Households are a significant source of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, even during periods of low community-level spread. Comparing household transmission rates by SARS-CoV-2 variant may provide relevant information about current risks and prevention strategies. This investigation aimed to estimate differences in household transmission risk comparing the SARS-CoV-2 Delta and Omicron variants using data from contact tracing and interviews conducted from November 2021 through February 2022 in five U.S. public health jurisdictions (City of Chicago, Illinois; State of Connecticut; City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin; State of Maryland; and State of Utah). Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate attack rates and relative risks for index case and household contact characteristics. Data from 848 households, including 2,622 individuals (median household size = 3), were analyzed. Overall transmission risk was similar in households with Omicron (attack rate = 47.0%) compared to Delta variant (attack rate = 48.0%) circulation. In the multivariable model, a pattern of increased transmission risk was observed with increased time since a household contact's last COVID-19 vaccine dose in Delta households, although confidence intervals overlapped (0-3 months relative risk = 0.8, confidence interval: 0.5-1.2; 4-7 months relative risk = 1.3, 0.9-1.8; ≥8 months relative risk = 1.2, 0.7-1.8); no pattern was observed in Omicron households. Risk for household contacts of symptomatic index cases was twice that of household contacts of asymptomatic index cases (relative risk = 2.0, 95% confidence interval: 1.4-2.9), emphasizing the importance of symptom status, regardless of variant. Uniquely, this study adjusted risk estimates for several index case and household contact characteristics and demonstrates that few characteristics strongly dictate risk, likely reflecting the complexity of the biological and social factors which combine to impact SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

Drug-resistant shigellosis is increasing, particularly among men who have sex with men (MSM). During July-October 2022, an extended-spectrum beta-lactamase producing Shigella sonnei cluster of 9 patients was identified in Chicago, of whom 8 were MSM and 6 were festival attendees. The cluster also included 4 domestic travelers to Chicago. Sexual health care for MSM should include shigellosis diagnosis and prevention.

Tuberculosis (TB) is the leading cause of death among persons with HIV. In 2022, an estimated 167,000 TB-related deaths occurred globally among persons with HIV. TB preventive treatment (TPT) helps prevent TB disease and is recommended for persons at high risk for developing TB, including those with HIV. TPT, when taken with antiretroviral treatment (ART), can reduce TB-attributable deaths among persons with HIV. In 2018, the U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) program committed to offer one course of TPT to all eligible clients receiving ART. This analysis describes trends in TPT initiation and completion among PEPFAR-supported programs in 36 countries in Africa, Central and South America, and Asia during fiscal years (FYs) 2017-2023. Overall, TPT initiation rates peaked in FY19, a possible sign of programmatic saturation. TPT initiation among clients who had been on ART <6 months reached 59%, and overall completion rates up to 87% were reported. Approximately 13 million persons with HIV have completed TPT since FY17, but widespread adoption of shorter regimens, patient-centered approaches, and electronic medical record systems might be needed to ensure full TPT coverage. Through PEPFAR's partnership with national HIV programs, TPT has become the standard of care for persons with HIV.

Influenza is a respiratory illness that can result in serious outcomes, particularly among persons who are immunocompromised, aged <5 years or aged >65 years. Traditional influenza surveillance approaches rely upon syndromic surveillance of emergency departments and public health reporting from clinicians and laboratories. Wastewater surveillance infrastructure developed to monitor SARS-CoV-2 is being used for influenza surveillance in the Chicago area. The goal was to evaluate timeliness and correlations between influenza virus detected through wastewater surveillance and traditional influenza surveillance measures to assess utility of wastewater surveillance for influenza at the county level. Specifically, we measured correlations between influenza virus gene copies in wastewater samples and 1) the number of intensive care unit admissions associated with a diagnosis of influenza, 2) the percentage emergency department (ED) visits for influenza-like-illness, and 3) the percentage of ED visits with influenza diagnosis at discharge(2) in Cook County. Influenza concentrations in wastewater were strongly correlated with traditional influenza surveillance measures, particularly for catchment areas serving >100,000 residents. Wastewater indicators lagged traditional influenza surveillance measures by approximately one week when analyzed in cross-correlations. Although wastewater data lagged traditional influenza surveillance measures in this analysis, it can serve as a useful surveillance tool as a complement to syndromic surveillance; it is a form of influenza surveillance that does not rely on healthcare-seeking behavior or reporting by healthcare providers.

Understanding if persons with HIV (PWH) have a higher risk for SARS-CoV-2 reinfection may help tailor future COVID-19 public health guidance. To determine whether HIV infection was associated with increased risk for SARS-CoV-2 reinfection, we followed adult residents of Chicago, Illinois, USA, with SARS-CoV-2 longitudinally from their first reported infection through May 31, 2022. We matched SARS-CoV-2 laboratory data and COVID-19 vaccine administration data to Chicago's Enhanced HIV/AIDS Reporting System. Among 453,587 Chicago residents with SARS-CoV-2, a total of 5% experienced a SARS-CoV-2 reinfection, including 192/2,886 (7%) PWH and 23,642/450,701 (5%) persons without HIV. We observed higher SARS-CoV-2 reinfection incidence rates among PWH (66 [95% CI 57-77] cases/1,000 person-years) than PWOH (50 [95% CI 49-51] cases/1,000 person-years). PWH had a higher adjusted rate of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection (1.46, 95% CI 1.27-1.68) than those without HIV. PWH should follow the recommended COVID-19 vaccine schedule, including booster doses.

This article describes 22 cases of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection among over 14,000 fully vaccinated skilled nursing facility residents and staff. The majority of such infections were asymptomatic or were associated with mild symptoms, and there was no intra- facility spread related to these cases. This report suggests that postvaccination breakthrough infections are rare, but also confirms that vaccines do not offer 100% protection even in nonimmunosuppressed hosts, thus underscoring the need for studies of vaccine efficacy in immunosuppressed transplant recipients.

We investigated an mpox outbreak after a 2022 LGBTQ event in Chicago, Illinois, USA. Among case-patients, 38% had received 1 dose of mpox vaccine, none 2 doses; most reported sexual activity during the probable exposure period. Among other preventive measures, persons at risk should complete mpox vaccination 14 days before an event.

SARS-CoV-2 infections among vaccinated nursing home residents increased after the Omicron variant emerged. Data on booster dose effectiveness in this population are limited. During July 2021-March 2022, nursing home outbreaks in 11 US jurisdictions involving >3 infections within 14 days among residents who had received at least the primary COVID-19 vaccine(s) were monitored. Among 2,188 nursing homes, 1,247 outbreaks were reported in the periods of Delta (n = 356, 29%), mixed Delta/Omicron (n = 354, 28%), and Omicron (n = 536, 43%) predominance. During the Omicron-predominant period, the risk for infection within 14 days of an outbreak start was lower among boosted residents than among residents who had received the primary vaccine series alone (risk ratio [RR] 0.25, 95% CI 0.19-0.33). Once infected, boosted residents were at lower risk for all-cause hospitalization (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.40-0.49) and death (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.34-0.59) than primary vaccine-only residents.

Among nursing home outbreaks of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with ≥3 breakthrough infections when the predominant severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variant circulating was the SARS-CoV-2 δ (delta) variant, fully vaccinated residents were 28% less likely to be infected than were unvaccinated residents. Once infected, they had approximately half the risk for all-cause hospitalization and all-cause death compared with unvaccinated infected residents.

BACKGROUND: Human immunodeficiency virus drug resistance (HIVDR) can negatively impact the effectiveness of antiretroviral therapy (ART). We aimed to estimate the prevalence of pretreatment HIVDR (PDR) among ART initiators and the prevalence of viral load (VL) suppression and acquired HIVDR among individuals receiving ART for 12 ± 3 months (ADR12) and ≥48 months (ADR48) in El Salvador. METHODS: Nationally representative cross-sectional PDR, ADR12 and ADR48 surveys were conducted among adults with HIV from October 2018 to August 2019, following World Health Organization-recommended methods. Demographic and clinic data and blood specimens were collected. RESULTS: Two hundred sixty participants were enrolled in the PDR survey, 230 in ADR12 and 425 in ADR48. Twenty-seven percent (95% confidence interval [CI], 17.1%-39.9%) of ART initiators had PDR to efavirenz or nevirapine. The prevalence of VL suppression was 88.8% (95% CI, 83.1%-92.8%) in ADR12 and 80.5% (95% CI, 76.6%-84.0%) in ADR48 surveys. Among people with HIV receiving a first-line nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-based ART regimens and with unsuppressed VL, the prevalence of ADR to efavirenz or nevirapine was 72.0% (95% CI, 32.3%-93.3%) and 95.0% (68.5%-99.4%) in the ADR12 and ADR28 surveys, respectively. ADR12 to boosted protease inhibitors (PI/r) or integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs) was not observed. ADR48 was 1.3% (95% CI, 0.2%-9.6%) and 2.1% (0.3%-13.7%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Programmatic improvements in ART delivery are urgently needed in El Salvador to address the high levels of resistance to efavirenz or nevirapine among ART initiators and the low VL suppression prevalence among individuals on treatment.

Bars and restaurants are high-risk settings for SARS-CoV-2 transmission. A multistate outbreak after a bar gathering in Chicago, Illinois, USA, highlights Omicron variant transmissibility, the value of local genomic surveillance and interstate coordination, vaccination value, and the potential for rapid transmission of a novel variant across multiple states after 1 event.

The B.1.1.529 (Omicron) variant, first detected in November 2021, was responsible for a surge in U.S. infections with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, during December 2021-January 2022 (1). To investigate the effectiveness of prevention strategies in household settings, CDC partnered with four U.S. jurisdictions to describe Omicron household transmission during November 2021-February 2022. Persons with sequence-confirmed Omicron infection and their household contacts were interviewed. Omicron transmission occurred in 124 (67.8%) of 183 households. Among 431 household contacts, 227 were classified as having a case of COVID-19 (attack rate [AR] = 52.7%).(†) The ARs among household contacts of index patients who had received a COVID-19 booster dose, of fully vaccinated index patients who completed their COVID-19 primary series within the previous 5 months, and of unvaccinated index patients were 42.7% (47 of 110), 43.6% (17 of 39), and 63.9% (69 of 108), respectively. The AR was lower among household contacts of index patients who isolated (41.2%, 99 of 240) compared with those of index patients who did not isolate (67.5%, 112 of 166) (p-value <0.01). Similarly, the AR was lower among household contacts of index patients who ever wore a mask at home during their potentially infectious period (39.5%, 88 of 223) compared with those of index patients who never wore a mask at home (68.9%, 124 of 180) (p-value <0.01). Multicomponent COVID-19 prevention strategies, including up-to-date vaccination, isolation of infected persons, and mask use at home, are critical to reducing Omicron transmission in household settings.

During November 19-21, 2021, an indoor convention (event) in New York City (NYC), was attended by approximately 53,000 persons from 52 U.S. jurisdictions and 30 foreign countries. In-person registration for the event began on November 18, 2021. The venue was equipped with high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filtration, and attendees were required to wear a mask indoors and have documented receipt of at least 1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.* On December 2, 2021, the Minnesota Department of Health reported the first case of community-acquired COVID-19 in the United States caused by the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 (Omicron) variant in a person who had attended the event (1). CDC collaborated with state and local health departments to assess event-associated COVID-19 cases and potential exposures among U.S.-based attendees using data from COVID-19 surveillance systems and an anonymous online attendee survey. Among 34,541 attendees with available contact information, surveillance data identified test results for 4,560, including 119 (2.6%) persons from 16 jurisdictions with positive SARS-CoV-2 test results. Most (4,041 [95.2%]), survey respondents reported always wearing a mask while indoors at the event. Compared with test-negative respondents, test-positive respondents were more likely to report attending bars, karaoke, or nightclubs, and eating or drinking indoors near others for at least 15 minutes. Among 4,560 attendees who received testing, evidence of widespread transmission during the event was not identified. Genomic sequencing of 20 specimens identified the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant (AY.25 and AY.103 sublineages) in 15 (75%) cases, and the Omicron variant (BA.1 sublineage) in five (25%) cases. These findings reinforce the importance of implementing multiple, simultaneous prevention measures, such as ensuring up-to-date vaccination, mask use, physical distancing, and improved ventilation in limiting SARS-CoV-2 transmission, during large, indoor events.(†).

To prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, colleges and universities have implemented multiple strategies including testing, isolation, quarantine, contact tracing, masking, and vaccination. In April 2021, the Chicago Department of Public Health (CDPH) was notified of a large cluster of students with COVID-19 at an urban university after spring break. A total of 158 cases of COVID-19 were diagnosed among undergraduate students during March 15-May 3, 2021; the majority (114; 72.2%) lived in on-campus dormitories. CDPH evaluated the role of travel and social connections, as well as the potential impact of SARS-CoV-2 variants, on transmission. Among 140 infected students who were interviewed, 89 (63.6%) reported recent travel outside Chicago during spring break, and 57 (40.7%) reported indoor social exposures. At the time of the outbreak, undergraduate-aged persons were largely ineligible for vaccination in Chicago; only three of the students with COVID-19 (1.9%) were fully vaccinated. Whole genome sequencing (WGS) of 104 specimens revealed multiple distinct SARS-CoV-2 lineages, suggesting several nearly simultaneous introductions. Most specimens (66; 63.5%) were B.1.1.222, a lineage not widely detected in Chicago before or after this outbreak. These results demonstrate the potential for COVID-19 outbreaks on university campuses after widespread student travel during breaks, at the beginning of new school terms, and when students participate in indoor social gatherings. To prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission, colleges and universities should encourage COVID-19 vaccination; discourage unvaccinated students from travel, including during university breaks; implement serial COVID-19 screening among unvaccinated persons after university breaks; encourage masking; and implement universal serial testing for students based on community transmission levels.

Early studies suggest that COVID-19 vaccines protect against severe illness (1); however, postvaccination SARS-CoV-2 infections (i.e., breakthrough infections) can occur because COVID-19 vaccines do not offer 100% protection (2,3). Data evaluating the occurrence of breakthrough infections and impact of vaccination in decreasing transmission in congregate settings are limited. Skilled nursing facility (SNF) residents and staff members have been disproportionately affected by SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 (4,5), and were prioritized for COVID-19 vaccination (6,7). Starting December 28, 2020, all 78 Chicago-based SNFs began COVID-19 vaccination clinics over several weeks through the federal Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program (PPP).(†) In February 2021, through routine screening, the Chicago Department of Public Health (CDPH) identified a SARS-CoV-2 infection in a SNF resident >14 days after receipt of the second dose of a two-dose COVID-19 vaccination series. SARS-CoV-2 cases, vaccination status, and possible vaccine breakthrough infections were identified by matching facility reports with state case and vaccination registries. Among 627 persons with SARS-CoV-2 infection across 75 SNFs since vaccination clinics began, 22 SARS-CoV-2 infections were identified among 12 residents and 10 staff members across 15 facilities ≥14 days after receiving their second vaccine dose (i.e., breakthrough infections in fully vaccinated persons). Nearly two thirds (14 of 22; 64%) of persons with breakthrough infections were asymptomatic; two residents were hospitalized because of COVID-19, and one died. No facility-associated secondary transmission occurred. Although few SARS-CoV-2 infections in fully vaccinated persons were observed, these cases demonstrate the need for SNFs to follow recommended routine infection prevention and control practices and promote high vaccination coverage among SNF residents and staff members.

On September 8, 2020, the Chicago Department of Public Health (CDPH) was notified of a potential outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) at an exercise facility. COVID-19 cases were identified among 55 (68%) of 81 attendees of in-person classes held during August 24–September 1, 2020, including 49 (60%) cases confirmed by real-time reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing and six (7%) probable cases among attendees who had compatible symptoms but negative or no RT-PCR test results. Overall, 43 (78%) attendees with COVID-19 participated in multiple classes while potentially infectious.* Twenty-two (40%) attendees with COVID-19 attended on or after the day of symptom onset. Among 58 exercise class attendees who provided information on in-class behaviors, 44 (76%) reported infrequent mask use, including 32 of 38 (84%) attendees with COVID-19 and 12 of 20 (60%) without COVID-19. The increased respiratory exertion that occurs in the enclosed spaces of indoor exercise facilities facilitates transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, in these settings (1,2). To reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission in exercise facilities, employees and patrons should wear a mask, even during high-intensity activities when ≥6 ft apart. In addition, facilities should provide engineering and administrative controls including 1) improving ventilation; 2) enforcing consistent and correct mask use and physical distancing (maintaining ≥6 ft of distance between all persons and limiting physical contact, class size, and crowded spaces); 3) reminding infected employees and patrons to stay home and away from others for ≥10 days after symptom onset or, if asymptomatic, after a positive test result, as well as to observe quarantine guidance after close contact with a person with COVID-19 and while awaiting test results; and 4) increasing opportunities for hand hygiene. Conducting exercise activities entirely outdoors or virtually could further reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission risk.

Several reports have described the challenges associated with SARS-CoV-2 transmission among college students who live and socialize together and have ongoing exposure on and off campus (1-3). This investigation identified 17 COVID-19 cases among students on a university's men's and women's soccer teams who lived, trained, and socialized together. After commencement of training, numerous social events occurred. Little to no mask use or social distancing was reported at social events attended by symptomatic and asymptomatic students, which might have led to additional cases. Given the number of events during the investigation period, the precise event where transmission occurred cannot be determined and might have also occurred at an unreported event. Living in shared accommodations with persons who also participated in multiple social gatherings without complying with recommended prevention behaviors such as using masks might have compounded transmission risk within this group.

BACKGROUND: Pre-treatment HIV drug resistance (HIVDR) to NNRTIs has consistently increased in low-/middle-income countries during the last decade. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the prevalence of pre-treatment HIVDR and acquired HIVDR among persons living with HIV (PLHIV) on ART for 12+/-3 months (ADR12) and >/=48 months (ADR48) in Honduras. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A nationwide cross-sectional survey with a two-stage cluster sampling was conducted from October 2016 to November 2017. Twenty-two of 54 total ART clinics representing >90% of the national cohort of adults on ART were included. HIVDR was assessed for protease and reverse transcriptase Sanger sequences using the Stanford HIVdb tool. RESULTS: A total of 729 PLHIV were enrolled; 26.3% (95% CI 20.1%-33.5%) ART initiators reported prior exposure to antiretrovirals. Pre-treatment HIVDR prevalence was 26.9% (95% CI 20.2%-34.9%) to any antiretroviral and 25.9% (19.2%-33.9%) to NNRTIs. NNRTI pre-treatment HIVDR was higher in ART initiators with prior exposure to antiretrovirals (P = 0.001). Viral load (VL) suppression rate was 89.7% (85.1%-93.0%) in ADR12 and 67.9% (61.7%-73.6%) in ADR48. ADR12 to any drug among PLHIV with VL >/=1000 copies/mL was 86.1% (48.9%-97.6%); 67.1% (37.4%-87.5%) had HIVDR to both NNRTIs and NRTIs, and 3.8% (0.5%-25.2%) to PIs. ADR48 was 92.0% (86.8%-95.3%) to any drug; 78.1% (66.6%-86.5%) to both NNRTIs and NRTIs, and 7.3% (1.8%-25.1%) to PIs. CONCLUSIONS: The high prevalence of NNRTI pre-treatment HIVDR observed in Honduras warrants consideration of non-NNRTI-based first-line regimens for ART initiation. Programmatic improvements in HIVDR monitoring and adherence support may also be considered.

INTRODUCTION: A nationally representative HIV drug resistance (HIVDR) survey in Nicaragua was conducted to estimate the prevalence of pretreatment HIVDR (PDR) among antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiators and acquired HIVDR among people living with HIV (PLHIV) who had received ART for 12 +/- 3 months (ADR12) and >/=48 months (ADR48). METHODS: A nationwide cross-sectional survey with a two-stage cluster sampling was conducted from March to November 2016. Nineteen of 45 total ART clinics representing >90% of the national cohort of adults on ART were included. ART initiators were defined as PLHIV initiating or reinitiating first-line ART. HIVDR was assessed for protease, reverse transcriptase and integrase Sanger sequences using the Stanford HIVdb algorithm. Viral load (VL) suppression was defined as <1000 copies/mL. Results were weighted according to the survey design. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: A total of 638 participants were enrolled (PDR: 171; ADR12: 114; ADR48: 353). The proportion of ART initiators with prior exposure to antiretrovirals (ARVs) was 12.3% (95% CI: 5.8% to 24.3%). PDR prevalence to any drug was 23.4% (95% CI: 14.4% to 35.6%), and 19.3% (95% CI: 12.2% to 29.1%) to non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTI). NNRTI PDR was higher in ART initiators with previous ARV exposure compared with those with no exposure (76.2% vs. 11.0%, p < 0.001). Protease inhibitors (PI) and integrase strand transfer inhibitors PDR was not observed. VL suppression rate was 77.8% (95% CI: 67.1% to 85.8%) in ADR12 and 70.3% (95% CI: 66.7% to 73.8%) in ADR48. ADR12 prevalence to any drug among PLHIV without VL suppression was 85.1% (95% CI: 66.1% to 94.4%), 82.4% to NNRTI and 70.2% to nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI). ADR48 prevalence to any drug among PLHIV without VL suppression was 75.5% (95% CI: 63.5% to 84.5 %), 70.7% to NNRTI, 59.4% to NRTI and 4.6% to PI. CONCLUSIONS: Despite implementation challenges yielding low-precision HIVDR estimates, high rates of NNRTI PDR were observed in Nicaragua, suggesting consideration of non-NNRTI-based first-line regimens for ART initiators. Strengthened HIVDR monitoring, systematic VL testing, and improved ART adherence support are also warranted.

A wide range of research has promised new tools for forecasting infectious disease dynamics, but little of that research is currently being applied in practice, because tools do not address key public health needs, do not produce probabilistic forecasts, have not been evaluated on external data, or do not provide sufficient forecast skill to be useful. We developed an open collaborative forecasting challenge to assess probabilistic forecasts for seasonal epidemics of dengue, a major global public health problem. Sixteen teams used a variety of methods and data to generate forecasts for 3 epidemiological targets (peak incidence, the week of the peak, and total incidence) over 8 dengue seasons in Iquitos, Peru and San Juan, Puerto Rico. Forecast skill was highly variable across teams and targets. While numerous forecasts showed high skill for midseason situational awareness, early season skill was low, and skill was generally lowest for high incidence seasons, those for which forecasts would be most valuable. A comparison of modeling approaches revealed that average forecast skill was lower for models including biologically meaningful data and mechanisms and that both multimodel and multiteam ensemble forecasts consistently outperformed individual model forecasts. Leveraging these insights, data, and the forecasting framework will be critical to improve forecast skill and the application of forecasts in real time for epidemic preparedness and response. Moreover, key components of this project-integration with public health needs, a common forecasting framework, shared and standardized data, and open participation-can help advance infectious disease forecasting beyond dengue.

Since the 2007 Zika epidemic in the Micronesian state of Yap, it has been apparent that not all people infected with Zika virus (ZIKV) experience symptoms. However, the proportion of infections that result in symptoms remains unclear. Existing estimates have varied in their interpretation of symptoms due to other causes and the case definition used, and they have assumed perfect test sensitivity and specificity. Using a Bayesian model and data from ZIKV serosurveys in Yap (2007), French Polynesia (2013-2014), and Puerto Rico (2016), we found that assuming perfect sensitivity and specificity generally led to lower estimates of the symptomatic proportion. Incorporating reasonable assumptions for assay sensitivity and specificity, we estimated that 27% (95% credible interval (CrI): 15, 37) (Yap), 44% (95% CrI: 26, 66) (French Polynesia), and 50% (95% CrI: 34, 92) (Puerto Rico) of infections were symptomatic, with variation due to differences in study populations, study designs, and case definitions. The proportion of ZIKV infections causing symptoms is critical for surveillance system design and impact assessment. Here, we accounted for key uncertainties in existing seroprevalence data and found that estimates for the symptomatic proportion ranged from 27% to 50%, suggesting that while the majority of infections are asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic, symptomatic infections might be more common than previously estimated.

BACKGROUND: Countries with ongoing outbreaks of Zika virus have observed a notable rise in reported cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS), with mounting evidence of a causal link between Zika virus infection and the neurological syndrome. However, the risk of GBS following a Zika virus infection is not well characterized. In this work, we used data from 11 locations with publicly available data to estimate the risk of GBS following an infection with Zika virus, as well as the location-specific incidence of infection and the number of suspect GBS cases reported per infection. METHODS: We built a mathematical inference framework utilizing data from 11 locations that had reported suspect Zika and GBS cases, two with completed outbreaks prior to 2015 (French Polynesia and Yap) and nine others in the Americas covering partial outbreaks and where transmission was ongoing as of early 2017. RESULTS: We estimated that 2.0 (95% credible interval 0.5-4.5) reported GBS cases may occur per 10,000 Zika virus infections. The frequency of reported suspect Zika cases varied substantially and was highly uncertain, with a mean of 0.11 (95% credible interval 0.01-0.24) suspect cases reported per infection. CONCLUSIONS: These estimates can help efforts to prepare for the GBS cases that may occur during Zika epidemics and highlight the need to better understand the relationship between infection and the reported incidence of clinical disease.

Mosquito-borne diseases are increasingly being recognized as global threats, with increased air travel accelerating their occurrence in travelers and their spread to new locations. Since the early days of aviation, concern over the possible transportation of infected mosquitoes has led to recommendations to disinsect aircraft. Despite rare reports of mosquitoes, most likely transported on aircraft, infecting people far from endemics areas, it is unclear how important the role of incidentally transported mosquitoes is compared to the role of traveling humans. We used data for Plasmodium falciparum and dengue viruses to estimate the probability of introduction of these pathogens by mosquitoes and by humans via aircraft under ideal conditions. The probability of introduction of either pathogen by mosquitoes is low due to few mosquitoes being found on aircraft, low infection prevalence among mosquitoes, and high mortality. Even without disinsection, introduction via infected human travelers was far more likely than introduction by infected mosquitoes; more than 1000 times more likely for P. falciparum and more than 200 times more likely for dengue viruses. Even in the absence of disinsection and under the most favorable conditions, introduction of mosquito-borne pathogens via air travel is far more likely to occur as a result of an infected human travelling rather than the incidental transportation of infected mosquitoes. Thus, while disinsection may serve a role in preventing the spread of vector species and other invasive insects, it is unlikely to impact the spread of mosquito-borne pathogens.

To assist with public health preparedness activities, we estimated the number of expected cases of Zika virus in Puerto Rico and associated healthcare needs. Estimated annual incidence is 3.2-5.1 times the baseline, and long-term care needs are predicted to be 3-5 times greater than in years with no Zika virus.

Zika virus (ZIKV) infection during pregnancy has been linked to birth defects,1 yet the magnitude of risk remains uncertain. Investigators studying the 2013-2014 Zika outbreak in French Polynesia estimated that the risk of microcephaly due to ZIKV infection in the first trimester of pregnancy was 0.95% (95% confidence interval, 0.34 to 1.91), on the basis of eight microcephaly cases identified retrospectively in a population of approximately 270,000 people with an estimated rate of ZIKV infection of 66%.2 In the current outbreak, thousands of cases of infants with suspected microcephaly or other developmental anomalies of the central nervous system that may . . .

BACKGROUND: Antiretroviral therapy (ART) is crucial for controlling HIV-1 infection through wide-scale treatment as prevention and pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). Potent tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-containing regimens are increasingly used to treat and prevent HIV, although few data exist for frequency and risk factors of acquired drug resistance in regions hardest hit by the HIV pandemic. We aimed to do a global assessment of drug resistance after virological failure with first-line tenofovir-containing ART. METHODS: The TenoRes collaboration comprises adult HIV treatment cohorts and clinical trials of HIV drug resistance testing in Europe, Latin and North America, sub-Saharan Africa, and Asia. We extracted and harmonised data for patients undergoing genotypic resistance testing after virological failure with a first-line regimen containing tenofovir plus a cytosine analogue (lamivudine or emtricitabine) plus a non-nucleotide reverse-transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI; efavirenz or nevirapine). We used an individual participant-level meta-analysis and multiple logistic regression to identify covariates associated with drug resistance. Our primary outcome was tenofovir resistance, defined as presence of K65R/N or K70E/G/Q mutations in the reverse transcriptase (RT) gene. FINDINGS: We included 1926 patients from 36 countries with treatment failure between 1998 and 2015. Prevalence of tenofovir resistance was highest in sub-Saharan Africa (370/654 [57%]). Pre-ART CD4 cell count was the covariate most strongly associated with the development of tenofovir resistance (odds ratio [OR] 1.50, 95% CI 1.27-1.77 for CD4 cell count <100 cells per muL). Use of lamivudine versus emtricitabine increased the risk of tenofovir resistance across regions (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.20-1.82). Of 700 individuals with tenofovir resistance, 578 (83%) had cytosine analogue resistance (M184V/I mutation), 543 (78%) had major NNRTI resistance, and 457 (65%) had both. The mean plasma viral load at virological failure was similar in individuals with and without tenofovir resistance (145 700 copies per mL [SE 12 480] versus 133 900 copies per mL [SE 16 650; p=0.626]). INTERPRETATION: We recorded drug resistance in a high proportion of patients after virological failure on a tenofovir-containing first-line regimen across low-income and middle-income regions. Effective surveillance for transmission of drug resistance is crucial. FUNDING: The Wellcome Trust.

BACKGROUND: Regional and subtype-specific mutational patterns of HIV-1 transmitted drug resistance (TDR) are essential for informing first-line antiretroviral (ARV) therapy guidelines and designing diagnostic assays for use in regions where standard genotypic resistance testing is not affordable. We sought to understand the molecular epidemiology of TDR and to identify the HIV-1 drug-resistance mutations responsible for TDR in different regions and virus subtypes. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We reviewed all GenBank submissions of HIV-1 reverse transcriptase sequences with or without protease and identified 287 studies published between March 1, 2000, and December 31, 2013, with more than 25 recently or chronically infected ARV-naive individuals. These studies comprised 50,870 individuals from 111 countries. Each set of study sequences was analyzed for phylogenetic clustering and the presence of 93 surveillance drug-resistance mutations (SDRMs). The median overall TDR prevalence in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), south/southeast Asia (SSEA), upper-income Asian countries, Latin America/Caribbean, Europe, and North America was 2.8%, 2.9%, 5.6%, 7.6%, 9.4%, and 11.5%, respectively. In SSA, there was a yearly 1.09-fold (95% CI: 1.05-1.14) increase in odds of TDR since national ARV scale-up attributable to an increase in non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) resistance. The odds of NNRTI-associated TDR also increased in Latin America/Caribbean (odds ratio [OR] = 1.16; 95% CI: 1.06-1.25), North America (OR = 1.19; 95% CI: 1.12-1.26), Europe (OR = 1.07; 95% CI: 1.01-1.13), and upper-income Asian countries (OR = 1.33; 95% CI: 1.12-1.55). In SSEA, there was no significant change in the odds of TDR since national ARV scale-up (OR = 0.97; 95% CI: 0.92-1.02). An analysis limited to sequences with mixtures at less than 0.5% of their nucleotide positions-a proxy for recent infection-yielded trends comparable to those obtained using the complete dataset. Four NNRTI SDRMs-K101E, K103N, Y181C, and G190A-accounted for >80% of NNRTI-associated TDR in all regions and subtypes. Sixteen nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) SDRMs accounted for >69% of NRTI-associated TDR in all regions and subtypes. In SSA and SSEA, 89% of NNRTI SDRMs were associated with high-level resistance to nevirapine or efavirenz, whereas only 27% of NRTI SDRMs were associated with high-level resistance to zidovudine, lamivudine, tenofovir, or abacavir. Of 763 viruses with TDR in SSA and SSEA, 725 (95%) were genetically dissimilar; 38 (5%) formed 19 sequence pairs. Inherent limitations of this study are that some cohorts may not represent the broader regional population and that studies were heterogeneous with respect to duration of infection prior to sampling. CONCLUSIONS: Most TDR strains in SSA and SSEA arose independently, suggesting that ARV regimens with a high genetic barrier to resistance combined with improved patient adherence may mitigate TDR increases by reducing the generation of new ARV-resistant strains. A small number of NNRTI-resistance mutations were responsible for most cases of high-level resistance, suggesting that inexpensive point-mutation assays to detect these mutations may be useful for pre-therapy screening in regions with high levels of TDR. In the context of a public health approach to ARV therapy, a reliable point-of-care genotypic resistance test could identify which patients should receive standard first-line therapy and which should receive a protease-inhibitor-containing regimen.

The impact of seasonal influenza in patients with HIV infection has been debated in the medical literature and systematic clinical guidance on treatment and benefits of vaccination has yet to clearly emerge, in part owing to limited data. A significant excess mortality due to pneumonia or influenza has been found in this population [1], but a typical clinical presentation and a rate of secondary complications similar to those of non-HIV infected individuals have also been reported [2]. Without question, HAART has improved the clinical course of HIV-infected individuals and significantly decreased mortality [3], and hospitalization rates owing to cardiopulmonary disease [4]. Similar therapeutic benefit may be deduced from initial reports focused on HIV-infected persons with the pandemic influenza virus A (H1N1) during 2009. One such study involved 20 HIV patients on HAART (median CD4 cell count of 494 cells/μl; viral load of <400 copies/ml), the clinical presentation of influenza disease was not distinctive from that reported in HIV-negative individuals, and a favorable outcome was observed in the majority of individuals [5]. Another study included 56 individuals with controlled HIV infection (median CD4 cell count of 583 cells/μl; 95% had <50 copies/ml); HIV infection did not make influenza A (H1N1) more clinically severe and influenza A (H1N1) did not have a major effect on clinical measures of HIV infection [6]. In contrast, among patients with advanced HIV disease, H1N1 infection appeared more severe with clinical and radiographic symptoms masked by active opportunistic infections, thus delaying H1N1 antiviral treatment [7]. These initial studies clearly suggest that stage of HIV disease and accessibility of HAART must be considered when estimating the impact of influenza.