OBJECTIVE: Resilience of the healthcare system has been described as the ability to absorb, adapt, and respond to stress while maintaining the provision of safe patient care. We quantified the impact that stressors associated with the COVID-19 pandemic had on patient safety, as measured by central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Healthcare Safety Network. DESIGN: Acute care hospitals were mandated to report markers of resource availability (staffing and hospital occupancy with COVID-19 inpatients) to the federal government between July 2020 and June 2021. These data were used with community levels of COVID-19 to develop a statistical model to assess factors influencing rates of CLABSIs among inpatients during the pandemic. RESULTS: After risk adjustment for hospital characteristics, measured stressors were associated with increased CLABSIs. Staff shortages for more than 10% of days per month were associated with a statistically significant increase of 2 CLABSIs per 10,000 central line days versus hospitals reporting staff shortages of less than 10% of days per month. CLABSIs increased with a higher inpatient COVID-19 occupancy rate; when COVID-19 occupancy was 20% or more, there were 5 more CLABSIs per 10,000 central line days versus the referent (less than 5%). CONCLUSIONS: Reporting of data pertaining to hospital operations during the COVID-19 pandemic afforded an opportunity to evaluate resilience of US hospitals. We demonstrate how the stressors of staffing shortages and high numbers of patients with COVID-19 negatively impacted patient safety, demonstrating poor resilience. Understanding stress in hospitals may allow for the development of policies that support resilience and drive safe care.

To help achieve the initial goal of providing universal COVID-19 vaccine access to approximately 258 million adults in 62 US jurisdictions, the federal government launched the Federal Retail Pharmacy Program (FRPP) on February 11, 2021. We describe FRPP's collaboration among the federal government, US jurisdictions, federal entity partners, and 21 national chain and independent pharmacy networks to provide large-scale access to COVID-19 vaccines, particularly in communities disproportionately affected by COVID-19 (eg, people aged ≥65 years, people from racial and ethnic minority groups). FRPP initially provided 10 000 vaccination sites for people to access COVID-19 vaccines, which was increased to >35 000 vaccination sites by May 2021 and sustained through January 31, 2022. From February 11, 2021, through January 31, 2022, FRPP vaccination sites received 293 million doses and administered 219 million doses, representing 45% of all COVID-19 immunizations provided nationwide (38% of all first doses, 72% of all booster doses). This unprecedented public-private partnership allowed the federal government to rapidly adapt and scale up an equitable vaccination program to reach adults, later expanding access to vaccine-eligible children, during the COVID-19 pandemic. As the largest federal COVID-19 vaccination program, FRPP exemplifies how public-private partnerships can expand access to immunizations during a public health emergency. Pharmacies can help meet critical national public health goals by serving as convenient access points for sustained health services. Lessons learned from this effort-including the importance of strong coordination and communication, efficient reporting systems and data quality, and increasing access to and demand for vaccine, among others-may help improve future immunization programs and support health system resiliency, emphasizing community-level access and health equity during public health emergencies.

Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the respiratory disease caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), was first identified in Wuhan, China and has since become pandemic. As part of initial response activities in the United States, enhanced contact investigations were conducted to enable early identification and isolation of additional cases and to learn more about risk factors for transmission.Methods Close contacts of nine early travel-related cases in the United States were identified. Close contacts meeting criteria for active monitoring were followed, and selected individuals were targeted for collection of additional exposure details and respiratory samples. Respiratory samples were tested for SARS-CoV-2 by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Results There were 404 close contacts who underwent active monitoring in the response jurisdictions; 338 had at least basic exposure data, of whom 159 had ≥1 set of respiratory samples collected and tested. Across all known close contacts under monitoring, two additional cases were identified; both secondary cases were in spouses of travel-associated case patients. The secondary attack rate among household members, all of whom had ≥1 respiratory sample tested, was 13% (95% CI: 4 – 38%).Conclusions The enhanced contact tracing investigations undertaken around nine early travel-related cases of COVID-19 in the United States identified two cases of secondary transmission, both spouses. Rapid detection and isolation of the travel-associated case patients, enabled by public awareness of COVID-19 among travelers from China, may have mitigated transmission risk among close contacts of these cases.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNo external funding was sought or received.Author 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.YesData may be available upon reasonable request.

On October 29, 2021, the Pfizer-BioNTech pediatric COVID-19 vaccine received Emergency Use Authorization for children aged 5-11 years in the United States.() For a successful immunization program, both access to and uptake of the vaccine are needed. Fifteen million doses were initially made available to pediatric providers to ensure the broadest possible access for the estimated 28 million eligible children aged 5-11 years, especially those in high social vulnerability index (SVI)() communities. Initial supply was strategically distributed to maximize vaccination opportunities for U.S. children aged 5-11 years. COVID-19 vaccination coverage among persons aged 12-17 years has lagged (1), and vaccine confidence has been identified as a concern among parents and caregivers (2). Therefore, COVID-19 provider access and early vaccination coverage among children aged 5-11 years in high and low SVI communities were examined during November 1, 2021-January 18, 2022. As of November 29, 2021 (4 weeks after program launch), 38,732 providers were enrolled, and 92% of U.S. children aged 5-11 years lived within 5 miles of an active provider. As of January 18, 2022 (11 weeks after program launch), 39,786 providers had administered 13.3 million doses. First dose coverage at 4 weeks after launch was 15.0% (10.5% and 17.5% in high and low SVI areas, respectively; rate ratio [RR]=0.68; 95% CI=0.60-0.78), and at 11 weeks was 27.7% (21.2% and 29.0% in high and low SVI areas, respectively; RR=0.76; 95% CI=0.68-0.84). Overall series completion at 11 weeks after launch was 19.1% (13.7% and 21.7% in high and low SVI areas, respectively; RR=0.67; 95% CI=0.58-0.77). Pharmacies administered 46.4% of doses to this age group, including 48.7% of doses in high SVI areas and 44.4% in low SVI areas. Although COVID-19 vaccination coverage rates were low, particularly in high SVI areas, first dose coverage improved over time. Additional outreach is critical, especially in high SVI areas, to improve vaccine confidence and increase coverage rates among children aged 5-11 years.

Population-based analyses of COVID-19 data, by race and ethnicity can identify and monitor disparities in COVID-19 outcomes and vaccination coverage. CDC recommends that information about race and ethnicity be collected to identify disparities and ensure equitable access to protective measures such as vaccines; however, this information is often missing in COVID-19 data reported to CDC. Baseline data collection requirements of the Office of Management and Budget's Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity (Statistical Policy Directive No. 15) include two ethnicity categories and a minimum of five race categories (1). Using available COVID-19 case and vaccination data, CDC compared the current method for grouping persons by race and ethnicity, which prioritizes ethnicity (in alignment with the policy directive), with two alternative methods (methods A and B) that used race information when ethnicity information was missing. Method A assumed non-Hispanic ethnicity when ethnicity data were unknown or missing and used the same population groupings (denominators) for rate calculations as the current method (Hispanic persons for the Hispanic group and race category and non-Hispanic persons for the different racial groups). Method B grouped persons into ethnicity and race categories that are not mutually exclusive, unlike the current method and method A. Denominators for rate calculations using method B were Hispanic persons for the Hispanic group and persons of Hispanic or non-Hispanic ethnicity for the different racial groups. Compared with the current method, the alternative methods resulted in higher counts of COVID-19 cases and fully vaccinated persons across race categories (American Indian or Alaska Native [AI/AN], Asian, Black or African American [Black], Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander [NH/PI], and White persons). When method B was used, the largest relative increase in cases (58.5%) was among AI/AN persons and the largest relative increase in the number of those fully vaccinated persons was among NH/PI persons (51.6%). Compared with the current method, method A resulted in higher cumulative incidence and vaccination coverage rates for the five racial groups. Method B resulted in decreasing cumulative incidence rates for two groups (AI/AN and NH/PI persons) and decreasing cumulative vaccination coverage rates for AI/AN persons. The rate ratio for having a case of COVID-19 by racial and ethnic group compared with that for White persons varied by method but was <1 for Asian persons and >1 for other groups across all three methods. The likelihood of being fully vaccinated was highest among NH/PI persons across all three methods. This analysis demonstrates that alternative methods for analyzing race and ethnicity data when data are incomplete can lead to different conclusions about disparities. These methods have limitations, however, and warrant further examination of potential bias and consultation with experts to identify additional methods for analyzing and tracking disparities when race and ethnicity data are incomplete.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the respiratory disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), was first identified in Wuhan, China and has since become pandemic. In response to the first cases identified in the United States, close contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases were investigated to enable early identification and isolation of additional cases and to learn more about risk factors for transmission. Close contacts of nine early travel-related cases in the United States were identified and monitored daily for development of symptoms (active monitoring). Selected close contacts (including those with exposures categorized as higher risk) were targeted for collection of additional exposure information and respiratory samples. Respiratory samples were tested for SARS-CoV-2 by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Four hundred four close contacts were actively monitored in the jurisdictions that managed the travel-related cases. Three hundred thirty-eight of the 404 close contacts provided at least basic exposure information, of whom 159 close contacts had ≥1 set of respiratory samples collected and tested. Across all actively monitored close contacts, two additional symptomatic COVID-19 cases (i.e., secondary cases) were identified; both secondary cases were in spouses of travel-associated case patients. When considering only household members, all of whom had ≥1 respiratory sample tested for SARS-CoV-2, the secondary attack rate (i.e., the number of secondary cases as a proportion of total close contacts) was 13% (95% CI: 4-38%). The results from these contact tracing investigations suggest that household members, especially significant others, of COVID-19 cases are at highest risk of becoming infected. The importance of personal protective equipment for healthcare workers is also underlined. Isolation of persons with COVID-19, in combination with quarantine of exposed close contacts and practice of everyday preventive behaviors, is important to mitigate spread of COVID-19.

We describe the contact investigation for an early confirmed case of coronavirus disease (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), in the United States. Contacts of the case-patient were identified, actively monitored for symptoms, interviewed for a detailed exposure history, and tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection by real-time reverse transcription PCR (rRT-PCR) and ELISA. Fifty contacts were identified and 38 (76%) were interviewed, of whom 11 (29%) reported unprotected face-to-face interaction with the case-patient. Thirty-seven (74%) had respiratory specimens tested by rRT-PCR, and all tested negative. Twenty-three (46%) had ELISA performed on serum samples collected approximately 6 weeks after exposure, and none had detectable antibodies to SARS-CoV-2. Among contacts who were tested, no secondary transmission was identified in this investigation, despite unprotected close interactions with the infectious case-patient.

N95 respirators are the personal protective equipment most often used to control exposures to infections transmitted via the airborne route. Supplies of N95 respirators can become depleted during pandemics or when otherwise in high demand. In this paper, we offer strategies for optimizing supplies of N95 respirators in healthcare settings while maximizing the level of protection offered to healthcare personnel when there is limited supply in the United States during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The strategies are intended for use by professionals who manage respiratory protection programs, occupational health services, and infection prevention programs in healthcare facilities to protect healthcare personnel from job-related risks of exposure to infectious respiratory illnesses. Consultation with federal, state, and local public health officials is also important. We use the framework of surge capacity and the occupational health and safety hierarchy of controls approach to discuss specific engineering control, administrative control, and personal protective equipment measures that may help in optimizing N95 respirator supplies.

Data on the detailed clinical progression of COVID-19 in conjunction with epidemiological and virological characteristics are limited. In this case series, we describe the first 12 US patients confirmed to have COVID-19 from 20 January to 5 February 2020, including 4 patients described previously(1-3). Respiratory, stool, serum and urine specimens were submitted for SARS-CoV-2 real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) testing, viral culture and whole genome sequencing. Median age was 53 years (range: 21-68); 8 patients were male. Common symptoms at illness onset were cough (n = 8) and fever (n = 7). Patients had mild to moderately severe illness; seven were hospitalized and demonstrated clinical or laboratory signs of worsening during the second week of illness. No patients required mechanical ventilation and all recovered. All had SARS-CoV-2 RNA detected in respiratory specimens, typically for 2-3 weeks after illness onset. Lowest real-time PCR with reverse transcription cycle threshold values in the upper respiratory tract were often detected in the first week and SARS-CoV-2 was cultured from early respiratory specimens. These data provide insight into the natural history of SARS-CoV-2. Although infectiousness is unclear, highest viral RNA levels were identified in the first week of illness. Clinicians should anticipate that some patients may worsen in the second week of illness.

An outbreak of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) that began in Wuhan, China, has spread rapidly, with cases now confirmed in multiple countries. We report the first case of 2019-nCoV infection confirmed in the United States and describe the identification, diagnosis, clinical course, and management of the case, including the patient's initial mild symptoms at presentation with progression to pneumonia on day 9 of illness. This case highlights the importance of close coordination between clinicians and public health authorities at the local, state, and federal levels, as well as the need for rapid dissemination of clinical information related to the care of patients with this emerging infection.

Tailoring communicable disease preparedness and response strategies to unique population movement patterns between an outbreak area and neighboring countries can help limit the international spread of disease. Global recognition of the value of addressing community connectivity in preparedness and response, through field work and visualizing the identified movement patterns, is reflected in the World Health Organization's declaration on July 17, 2019, that the 10th Ebola virus disease (Ebola) outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) was a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (1). In March 2019, the Infectious Diseases Institute (IDI), Uganda, in collaboration with the Ministry of Health (MOH) Uganda and CDC, had previously identified areas at increased risk for Ebola importation by facilitating community engagement with participatory mapping to characterize cross-border population connectivity patterns. Multisectoral participants identified 31 locations and associated movement pathways with high levels of connectivity to the Ebola outbreak areas. They described a major shift in the movement pattern between Goma (DRC) and Kisoro (Uganda), mainly through Rwanda, when Rwanda closed the Cyanika ground crossing with Uganda. This closure led some travelers to use a potentially less secure route within DRC. District and national leadership used these results to bolster preparedness at identified points of entry and health care facilities and prioritized locations at high risk further into Uganda, especially markets and transportation hubs, for enhanced preparedness. Strategies to forecast, identify, and rapidly respond to the international spread of disease require adapting to complex, dynamic, multisectoral cross-border population movement, which can be influenced by border control and public health measures of neighboring countries.

BACKGROUND: Presenteeism, or working while ill, by healthcare personnel (HCP) experiencing influenza-like illness (ILI) puts patients and coworkers at risk. However, hospital policies and practices may not consistently facilitate HCP staying home when ill. OBJECTIVE AND METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods survey in March 2018 of Emerging Infections Network infectious diseases physicians, describing institutional experiences with and policies for HCP working with ILI. RESULTS: Of 715 physicians, 367 (51%) responded. Of 367, 135 (37%) were unaware of institutional policies. Of the remaining 232 respondents, 206 (89%) reported institutional policies regarding work restrictions for HCP with influenza or ILI, but only 145 (63%) said these were communicated at least annually. More than half of respondents (124, 53%) reported that adherence to work restrictions was not monitored or enforced. Work restrictions were most often not perceived to be enforced for physicians-in-training and attending physicians. Nearly all (223, 96%) reported that their facility tracked laboratory-confirmed influenza (LCI) in patients; 85 (37%) reported tracking ILI. For employees, 109 (47%) reported tracking of LCI and 53 (23%) reported tracking ILI. For independent physicians, not employed by the facility, 30 (13%) reported tracking LCI and 11 (5%) ILI. CONCLUSION: More than one-third of respondents were unaware of whether their institutions had policies to prevent HCP with ILI from working; among those with knowledge of institutional policies, dissemination, monitoring, and enforcement of these policies was highly variable. Improving communication about work-restriction policies, as well as monitoring and enforcement, may help prevent the spread of infections from HCP to patients.

Public Health Laboratories (PHLs) in Puerto Rico did not escape the devastation caused by Hurricane Maria. We implemented a quality management system (QMS) approach to systematically reestablish laboratory testing, after evaluating structural and functional damage. PHLs were inoperable immediately after the storm. Our QMS-based approach began in October 2017, ended in May 2018, and resulted in the reestablishment of 92% of baseline laboratory testing capacity. Here, we share lessons learned from the historic recovery of the largest United States' jurisdiction to lose its PHL capacity, and provide broadly applicable tools for other jurisdictions to enhance preparedness for public health emergencies.

During a pandemic caused by a novel strain of influenza virus, it is estimated that more than 68 million people in the United States may seek acute medical care.1-3 Providing protection for healthcare personnel who care for patients is essential to ensure continuity of healthcare services during a public health emergency, including a pandemic.4 However, at the onset of a pandemic, a well-matched vaccine may not be available, and limited supplies of antiviral medications will likely be reserved primarily for treatment of ill patients, instead of prophylaxis. While a hierarchy of infection prevention measures will be widely used, surges of infectious patients may leave many healthcare personnel to use respiratory protective devices (RPDs) as a primary means of self-protection.5 To promote healthcare worker protection against occupational exposures, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has sought to understand the optimal roles of RPDs, such as N95 filtering facepiece respirators (N95) and surgical masks (sometimes called medical masks), in the context of a pandemic. Prioritization of RPD allocation to healthcare personnel to limit exposures will require critical deliberation as demand outstrips RPD availability. To arrive at a rational, equitable, and transparent allocation process, stakeholders should build on lessons learned about personal protective equipment (PPE) supply chain from recent outbreaks, such as the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, the 2013-14 H7N9 influenza outbreak, and the 2014 Ebola epidemic.6

Hurricane Maria made landfall in Puerto Rico on September 20, 2017, causing major damage to infrastructure and severely limiting access to potable water, electric power, transportation, and communications. Public services that were affected included operations of the Puerto Rico Department of Health (PRDOH), which provides critical laboratory testing and surveillance for diseases and other health hazards. PRDOH requested assistance from CDC for the restoration of laboratory infrastructure, surveillance capacity, and diagnostic testing for selected priority diseases, including influenza, rabies, leptospirosis, salmonellosis, and tuberculosis. PRDOH, CDC, and the Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL) collaborated to conduct rapid needs assessments and, with assistance from the CDC Foundation, implement a temporary transport system for shipping samples from Puerto Rico to the continental United States for surveillance and diagnostic and confirmatory testing. This report describes the initial laboratory emergency response and engagement efforts among federal, state, and nongovernmental partners to reestablish public health laboratory services severely affected by Hurricane Maria. The implementation of a sample transport system allowed Puerto Rico to reinitiate priority infectious disease surveillance and laboratory testing for patient and public health interventions, while awaiting the rebuilding and reinstatement of PRDOH laboratory services.

Response to sudden epidemic infectious disease emergencies can demand intensive and specialized training, as demonstrated in 2014 when Ebola virus disease (EVD) rapidly spread throughout West Africa. The medical community quickly became overwhelmed because of limited staff, supplies, and Ebola treatment units (ETUs). Because a mechanism to rapidly increase trained healthcare workers was needed, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention developed and implemented an introductory EVD safety training course to prepare US healthcare workers to work in West Africa ETUs. The goal was to teach principles and practices of safely providing patient care and was delivered through lectures, small-group breakout sessions, and practical exercises. During September 2014-March 2015, a total of 570 participants were trained during 16 course sessions. This course quickly increased the number of clinicians who could provide care in West Africa ETUs, showing the feasibility of rapidly developing and implementing training in response to a public health emergency.

Background: We performed a systematic review of foodborne botulism outbreaks to describe their clinical aspects and descriptive epidemiology in order to inform public health response strategies. Methods: We searched seven databases for reports of foodborne botulism outbreaks published in English from database inception to May 2015. We summarized descriptive characteristics and analyzed differences in exposure and toxin types by geographic region. We performed logistic regression to assess correlations between exposure source, implicated food, and outbreak size. Results: There were 197 outbreaks reported between 1920 and 2014. The median number of cases per outbreak was 3 (range 2-97). The majority of reported outbreaks (109; 55%) occurred in the United States. Toxin types A, B, E, and F were identified as the causative agent in 34%, 16%, 17%, and 1% of outbreaks, respectively. The median duration between exposure and symptom onset was approximately 1 day. The mean percentage of cases requiring mechanical ventilation per outbreak was 34%. Seventy percent of all outbreaks and 77% of small outbreaks (</=11 cases) originated from point source exposures, while commercial foods were significantly (odds ratio, 6.9; 95% confidence interval, 2.2-21.1) associated with large outbreaks (>/=12 cases). Conclusions: Toxin type A accounted for half of outbreaks, and these outbreaks had a higher proportion of patient ventilatory failure. Most outbreaks were due to point source exposures, while outbreaks due to commercial food were larger. For effective responses to foodborne botulism outbreaks, these findings demonstrate the need for timely outbreak investigation and hospital surge capacity.

The introduction of Zika virus into the Region of the Americas (Americas) and the subsequent increase in cases of congenital microcephaly resulted in activation of CDC's Emergency Operations Center on January 22, 2016, to ensure a coordinated response and timely dissemination of information, and led the World Health Organization to declare a Public Health Emergency of International Concern on February 1, 2016. During the past year, public health agencies and researchers worldwide have collaborated to protect pregnant women, inform clinicians and the public, and advance knowledge about Zika virus (Figure 1). This report summarizes 10 important contributions toward addressing the threat posed by Zika virus in 2016. To protect pregnant women and their fetuses and infants from the effects of Zika virus infection during pregnancy, public health activities must focus on preventing mosquito-borne transmission through vector control and personal protective practices, preventing sexual transmission by advising abstention from sex or consistent and correct use of condoms, and preventing unintended pregnancies by reducing barriers to access to highly effective reversible contraception.

Persons who died of Ebola virus disease at home in rural communities in Liberia and Guinea resulted in more secondary infections than persons admitted to Ebola treatment units. Intensified monitoring of contacts of persons who died of this disease in the community is an evidence-based approach to reduce virus transmission in rural communities.

CDC has updated its interim guidance for persons with possible Zika virus exposure who are planning to conceive and interim guidance to prevent transmission of Zika virus through sexual contact, now combined into a single document. Guidance for care for pregnant women with possible Zika virus exposure was previously published. Possible Zika virus exposure is defined as travel to or residence in an area of active Zika virus transmission (http://www.cdc.gov/zika/geo/index.html), or sex without a condom with a partner who traveled to or lived in an area of active transmission. Based on new though limited data, CDC now recommends that all men with possible Zika virus exposure who are considering attempting conception with their partner, regardless of symptom status, section sign wait to conceive until at least 6 months after symptom onset (if symptomatic) or last possible Zika virus exposure (if asymptomatic). Recommendations for women planning to conceive remain unchanged: women with possible Zika virus exposure are recommended to wait to conceive until at least 8 weeks after symptom onset (if symptomatic) or last possible Zika virus exposure (if asymptomatic). Couples with possible Zika virus exposure, who are not pregnant and do not plan to become pregnant, who want to minimize their risk for sexual transmission of Zika virus should use a condom or abstain from sex for the same periods for men and women described above. Women of reproductive age who have had or anticipate future Zika virus exposure who do not want to become pregnant should use the most effective contraceptive method that can be used correctly and consistently. These recommendations will be further updated when additional data become available.

CDC has updated its interim guidance for U.S. health care providers caring for pregnant women with possible Zika virus exposure, to include the emerging data indicating that Zika virus RNA can be detected for prolonged periods in some pregnant women. To increase the proportion of pregnant women with Zika virus infection who receive a definitive diagnosis, CDC recommends expanding real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) testing. Possible exposures to Zika virus include travel to or residence in an area with active Zika virus transmission, or sex* with a partner who has traveled to or resides in an area with active Zika virus transmission without using condoms or other barrier methods to prevent infection.(dagger) Testing recommendations for pregnant women with possible Zika virus exposure who report clinical illness consistent with Zika virus disease( section sign) (symptomatic pregnant women) are the same, regardless of their level of exposure (i.e., women with ongoing risk for possible exposure, including residence in or frequent travel to an area with active Zika virus transmission, as well as women living in areas without Zika virus transmission who travel to an area with active Zika virus transmission, or have unprotected sex with a partner who traveled to or resides in an area with active Zika virus transmission). Symptomatic pregnant women who are evaluated <2 weeks after symptom onset should receive serum and urine Zika virus rRT-PCR testing. Symptomatic pregnant women who are evaluated 2-12 weeks after symptom onset should first receive a Zika virus immunoglobulin (IgM) antibody test; if the IgM antibody test result is positive or equivocal, serum and urine rRT-PCR testing should be performed. Testing recommendations for pregnant women with possible Zika virus exposure who do not report clinical illness consistent with Zika virus disease (asymptomatic pregnant women) differ based on the circumstances of possible exposure. For asymptomatic pregnant women who live in areas without active Zika virus transmission and who are evaluated <2 weeks after last possible exposure, rRT-PCR testing should be performed. If the rRT-PCR result is negative, a Zika virus IgM antibody test should be performed 2-12 weeks after the exposure. Asymptomatic pregnant women who do not live in an area with active Zika virus transmission, who are first evaluated 2-12 weeks after their last possible exposure should first receive a Zika virus IgM antibody test; if the IgM antibody test result is positive or equivocal, serum and urine rRT-PCR should be performed. Asymptomatic pregnant women with ongoing risk for exposure to Zika virus should receive Zika virus IgM antibody testing as part of routine obstetric care during the first and second trimesters; immediate rRT-PCR testing should be performed when IgM antibody test results are positive or equivocal. This guidance also provides updated recommendations for the clinical management of pregnant women with confirmed or possible Zika virus infection. These recommendations will be updated when additional data become available.

BACKGROUND: Bacillus anthracis, the causative agent of anthrax, is a potential bioterrorism agent. Anthrax meningitis is a common manifestation ofB. anthracisinfection, has high mortality, and requires more aggressive treatment than anthrax without meningitis. Rapid identification and treatment of anthrax meningitis are essential for successful management of an anthrax mass casualty incident. METHODS: Three hundred six published reports from 1880 through 2013 met pre-defined inclusion criteria. We calculated descriptive statistics for abstracted cases and conducted multivariable regression on separate derivation and validation cohorts to identify clinical diagnostic and prognostic factors for anthrax meningitis. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-two of 363 (36%) cases with systemic anthrax met anthrax meningitis criteria. Severe headache, altered mental status, meningeal signs, and other neurological signs at presentation independently predicted meningitis in the derivation cohort and were tested as a four-item assessment tool for use during anthrax mass casualty incidents. Presence of any one factor on admission had a sensitivity for finding anthrax meningitis of 89% (83%) in the adult (pediatric) validation cohorts. Anthrax meningitis was unlikely in the absence of any of these signs or symptoms (LR-=0.12 [0.19] for adult [pediatric] cohorts), while presence of two or more made meningitis very likely (LR+=26.5 [30.0]). Survival of anthrax meningitis was predicted by treatment with a bactericidal agent (P=0.005) and use of multiple antimicrobials (P=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: We developed an evidence-based assessment tool for screening patients for meningitis during an anthrax mass casualty incident; its use could improve both patient outcomes and resource allocation in such an event.

The severe epidemic of Ebola virus disease in Liberia started in March 2014. On May 9, 2015, the World Health Organization declared Liberia free of Ebola, 42 days after safe burial of the last known case-patient. However, another 6 cases occurred during June-July; on September 3, 2015, the country was again declared free of Ebola. Liberia had by then reported 10,672 cases of Ebola and 4,808 deaths, 37.0% and 42.6%, respectively, of the 28,103 cases and 11,290 deaths reported from the 3 countries that were heavily affected at that time. Essential components of the response included government leadership and sense of urgency, coordinated international assistance, sound technical work, flexibility guided by epidemiologic data, transparency and effective communication, and efforts by communities themselves. Priorities after the epidemic include surveillance in case of resurgence, restoration of health services, infection control in healthcare settings, and strengthening of basic public health systems.

Concern about use of anthrax as a bioweapon prompted development of novel anthrax antitoxins for treatment. Clinical guidelines for the treatment of anthrax recommend antitoxin therapy in combination with intravenous antimicrobials; however, a large-scale or mass anthrax incident may exceed antitoxin availability and create a need for judicious antitoxin use. We conducted a systematic review of antitoxin treatment of inhalation anthrax in humans and experimental animals to inform antitoxin recommendations during a large-scale or mass anthrax incident. A comprehensive search of 11 databases and the FDA website was conducted to identify relevant animal studies and human reports: 28 animal studies and 3 human cases were identified. Antitoxin monotherapy at or shortly after symptom onset demonstrates increased survival compared to no treatment in animals. With early treatment, survival did not differ between antimicrobial monotherapy and antimicrobial-antitoxin therapy in nonhuman primates and rabbits. With delayed treatment, antitoxin-antimicrobial treatment increased rabbit survival. Among human cases, addition of antitoxin to combination antimicrobial treatment was associated with survival in 2 of the 3 cases treated. Despite the paucity of human data, limited animal data suggest that adjunctive antitoxin therapy may improve survival. Delayed treatment studies suggest improved survival with combined antitoxin-antimicrobial therapy, although a survival difference compared with antimicrobial therapy alone was not demonstrated statistically. In a mass anthrax incident with limited antitoxin supplies, antitoxin treatment of individuals who have not demonstrated a clinical benefit from antimicrobials, or those who present with more severe illness, may be warranted. Additional pathophysiology studies are needed, and a point-of-care assay correlating toxin levels with clinical status may provide important information to guide antitoxin use during a large-scale anthrax incident.

We measured the reproduction number before and after interventions were implemented to reduce Ebola transmission in 9 outbreaks in Liberia during 2014. We evaluated risk factors for secondary cases and the association between patient admission to an Ebola treatment unit (ETU) and survival. The reproduction number declined 94% from 1.7 (95% CI 1.1-2.6) to 0.1 (95% CI 0.02-0.6) after interventions began. The risk for secondary infections was 90% lower for patients admitted to an ETU (risk ratio 0.1, 95% CI 0.04-0.3) than for those who died in the community. The case-fatality rate was 68% (95% CI 60-74), and ETU admission was associated with a 50% reduction in death (hazard ratio 0.5, 95% CI 0.4-0.8). Isolation and treatment of Ebola patients had the dual benefit of interrupting community transmission and improving survival.

While influenza transmission is thought to occur primarily by droplet spread, the role of airborne spread remains uncertain. Understanding the beliefs and attitudes of infectious disease physicians regarding influenza transmission and respiratory and barrier protection preferences can provide insights into workplace decisions regarding respiratory protection planning. Physicians participating in the Infectious Diseases Society of America's Emerging Infections Network were queried in November 2013 to determine beliefs and attitudes on influenza transmission. A subset of physicians involved in their facility's respiratory protection decision making were queried about respirator and surgical mask choices under various pandemic scenarios; availability of, and challenges associated with, respirators in their facility; and protective strategies during disposable N95 shortages. The majority of 686 respondents (98%) believed influenza transmission occurs frequently or occasionally via droplets; 44% of respondents believed transmission occurs via small particles frequently (12%) or occasionally (32%). Among the subset of respondents involved in respiratory protection planning at their facility, over 90% preferred surgical masks during provision of non-aerosol-generating patient care for seasonal influenza. However, for the same type of care during an influenza pandemic, two-thirds of respondents opted for disposable N95 filtering facepiece respirators. In settings where filtering facepiece (disposable) N95 respirators were in short supply, preferred conservation strategies included extended use and reuse of disposable N95s. Use of reusable (elastomeric facepiece) respirator types was viewed less favorably. While respondents identified droplets as the primary mode of influenza transmission, during a high-severity pandemic scenario there was increased support for devices that reduced aerosol-based transmission. Use of potentially less familiar respirator types may partially relieve shortages of disposable N95s but also may require significant education efforts so that clinicians are aware of the characteristics of alternative personal protective equipment.

Following 42 days since the last Ebola virus disease (Ebola) patient was discharged from a Liberian Ebola treatment unit (ETU), September 3, 2015, marks the second time in a 4-month period that the World Health Organization (WHO) has declared Liberia free of Ebola virus transmission (1). The first confirmed Ebola cases in West Africa were identified in southeastern Guinea on March 23, 2014, and within 1 week, cases were identified and confirmed in Liberia (1). Since then, Liberia has reported 5,036 confirmed and probable Ebola cases and 4,808 Ebola-related deaths. The epidemic in Liberia peaked in late summer and early fall of 2014, when more than 200 confirmed and probable cases were reported each week .

BACKGROUND: To inform planning for an influenza pandemic, we estimated US demand for N95 filtering facepiece respirators (respirators) by healthcare and emergency services personnel and need for surgical masks by pandemic patients seeking care. METHODS: We used a spreadsheet-based model to estimate demand for 3 scenarios of respirator use: base case (usage approximately follows epidemic curve), intermediate demand (usage rises to epidemic peak and then remains constant), and maximum demand (all healthcare workers use respirators from pandemic onset). We assumed that in the base case scenario, up to 16 respirators would be required per day per intensive care unit patient and 8 per day per general ward patient. Outpatient healthcare workers and emergency services personnel would require 4 respirators per day. Patients would require 1.2 surgical masks per day. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Assuming that 20% to 30% of the population would become ill, 1.7 to 3.5 billion respirators would be needed in the base case scenario, 2.6 to 4.3 billion in the intermediate demand scenario, and up to 7.3 billion in the maximum demand scenario (for all scenarios, between 0.1 and 0.4 billion surgical masks would be required for patients). For pandemics with a lower attack rate and fewer cases (eg, 2009-like pandemic), the number of respirators needed would be higher because the pandemic would have longer duration. Providing these numbers of respirators and surgical masks represents a logistic challenge for US public health agencies. Public health officials must urgently consider alternative use strategies for respirators and surgical masks during a pandemic that may vary from current practices.

Over the span of a few weeks during July and August 2014, events in West Africa changed perceptions of Ebola virus disease (EVD) from an exotic tropical disease to a priority for global health security. We describe observations during that time of a field team from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and personnel of the Liberian Ministry of Health and Social Welfare. We outline the early epidemiology of EVD within Liberia, including the practical limitations on surveillance and the effect on the country's health care system, such as infections among health care workers. During this time, priorities included strengthening EVD surveillance; establishing safe settings for EVD patient care (and considering alternative isolation and care models when Ebola Treatment Units were overwhelmed); improving infection control practices; establishing an incident management system; and working with Liberian airport authorities to implement EVD screening of departing passengers.

On October 16, 2014, a woman aged 48 years traveled from Monrovia, Liberia, to the Kayah region of Rivercess County, a remote, resource-poor, and sparsely populated region of Liberia, and died on October 21 with symptoms compatible with Ebola virus disease (Ebola). She was buried in accordance with local tradition, which included grooming, touching, and kissing the body by family and other community members while it was being prepared for burial. During October 24-November 12, eight persons with probable and 13 with confirmed Ebola epidemiologically linked to the deceased woman had onset of symptoms. Nineteen of the 21 persons lived in five nearby villages in Kayah region; two, both with probable cases, lived in neighboring Grand Bassa County (Figure). Four of the confirmed cases in Kayah were linked by time and location, although the source case could not be determined because the patients had more than one exposure.