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

Potential acute and chronic human health effects associated with exposure to cyanobacteria and cyanotoxins, including respiratory symptoms, are an understudied public health concern. We examined the relationship between estimated cyanobacteria biomass and the frequency of respiratory-related hospital visits for residents living near Green Bay, Lake Michigan, Wisconsin during 2017-2019. Remote sensing data from the Cyanobacteria Assessment Network was used to approximate cyanobacteria exposure through creation of a metric for cyanobacteria chlorophyll-a (Chl(BS)). We obtained counts of hospital visits for asthma, wheezing, and allergic rhinitis from the Wisconsin Hospital Association for ZIP codes within a 3-mile radius of Green Bay. We analyzed weekly counts of hospital visits versus cyanobacteria, which was modelled as a continuous measure (Chl(BS)) or categorized according to World Health Organization's (WHO) alert levels using Poisson generalized linear models. Our data included 2743 individual hospital visits and 114 weeks of satellite derived cyanobacteria biomass indicator data. Peak values of Chl(BS) were observed between the months of June and October. Using the WHO alert levels, 60% of weeks were categorized as no risk, 19% as Vigilance Level, 15% as Alert Level 1, and 6% as Alert Level 2. In Poisson regression models adjusted for temperature, dewpoint, season, and year, there was no association between Chl(BS) and hospital visits (rate ratio [RR] [95% Confidence Interval (CI)] = 0.98 [0.77, 1.24]). There was also no consistent association between WHO alert level and hospital visits when adjusting for covariates (Vigilance Level: RR [95% CI] 0.88 [0.74, 1.05], Alert Level 1: 0.82 [0.67, 0.99], Alert Level 2: 0.98 [0.77, 1.24], compared to the reference no risk category). Our methodology and model provide a template for future studies that assess the association between cyanobacterial blooms and respiratory health.

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

SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, can spread rapidly in prisons and can be introduced by staff members and newly transferred incarcerated persons (1,2). On September 28, 2020, the Wisconsin Department of Health Services (DHS) contacted CDC to report a COVID-19 outbreak in a state prison (prison A). During October 6-20, a CDC team investigated the outbreak, which began with 12 cases detected from specimens collected during August 17-24 from incarcerated persons housed within the same unit, 10 of whom were transferred together on August 13 and under quarantine following prison intake procedures (intake quarantine). Potentially exposed persons within the unit began a 14-day group quarantine on August 25. However, quarantine was not restarted after quarantined persons were potentially exposed to incarcerated persons with COVID-19 who were moved to the unit. During the subsequent 8 weeks (August 14-October 22), 869 (79.4%) of 1,095 incarcerated persons and 69 (22.6%) of 305 staff members at prison A received positive test results for SARS-CoV-2. Whole genome sequencing (WGS) of specimens from 172 cases among incarcerated persons showed that all clustered in the same lineage; this finding, along with others, demonstrated that facility spread originated with the transferred cohort. To effectively implement a cohorted quarantine, which is a harm reduction strategy for correctional settings with limited space, CDC's interim guidance recommendation is to serial test cohorts, restarting the 14-day quarantine period when a new case is identified (3). Implementing more effective intake quarantine procedures and available mitigation measures, including vaccination, among incarcerated persons is important to controlling transmission in prisons. Understanding and addressing the challenges faced by correctional facilities to implement medical isolation and quarantine can help reduce and prevent outbreaks.

The importance of hemoglobin A2 (HbA2) as an indicator of the presence of beta-thalassemia was established many years ago. However, clinical application of recommended HbA2 cut off values is often hampered due to poor equivalence of HbA2 results among methods and laboratories. Thus, the IFCC Standardization program for HbA2 was initiated in 2004 with the goal of achieving a complete reference system for this measurand. HbA2 standardization efforts are still in progress, including the development of a higher-order HbA2 reference measurement procedure and the preparation of a certified reference material in collaboration with the IRMM. Here, we review the past, present and future of HbA2 standardization and describe the current status of HbA2 testing.

The fundamental goal of this paper is to describe, define and analyze the components of the risk characterization process for occupational exposures. Current methods are described for the probabilistic characterization of exposure, including newer techniques that have increasing applications for assessing data from occupational exposure scenarios. In addition, since the probability of health effects reflects variability in the exposure estimate as well as the dose-response curve - the integrated considerations of variability surrounding both components of the risk characterization provide greater information to the occupational hygienist. Probabilistic tools provide a more informed view of exposure as compared to use of discrete point estimates for these inputs to the risk characterization process. Active use of such tools for exposure and risk assessment will lead to a scientifically supported worker health protection program. Understanding the bases for an occupational risk assessment, focusing on important sources of variability and uncertainty enables characterizing occupational risk in terms of a probability - rather than a binary decision of acceptable risk or unacceptable risk. A critical review of existing methods highlights several conclusions: 1.) exposure estimates and the dose-response are impacted by both variability and uncertainty and a well-developed risk characterization reflects and communicates this consideration, 2.) occupational risk is probabilistic in nature and most accurately considered as a distribution, not a point estimate, 3.) occupational hygienists have a variety of tools available to incorporate concepts of risk characterization into occupational health and practice.

Conducting research to identify modifiable risk factors for birth defects is difficult for a variety of reasons. While some challenges are familiar to researchers across many disciplines, the confluence of issues affecting birth defects research may not be well understood by those outside of the field. This article describes several methodological challenges to the study of birth defects and ways these challenges might be addressed: (1) ascertainment, definition and classification of birth defects; (2) exposure assessment on modifiable risk factors; (3) analytical challenges related to small numbers and multiple statistical tests; (4) the role of genetics, including the collection of specimens and analysis of genetic data; and (5) challenges in translating research and demonstrating public health impact. Understanding these issues is important for researchers planning studies, reviewers evaluating the scientific merit of results from these studies, and consumers of the research, including fellow researchers, policy makers, health care providers, and families.

BACKGROUND: Cancer mortality statistics, an important indicator for monitoring cancer burden, are traditionally restricted to instances when cancer is determined to be the underlying cause of death (UCD) based on information recorded on standard certificates of death. This study's objective was to determine the impact of using multiple causes of death codes to compute site-specific cancer mortality statistics. METHODS: The state cancer registries of California, Colorado and Idaho provided linked cancer registry and death certificate data for individuals who died between 2002 and 2004, had at least one cancer listed on their death certificate and were diagnosed with cancer between 1993 and 2004. These linked data were used to calculate the site-specific proportion of cancers not selected as the UCD (non-UCD) among all cancer-related deaths (any mention on the death certificate). In addition, the retrospective concordance between the death certificate and the population-based cancer registry, measured as confirmations rates, was calculated for deaths with cancer as the UCD, as a non-UCD, and for any mention. RESULTS: Overall, non-UCD deaths comprised 9.5 percent of total deaths; 11 of the 79 cancer sites had proportions greater than 3 standard deviations from 9.5 percent. The confirmation rates for UCD and for any mention did not differ significantly for any of the cancer sites. CONCLUSION AND IMPACT: The site-specific variation in proportions and rates suggests that for a few cancer sites, death rates might be computed for both UCD and any mention of the cancer site on the death certificate. Nevertheless, this study provides evidence that, in general, restricting to UCD deaths will not under report cancer mortality statistics.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We developed recommendations for antidote stocking at hospitals that provide emergency care. METHODS: An expert panel representing diverse perspectives (clinical pharmacology, clinical toxicology, critical care medicine, clinical pharmacy, emergency medicine, internal medicine, pediatrics, poison centers, pulmonary medicine, and hospital accreditation) was formed to create recommendations for antidote stocking. Using a standardized summary of the medical literature, the primary reviewer for each antidote proposed guidelines for antidote stocking to the full panel. The panel used a formal iterative process to reach their recommendation for the quantity of an antidote that should be stocked and the acceptable period for delivery of each antidote. RESULTS: The panel recommended consideration of 24 antidotes for stocking. The panel recommended that 12 of the antidotes be available for immediate administration on patient arrival. In most hospitals, this period requires that the antidote be stocked in the emergency department. Another 9 antidotes were recommended for availability within 1 hour of the decision to administer, allowing the antidote to be stocked in the hospital pharmacy if the hospital has a mechanism for prompt delivery of antidotes. The panel identified additional antidotes that should be stocked by the hospital but are not usually needed within the first hour of treatment. The panel recommended that each hospital perform a formal antidote hazard vulnerability assessment to determine the need for antidote stocking in that hospital. CONCLUSION: The antidote expert recommendations provide a tool to be used in creating practices for appropriate and adequate antidote stocking in hospitals that provide emergency care.