wide variety of contexts. Most NGS amplicon sequencing remains overly expensive and inflexible, with library preparation strategies relying upon the fusion of locus-specific primers to full-length adapter sequences with a single identifying sequence or ligating adapters onto PCR products. In Adapterama I, we presented universal stubs and primers to produce thousands of unique index combinations and a modifiable system for incorporating them into Illumina libraries. Here, we describe multiple ways to use the Adapterama system and other approaches for amplicon sequencing on Illumina instruments. In the variant we use most frequently for large-scale projects, we fuse partial adapter sequences (TruSeq or Nextera) onto the 5’ end of locus-specific PCR primers with variable-length tag sequences between the adapter and locus-specific sequences. These fusion primers can be used combinatorially to amplify samples within a 96-well plate (eight forward primers + 12 reverse primers yield 8 × 12 = 96 combinations), and the resulting amplicons can be pooled. The initial PCR products then serve as template for a second round of PCR with dual-indexed iTru or iNext primers (also used combinatorially) to make full-length libraries. The resulting quadruple-indexed amplicons have diversity at most base positions and can be pooled with any standard Illumina library for sequencing. The number of sequencing reads from the amplicon pools can be adjusted, facilitating deep sequencing when required or reducing sequencing costs per sample to an economically trivial amount when deep coverage is not needed. We demonstrate the utility and versatility of our approaches with results from six projects using different implementations of our protocols. Thus, we show that these methods facilitate amplicon library construction for Illumina instruments at reduced cost with increased flexibility. A simple web page to design fusion primers compatible with iTru primers is available at: http://baddna.uga.edu/tools-taggi.html. A fast and easy to use program to demultiplex amplicon pools with internal indexes is available at: https://github.com/lefeverde/Mr_Demuxy.

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) of amplicons is used in a wide variety of contexts. In many cases, NGS amplicon sequencing remains overly expensive and inflexible, with library preparation strategies relying upon the fusion of locus-specific primers to full-length adapter sequences with a single identifying sequence or ligating adapters onto PCR products. In Adapterama I, we presented universal stubs and primers to produce thousands of unique index combinations and a modifiable system for incorporating them into Illumina libraries. Here, we describe multiple ways to use the Adapterama system and other approaches for amplicon sequencing on Illumina instruments. In the variant we use most frequently for large-scale projects, we fuse partial adapter sequences (TruSeq or Nextera) onto the 5' end of locus-specific PCR primers with variable-length tag sequences between the adapter and locus-specific sequences. These fusion primers can be used combinatorially to amplify samples within a 96-well plate (8 forward primers + 12 reverse primers yield 8 × 12 = 96 combinations), and the resulting amplicons can be pooled. The initial PCR products then serve as template for a second round of PCR with dual-indexed iTru or iNext primers (also used combinatorially) to make full-length libraries. The resulting quadruple-indexed amplicons have diversity at most base positions and can be pooled with any standard Illumina library for sequencing. The number of sequencing reads from the amplicon pools can be adjusted, facilitating deep sequencing when required or reducing sequencing costs per sample to an economically trivial amount when deep coverage is not needed. We demonstrate the utility and versatility of our approaches with results from six projects using different implementations of our protocols. Thus, we show that these methods facilitate amplicon library construction for Illumina instruments at reduced cost with increased flexibility. A simple web page to design fusion primers compatible with iTru primers is available at: http://baddna.uga.edu/tools-taggi.html. A fast and easy to use program to demultiplex amplicon pools with internal indexes is available at: https://github.com/lefeverde/Mr_Demuxy.

The genotypes referred to in this article were stated incorrectly. The genotype number 49 should have been stated as 48 and the number 27 should have been stated as 26. These errors occurred in the 'Abstract' section on page 1, in the ‘Discussion’ section on page 11, and within Fig. 5 on page 12. | | The sentence in the 'Abstract' should have read: | | ‘Using previously described 2× standard deviation (sd) criteria to group sequences into separate clusters, we expanded the number of genogroups to 10 (GI-GX) and the number of genotypes to 48 (9 GI, 26 GII, 3 GIII, 2 GIV, 2 GV, 2 GVI and 1 genotype each for GVII, GVIII, GIX [formerly GII.15] and GX).’ | | The sentence in the 'Discussion' section on page 11 should have read: | | ‘Viruses in these ten genogroups can be further divided into 48 confirmed capsid genotypes based on amino acids of the complete VP1 and 60 confirmed P-types based on partial nucleotide sequences of RdRp regions.’ | | Fig. 5 on page 12 erroneously stated ‘27+2T’. This should have been stated as ‘26+2T’.

Chlorhexidine bathing to prevent transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms has been adopted by many U.S. hospitals, but increasing chlorhexidine use has raised concerns about possible emergence of resistance. We sought to establish a broth microdilution method for determining chlorhexidine MICs and then used the method to evaluate chlorhexidine MICs for bacteria that can cause health care-associated infections. We adapted a broth microdilution method for determining chlorhexidine MICs, poured panels, established quality control ranges, and tested Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Enterobacter cloacae complex isolates collected at three U.S. sites. Chlorhexidine MICs were determined for 535 isolates including 129 S. aureus, 156 E. coli, 142 K. pneumoniae, and 108 E. cloacae complex isolates. The respective MIC distributions for each species ranged from 1 to 8 mg/L (MIC(50) = 2 mg/L and MIC(90) = 4 mg/L), 1 to 64 mg/L (MIC(50) = 2 mg/L and MIC(90) = 4 mg/L), 4 to 64 mg/L (MIC(50) = 16 mg/L and MIC(90) = 32 mg/L), and 1 to >64 mg/L (MIC(50) = 16 mg/L and MIC(90) = 64 mg/L). We successfully adapted a broth microdilution procedure that several laboratories were able to use to determine the chlorhexidine MICs of bacterial isolates. This method could be used to investigate whether chlorhexidine MICs are increasing. IMPORTANCE Chlorhexidine bathing to prevent transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms and reduce health care-associated infections has been adopted by many hospitals. There is concern about the possible unintended consequences of using this agent widely. One possible unintended consequence is decreased susceptibility to chlorhexidine, but there are not readily available methods to perform this evaluation. We developed a method for chlorhexidine MIC testing that can be used to evaluate for possible unintended consequences.

BACKGROUND: Diarrhoeal disease is a leading cause of childhood illness and death globally, and Shigella is a major aetiological contributor for which a vaccine might soon be available. The primary objective of this study was to model the spatiotemporal variation in paediatric Shigella infection and map its predicted prevalence across low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: Individual participant data for Shigella positivity in stool samples were sourced from multiple LMIC-based studies of children aged 59 months or younger. Covariates included household-level and participant-level factors ascertained by study investigators and environmental and hydrometeorological variables extracted from various data products at georeferenced child locations. Multivariate models were fitted and prevalence predictions obtained by syndrome and age stratum. FINDINGS: 20 studies from 23 countries (including locations in Central America and South America, sub-Saharan Africa, and south and southeast Asia) contributed 66 563 sample results. Age, symptom status, and study design contributed most to model performance followed by temperature, wind speed, relative humidity, and soil moisture. Probability of Shigella infection exceeded 20% when both precipitation and soil moisture were above average and had a 43% peak in uncomplicated diarrhoea cases at 33°C temperatures, above which it decreased. Compared with unimproved sanitation, improved sanitation decreased the odds of Shigella infection by 19% (odds ratio [OR]=0·81 [95% CI 0·76-0·86]) and open defecation decreased them by 18% (OR=0·82 [0·76-0·88]). INTERPRETATION: The distribution of Shigella is more sensitive to climatological factors, such as temperature, than previously recognised. Conditions in much of sub-Saharan Africa are particularly propitious for Shigella transmission, although hotspots also occur in South America and Central America, the Ganges-Brahmaputra Delta, and the island of New Guinea. These findings can inform prioritisation of populations for future vaccine trials and campaigns. FUNDING: NASA, National Institutes of Health-The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Background. The complexity of decision science models may prevent their use to assist in decision making. User-centered design (UCD) principles provide an opportunity to engage end users in model development and refinement, potentially reducing complexity and increasing model utilization in a practical setting. We report our experiences with UCD to develop a modeling tool for cancer control planners evaluating cancer survivorship interventions. Design. Using UCD principles (described in the article), we developed a dynamic cohort model of cancer survivorship for individuals with female breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer over 10 y. Parameters were obtained from the National Program of Cancer Registries and peer-reviewed literature, with model outcomes captured in quality-adjusted life-years and net monetary benefit. Prototyping and iteration were conducted with structured focus groups involving state cancer control planners and staff from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Public Health Association. Results. Initial feedback highlighted model complexity and unclear purpose as barriers to end user uptake. Revisions addressed complexity by simplifying model input requirements, providing clear examples of input types, and reducing complex language. Wording was added to the results page to explain the interpretation of results. After these updates, feedback demonstrated that end users more clearly understood how to use and apply the model for cancer survivorship resource allocation tasks. Conclusions. A UCD approach identified challenges faced by end users in integrating a decision aid into their workflow. This approach created collaboration between modelers and end users, tailoring revisions to meet the needs of the users. Future models developed for individuals without a decision science background could leverage UCD to ensure the model meets the needs of the intended audience. HIGHLIGHTS: Model complexity and unclear purpose are 2 barriers that prevent lay users from integrating decision science tools into their workflow.Modelers could integrate the user-centered design framework when developing a model for lay users to reduce complexity and ensure the model meets the needs of the users.

At its October 2022 meeting, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices* (ACIP) approved the Recommended Adult Immunization Schedule for Ages 19 Years or Older, United States, 2023. The 2023 adult immunization schedule summarizes ACIP recommendations, including several changes to the cover page, tables, notes, and appendix from the 2022 immunization schedule.(†) This schedule can be found on the CDC immunization schedule website (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules). Health care providers are advised to use the cover page, tables, notes, and appendix together to determine recommended vaccinations for patient populations. This adult immunization schedule is recommended by ACIP (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip) and approved by CDC (https://www.cdc.gov), the American College of Physicians (https://www.acponline.org), the American Academy of Family Physicians (https://www.aafp.org), the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (https://www.acog.org), the American College of Nurse-Midwives (https://www.midwife.org), the American Academy of Physician Associates (https://www.aapa.org), the American Pharmacists Association (https://www.pharmacist.com), and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (https://shea-online.org).

In October 2022, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted to approve the Recommended Adult Immunization Schedule for Ages 19 Years or Older, United States, 2023. The 2023 adult immunization schedule, available at www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/imz/adult.html, summarizes ACIP recommendations in the cover page, tables, notes, and appendix (Figure). The full ACIP recommendations for each vaccine are available at www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/index.html. The 2023 schedule has also been approved by the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and by the American College of Physicians (www.acponline.org), the American Academy of Family Physicians (www.aafp.org), the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (www.acog.org), the American College of Nurse-Midwives (www.midwife.org), the American Academy of Physician Associates (www.aapa.org), the American Pharmacists Association (www.pharmacist.com), and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (www.shea-online.org).

At its October 2022 meeting, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices* (ACIP) approved the Recommended Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule for Ages 18 Years or Younger, United States, 2023. The 2023 child and adolescent immunization schedule, available on the CDC immunization schedule website (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules), summarizes ACIP recommendations, including several changes from the 2022 immunization schedule(†) on the cover page, tables, notes, and appendix. Health care providers are advised to use the tables, notes, and appendix together to determine recommended vaccinations for patient populations. This immunization schedule is recommended by ACIP (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip) and approved by CDC (https://www.cdc.gov), the American Academy of Pediatrics (https://www.aap.org), the American Academy of Family Physicians (https://www.aafp.org), the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (http://www.acog.org), the American College of Nurse-Midwives (https://www.midwife.org), the American Academy of Physician Associates (https://www.aapa.org), and the National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners (https://www.napnap.org).

OBJECTIVE: Treatment for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is highly effective; however, people who inject drugs (PWID), the population most affected by HCV, may encounter barriers to treatment. We examined the cascade of care for HCV infection among young adult PWID in northern New Mexico, to help identify gaps and opportunities for HCV treatment intervention. METHODS: Young adults (aged 18-29 y) who self-reported injection drug use in the past 90 days were tested for HCV antibodies (anti-HCV) and HCV RNA. We asked participants with detectable RNA to participate in an HCV education session, prior to a referral to a local health care provider for treatment follow-up, and to return for follow-up HCV testing quarterly for 1 year. We measured the cascade of care milestones ranging from the start of screening to achievement of sustained virologic response (SVR). RESULTS: Among 238 participants, the median age was 26 years and 133 (55.9%) were men. Most (90.3%) identified as Hispanic. Of 109 RNA-positive participants included in the cascade of care assessment, 84 (77.1%) received their results, 82 (75.2%) participated in the HCV education session, 61 (56.0%) were linked to care through a medical appointment, 27 (24.8%) attended the HCV treatment appointment, 13 (11.9%) attended their follow-up appointment, 6 (5.5%) initiated treatment, 3 (2.8%) completed treatment, and 1 (0.9%) achieved SVR. CONCLUSIONS: We observed a steeply declining level of engagement at each milestone step of the cascade of care after detection of HCV infection, resulting in a suboptimal level of HCV treatment and cure. Programs that can streamline testing and expand access to treatment from trusted health care providers are needed to improve the engagement of PWID in HCV treatment.

Little information is available on COVID-19 in Africa and virtually none is from humanitarian and more resource-constrained settings. This study characterizes hospitalized patients in the African humanitarian contexts of Juba, South Sudan and North and South Kivu in Eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo. This observational cohort was conducted between December 2020 and June 2021. Patients presenting for care at five facilities or referred from home-based care by mobile medical teams were eligible for enrollment and followed until death or recovery. Disease progression was characterized for hospitalized patients using survival analysis and mixed effects regression model to estimate survival odds for patient characteristics and treatments received. 144 COVID-19 cases enrolled as hospitalized patients were followed to recovery/death. The observed mortality proportion among hospitalized patients was 16.7% (CI: 11.2-23.3%); mortality was three times higher in South Sudan, where patients presented later after symptom onset and in worse conditions. Age and diabetes history were the only patient characteristics associated with decreased survival; clinical status indicators associated with decreased survival included fever, low oxygen level, elevated respiratory and pulse rates. The only therapy associated with survival was non-invasive oxygen; invasive oxygen therapies and other specialized treatments were rarely received. Improving availability of oxygen monitoring and proven COVID-19 therapies in humanitarian and resource-poor settings is critical for health equity. Customizing training to reflect availability of specific medications, therapies and operational constraints is particularly important given the range of challenges faced by providers in these settings.

An author's name was misspelled in the byline on page 1420. “Keri N. Atlhoff” should read “Keri N. Althoff.” The error has been corrected in the published article.

IMPORTANCE: Pregnant people are at high risk for severe COVID-19 but were excluded from mRNA vaccine trials; data on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) are needed. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the estimated effectiveness of mRNA vaccination against medically attended COVID-19 among pregnant people during Delta and Omicron predominance. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This test-negative, case-control study was conducted from June 2021 to June 2022 in a network of 306 hospitals and 164 emergency department and urgent care (ED/UC) facilities across 10 US states, including 4517 ED/UC encounters and 975 hospitalizations among pregnant people with COVID-19-like illness (CLI) who underwent SARS-CoV-2 molecular testing. EXPOSURES: Two doses (14-149 and ≥150 days prior) and 3 doses (7-119 and ≥120 days prior) of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine (≥1 dose received during pregnancy) vs unvaccinated. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Estimated VE against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19-associated ED/UC encounter or hospitalization, based on the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for prior vaccination; VE was calculated as (1 - aOR) × 100%. RESULTS: Among 4517 eligible CLI-associated ED/UC encounters and 975 hospitalizations, 885 (19.6%) and 334 (34.3%) were SARS-CoV-2 positive, respectively; the median (IQR) patient age was 28 (24-32) years and 31 (26-35) years, 537 (12.0%) and 118 (12.0%) were non-Hispanic Black and 1189 (26.0%) and 240 (25.0%) were Hispanic. During Delta predominance, the estimated VE against COVID-19-associated ED/UC encounters was 84% (95% CI, 69% to 92%) for 2 doses within 14 to 149 days, 75% (95% CI, 5% to 93%) for 2 doses 150 or more days prior, and 81% (95% CI, 30% to 95%) for 3 doses 7 to 119 days prior; estimated VE against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was 99% (95% CI, 96% to 100%), 96% (95% CI, 86% to 99%), and 97% (95% CI, 79% to 100%), respectively. During Omicron predominance, for ED/UC encounters, the estimated VE of 2 doses within 14 to 149 days, 2 doses 150 or more days, 3 doses within 7 to 119 days, and 3 doses 120 or more days prior was 3% (95% CI, -49% to 37%), 42% (95% CI, -16% to 72%), 79% (95% CI, 59% to 89%), and -124% (95% CI, -414% to 2%), respectively; for hospitalization, estimated VE was 86% (95% CI, 41% to 97%), 64% (95% CI, -102% to 93%), 86% (95% CI, 28% to 97%), and -53% (95% CI, -1254% to 83%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this study, maternal mRNA COVID-19 vaccination, including booster dose, was associated with protection against medically attended COVID-19. VE estimates were higher against COVID-19-associated hospitalization than ED/UC visits and lower against the Omicron variant than the Delta variant. Protection waned over time, particularly during Omicron predominance.