The extent to which semi-quantitative antibody levels confer protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection in populations with heterogenous immune histories is unclear. Two nested case-control studies were designed within the multisite HEROES/RECOVER prospective cohort of frontline workers to study the relationship between antibody levels and protection against first-time post-vaccination infection and reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 from December 2021 to January 2023. All participants submitted weekly nasal swabs for rRT-PCR testing and blood samples quarterly and following infection or vaccination. Cases of first-time post-vaccination infection following a third dose of monovalent (origin strain WA-1) mRNA vaccine (n = 613) and reinfection (n = 350) were 1:1 matched to controls based on timing of blood draw and other potential confounders. Conditional logistic regression models were fit to estimate infection risk reductions associated with 3-fold increases in end titers for receptor binding domain (RBD). In first-time post-vaccination and reinfection study samples, most were female (67%, 57%), non-Hispanic (82%, 68%), and without chronic conditions (65%, 65%). The odds of first-time post-vaccination infection were reduced by 21% (aOR = 0.79, 95% CI = [0.66-0.96]) for each 3-fold increase in RBD end titers. The odds of reinfection associated with a 3-fold increase in RBD end titers were reduced by 23% (aOR = 0.77, 95% CI = [0.65-0.92] for unvaccinated individuals and 58% (aOR = 0.42, 95% CI = [0.22-0.84]) for individuals with three mRNA vaccine doses following their first infection. Frontline workers with higher antibody levels following a third dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine were at reduced risk of SARS-CoV-2 during Omicron predominance. Among those with previous infections, the point estimates of risk reduction associated with antibody levels was greater for those with three vaccine doses compared to those who were unvaccinated.

To understand how COVID-19 vaccines impact infection risk in children <5 years, we assessed risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection from Sept 2022-April 2023 in three cohort studies. There was no difference in risk by vaccination status. While vaccines reduce severe disease, they may not reduce SARS-CoV-2 infections in young children.

BACKGROUND: While there is evidence that COVID-19 vaccination protects against development of post-COVID conditions (PCC) after severe infection data are limited on whether vaccination reduces the risk after cases of less-severe non-hospitalized COVID-19 disease with more recent SARS-CoV-2 variant viruses. This study assessed whether COVID-19 vaccination was protective against subsequent development of PCC in persons with predominantly mild initial infections during both Delta and Omicron variant predominance. METHODS: This study utilized a case-control design, nested within the HEROES-RECOVER cohort. Participants aged ≥18 years with PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection between 6/28/2021 and 9/14/2022 were surveyed for PCC, defined by symptoms lasting >1 month after initial infection Cases were participants self-reporting PCC and controls were participants that did not self-report PCC. The exposure was mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (2 or 3 monovalent doses) versus no COVID-19 vaccination. Logistic regression was used to compare the odds of PCC among vaccinated and unvaccinated persons; additional analyses evaluating PCC subtypes were also performed. RESULTS: A total of 936 participants with documented SARS-CoV-2 infection were included; of these 23.6% (221) reported PCC and 83.3% (779) were vaccinated. Participants who received a 3rd COVID-19 monovalent mRNA dose prior to infection had lower odds of PCC-related gastrointestinal, neurological, and other symptoms compared to unvaccinated participants (aOR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.16-0.85; aOR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.32-0.97; aOR:0.48; 95% CI: 0.25-0.91). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccination protected against development of PCC among persons with mild infection during both Delta and Omicron variant predominance, supporting vaccination as an important tool for PCC prevention.

BACKGROUND: Previous estimates of vaccine effectiveness (VE) against asymptomatic influenza virus infection based on seroconversion have varied widely and may be biased. We estimated 2022-2023 influenza VE against illness and asymptomatic infection in a prospective cohort. METHODS: In the HEROES-RECOVER cohort, adults at increased occupational risk of influenza exposure across 7 US sites provided weekly symptom reports and nasal swabs for reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) influenza testing. Laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections were classified as symptomatic (≥1 symptom) or asymptomatic during the week of testing. Participants reported demographic information and vaccination through surveys; most sites verified vaccination through medical record and immunization registry review. Person-time was calculated as days from the site-specific influenza season start (September-October 2022) through date of infection, study withdrawal, or season end (May 2023). We compared influenza incidence among vaccinated versus unvaccinated participants overall, by symptom status, and by influenza A subtype, using Cox proportional hazards regression adjusted for site and occupation. We estimated VE as (1 - adjusted hazard ratio) × 100%. RESULTS: In total, 269 of 3785 (7.1%) participants had laboratory-confirmed influenza, including 263 (98%) influenza A virus infections and 201 (75%) symptomatic illnesses. Incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza illness among vaccinated versus unvaccinated participants was 23.7 and 33.2 episodes per 100 000 person-days, respectively (VE: 38%; 95% CI: 15%-55%). Incidence of asymptomatic influenza virus infection was 8.0 versus 11.6 per 100 000 (VE: 13%; 95% CI: -47%, 49%). CONCLUSIONS: Vaccination reduced incidence of symptomatic but not asymptomatic influenza virus infection, suggesting that influenza vaccination attenuates progression from infection to illness.

This cohort study examines the association of reuse of N95 filtering facepiece respirators and N95 filtration efficiency. | eng

BACKGROUND: Immunogenicity studies suggest that recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV) may provide better protection against influenza than standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccines (SD IIV). This randomized trial evaluated the relative vaccine effectiveness (VE) and immunogenicity of RIV versus SD IIV in frontline workers and students aged 18-64 years. METHODS: Participants were randomized to receive RIV or SD IIV and followed for reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)-confirmed influenza during the 2022-2023 influenza season. Sera were collected from a subset of participants before and at 1 and 6 months postvaccination and tested by hemagglutination inhibition for A/H1N1, A/H3N2, B/Yamagata, and B/Victoria and against cell-grown vaccine reference viruses for A/H1N1 and A/H3N2. RESULTS: Overall, 3988 participants were enrolled and vaccinated (25% of the trial sample size goal); RT-PCR-confirmed influenza occurred in 20 of 1963 RIV recipients and 28 of 1964 SD IIV recipients. Relative VE was 29% (95% confidence interval [CI], -26% to 60%). In the immunogenicity substudy (n = 118), the geometric mean titer ratio (GMTR) comparing RIV to SD IIV at 1 month was 2.3 (95% CI, 1.4-3.7) for cell-grown A/H1N1, 2.1 (95% CI, 1.3-3.4) for cell-grown A/H3N2, 1.1 (95% CI, .7-1.6) for B/Victoria, and 1.4 (95% CI, .9-2.0) for B/Yamagata. At 6 months, GMTRs were >1 against A/H1N1, A/H3N2, and B/Yamagata. CONCLUSIONS: Relative VE of RIV compared to SD IIV did not reach statistical significance, but RIV elicited more robust humoral immune responses to 2 of 4 vaccine viruses at 1 month and 3 of 4 viruses at 6 months after vaccination, suggesting possible improved and sustained immune protection from RIV. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT05514002.

Hybrid immunity, as a result of infection and vaccination to SARS-CoV-2, has been well studied in adults but limited evidence is available in children. We evaluated the antibody responses to primary SARS-CoV-2 infection among vaccinated and unvaccinated children aged ≥ 5 years. METHODS: A longitudinal cohort study of children aged ≥ 5 was conducted during August 2021-August 2022, at sites in Arizona, Texas, Utah, and Florida. Children submitted weekly nasal swabs for PCR testing and provided sera 14-59 days after PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Antibodies were measured by ELISA against the receptor-binding domain (RBD) and S2 domain of ancestral Spike (WA1), in addition to Omicron (BA.2) RBD, following infection in children, with and without prior monovalent ancestral mRNA COVID-19 vaccination. RESULTS: Among the 257 participants aged 5 to 18 years, 166 (65%) had received at least two mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses ≥ 14 days prior to infection. Of these, 53 occurred during Delta predominance, with 37 (70%) unvaccinated at the time of infection. The remaining 204 infections occurred during Omicron predominance, with 53 (26%) participants unvaccinated. After adjusting for weight, age, symptomatic infection, and gender, significantly higher mean RBD AUC values were observed among the vaccinated group compared to the unvaccinated group for both WA1 and Omicron (p < 0.0001). A smaller percentage of vaccinated children reported fever during illness, with 55 (33%) reporting fever compared to 44 (48%) unvaccinated children reporting fever (p = 0.021). CONCLUSIONS: Children with vaccine-induced immunity at the time of SARS-CoV-2 infection had higher antibody levels during convalescence and experienced less fever compared to unvaccinated children during infection.

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health recommends the use of nitrile gloves with a minimum thickness of 5.0 ± 2.0 mil [0.127 ± 0.051 millimeters] in situations where it is suspected or known that fentanyl or other illicit drugs are present. However, there is limited data available on fentanyl permeation through gloves. Current test methods used to measure fentanyl permeation do not consider the effect of glove fit and flexion. Furthermore, first responders need to have PPE readily available in the field, and storage conditions may affect the protective performance of the gloves. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of glove stretch and storage temperatures on glove durability and barrier performance against fentanyl. Nine nitrile glove models previously shown to be resistant to fentanyl permeation were selected for this investigation. These nine models were stretched 25% in one linear direction, to consider glove fit and flexion, and tested against fentanyl hydrochloride permeation. Additionally, four of the nine glove models were stored at 48 °C, 22 °C, and -20 °C, and evaluated for tensile strength, ultimate elongation, and puncture resistance after up to 16 wk of storage and fentanyl permeation after up to 8 wk of storage. At least one sample for six of the nine tested models had maximum permeation over the test method fail threshold when stretched. The tested storage temperatures showed no effect on glove tensile strength, ultimate elongation, and puncture resistance. The findings of this study can be used to inform PPE recommendations, with consideration to storage practices and proper sizing for first responders with potential exposure to fentanyl and other illicit drugs. The results of this study can be used to assess the need for new standard test methods to evaluate the barrier performance of gloves and shelf-life determination with consideration to glove fit.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data on whether hybrid immunity differs by count and order of immunity-conferring events (SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 vaccination). From a cohort of health care personnel, first responders, and other frontline workers in six US states, we examined heterogeneity of the effect of hybrid immunity on SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels. METHODS: Exposures included event-count (sum of infections and vaccine doses) and event-order, categorized into seven permutations of vaccination and/or infection. Outcome was level of serum binding antibodies against receptor binding domain (RBD) of the ancestral SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (total RBD-binding Ig), measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Mean antibody levels were examined up to 365 days after each of the 1st-7th events. RESULTS: Analysis included 5,793 participants measured from August 7, 2020 to April 15, 2023. Hybrid immunity from infection before one or two vaccine doses elicited modestly superior antibody responses after the 2nd and 3rd events (compared to infections or vaccine-doses alone). This superiority was not evident after the 4th and 5th events (additional doses). Among adults infected before vaccination, adjusted geometric mean ratios (95% CI) of anti-RBD early response (versus vaccinated-only) were 1.23 (1.14-1.33), 1.09 (1.03-1.14), 0.87 (0.81-0.94), and 0.99 (0.85-1.15) after the 2nd-5th events, respectively. Post-vaccination infections elicited superior responses: adjusted geometric mean ratios (95% CI) of anti-RBD early response (versus vaccinated-only) were: 0.93 (0.75-1.17), 1.11 (1.06-1.16), 1.17 (1.11-1.24), and 1.20 (1.07-1.34) after the 2nd-5th events, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Findings reflecting heterogeneity in antibody levels by permutations of infection and vaccination history could inform COVID-19 vaccination policy.

IMPORTANCE: Bivalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were recommended in the US for children and adolescents aged 12 years or older on September 1, 2022, and for children aged 5 to 11 years on October 12, 2022; however, data demonstrating the effectiveness of bivalent COVID-19 vaccines are limited. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of bivalent COVID-19 vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 infection and symptomatic COVID-19 among children and adolescents. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Data for the period September 4, 2022, to January 31, 2023, were combined from 3 prospective US cohort studies (6 sites total) and used to estimate COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness among children and adolescents aged 5 to 17 years. A total of 2959 participants completed periodic surveys (demographics, household characteristics, chronic medical conditions, and COVID-19 symptoms) and submitted weekly self-collected nasal swabs (irrespective of symptoms); participants submitted additional nasal swabs at the onset of any symptoms. EXPOSURE: Vaccination status was captured from the periodic surveys and supplemented with data from state immunization information systems and electronic medical records. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: Respiratory swabs were tested for the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus using reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction. SARS-CoV-2 infection was defined as a positive test regardless of symptoms. Symptomatic COVID-19 was defined as a positive test and 2 or more COVID-19 symptoms within 7 days of specimen collection. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios for SARS-CoV-2 infection and symptomatic COVID-19 among participants who received a bivalent COVID-19 vaccine dose vs participants who received no vaccine or monovalent vaccine doses only. Models were adjusted for age, sex, race, ethnicity, underlying health conditions, prior SARS-CoV-2 infection status, geographic site, proportion of circulating variants by site, and local virus prevalence. RESULTS: Of the 2959 participants (47.8% were female; median age, 10.6 years [IQR, 8.0-13.2 years]; 64.6% were non-Hispanic White) included in this analysis, 25.4% received a bivalent COVID-19 vaccine dose. During the study period, 426 participants (14.4%) had laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Among these 426 participants, 184 (43.2%) had symptomatic COVID-19, 383 (89.9%) were not vaccinated or had received only monovalent COVID-19 vaccine doses (1.38 SARS-CoV-2 infections per 1000 person-days), and 43 (10.1%) had received a bivalent COVID-19 vaccine dose (0.84 SARS-CoV-2 infections per 1000 person-days). Bivalent vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection was 54.0% (95% CI, 36.6%-69.1%) and vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic COVID-19 was 49.4% (95% CI, 22.2%-70.7%). The median observation time after vaccination was 276 days (IQR, 142-350 days) for participants who received only monovalent COVID-19 vaccine doses vs 50 days (IQR, 27-74 days) for those who received a bivalent COVID-19 vaccine dose. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: The bivalent COVID-19 vaccines protected children and adolescents against SARS-CoV-2 infection and symptomatic COVID-19. These data demonstrate the benefit of COVID-19 vaccine in children and adolescents. All eligible children and adolescents should remain up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccinations.

OBJECTIVES: Pediatric COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and uptake is not well understood. Among parents of a prospective cohort of children aged 6 months-17 years, we assessed COVID-19 vaccine knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP), and uptake over 15 months. METHODS: The PROTECT study collected sociodemographic characteristics of children at enrollment and COVID-19 vaccination data and parental KAPs quarterly. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models were used to test the effect of KAPs on vaccine uptake; McNemar's test for paired samples was used to evaluate KAP change over time. RESULTS: A total of 2,837 children were enrolled, with more than half (61 %) vaccinated by October 2022. Positive parental beliefs about vaccine safety and effectiveness strongly predicted vaccine uptake among children aged 5-11 years (aOR 13.1, 95 % CI 8.5-20.4 and aOR 6.4, 95 % CI 4.3-9.6, respectively) and children aged 12+ years (aOR 7.0, 95 % CI 3.8-13.0 and aOR 8.9, 95 % CI 4.4-18.0). Compared to enrollment, at follow-up parents (of vaccinated and unvaccinated children) reported higher self-assessed vaccine knowledge, but more negative beliefs towards vaccine safety, effectiveness, and trust in government. Parents unlikely to vaccinate their children at enrollment reported more positive beliefs on vaccine knowledge, safety, and effectiveness at follow-up. CONCLUSION: The PROTECT cohort allows for an examination of factors driving vaccine uptake and how beliefs about COVID-19 and the COVID-19 vaccines change over time. Findings of the current analysis suggest that these beliefs change over time and policies aiming to increase vaccine uptake should focus on vaccine safety and effectiveness.

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are ubiquitous throughout the United States. Previous studies have shown PFAS exposure to be associated with a reduced immune response. However, the relationship between serum PFAS and antibody levels following SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 vaccination has not been examined. We examined differences in peak immune response and the longitudinal decline of antibodies following SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination by serum PFAS levels in a cohort of essential workers in the United States. We measured serum antibodies using an in-house semi-quantitative enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Two cohorts contributed blood samples following SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 vaccination. We used linear mixed regression models, adjusting for age, race/ethnicity, gender, presence of chronic conditions, location, and occupation, to estimate differences in immune response with respect to serum PFAS levels. Our study populations included 153 unvaccinated participants that contributed 316 blood draws over a 14-month period following infection, and 860 participants and 2451 blood draws over a 12-month period following vaccination. Higher perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), and perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) concentrations were associated with a lower peak antibody response after infection (p = 0.009, 0.031, 0.015). Higher PFOS, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), PFHxS, and PFNA concentrations were associated with slower declines in antibodies over time after infection (p = 0.003, 0.014, 0.026, 0.025). PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, and PFNA serum concentrations prior to vaccination were not associated with differences in peak antibody response after vaccination or with differences in decline of antibodies over time after vaccination. These results suggest that elevated PFAS may impede potential immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection by blunting peak antibody levels following infection; the same finding was not observed for immune response to vaccination.

BACKGROUND: The PROTECT study is a longitudinal cohort study initiated in July 2021 with weekly testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in 4 states: Arizona, Florida, exas, and Utah. This study aims to examine vaccine-elicited antibody response against postvaccination SARS-CoV-2 infections. METHODS: Children aged 5-11 years had serum collected 14-59 days after their second dose of monovalent Pfizer-BioNTech coronavirus disease 2019 messenger RNA vaccine. Vaccine-elicited antibodies were measured using the area under the curve (AUC) and end-point titer using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (receptor-binding domain [RBD] and S2) and surrogate neutralization assays against ancestral (WA1) and Omicron (BA.2). RESULTS: 79 vaccinated participants (33 [41.7%] female; median age, 8.8 years [standard deviation, 1.9 years]), 48 (60.8%) were from Tucson, Arizona; 64 (81.0%) were non-Hispanic white; 63 (80.8%) attended school in person; 68 (86.1%) did not have any chronic conditions; and 47 (59.5%) were infected after vaccination. Uninfected children had higher AUCs against WA1 (P = .009) and Omicron (P = .02). The geometric mean and surrogate neutralization titer above the limit of detection was 346.0 for WA1 and 39.7 for Omicron, an 8.7-fold decrease (P < .001). After adjustment of covariates in the WA1-specific model, we observed a 47% reduction in the odds of postvaccination infection for every standard deviation increase in RBD AUC (aOR, 0.53 [95% confidence interval, .29-.97) and a 69% reduction in the odds of infection for every 3-fold increase in RBD end titer (0.31 [.06-1.57]). CONCLUSIONS: Children with higher antibody levels experienced a lower incidence of postvaccination SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Background Data on the development of neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 after SARS-CoV-2 infection and after vaccination with messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccines are limited.Methods From a prospective cohort of 3,975 adult essential and frontline workers tested weekly from August, 2020 to March, 2021 for SARS-CoV-2 infection by Reverse Transcription- Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) assay irrespective of symptoms, 497 participants had sera drawn after infection (170), vaccination (327), and after both infection and vaccination (50 from the infection population). Serum was collected after infection and each vaccine dose. Serum- neutralizing antibody titers against USA-WA1/2020-spike pseudotype virus were determined by the 50% inhibitory dilution. Geometric mean titers (GMTs) and corresponding fold increases were calculated using t-tests and linear mixed effects models.Results Among 170 unvaccinated participants with SARS-CoV-2 infection, 158 (93%) developed neutralizing antibodies (nAb) with a GMT of 1,003 (95% CI=766-1,315). Among 139 previously uninfected participants, 138 (99%) developed nAb after mRNA vaccine dose-2 with a GMT of 3,257 (95% CI = 2,596-4,052). GMT was higher among those receiving mRNA-1273 vaccine (GMT =4,698, 95%CI= 3,186-6,926) compared to BNT162b2 vaccine (GMT=2,309, 95%CI=1,825-2,919). Among 32 participants with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, GMT was 21,655 (95%CI=14,766-31,756) after mRNA vaccine dose-1, without further increase after dose- 2.Conclusions A single dose of mRNA vaccine after SARS-CoV-2 infection resulted in the highest observed nAb response. Two doses of mRNA vaccine in previously uninfected participants resulted in higher nAb to SARS-CoV-2 than after one dose of vaccine or SARS- CoV-2 infection alone. Neutralizing antibody response also differed by mRNA vaccine product.Main Point Summary One dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine after previous SARS-CoV-2 infection produced the highest neutralizing antibody titers; among those without history of infection, two doses of mRNA vaccine produced the most robust response.Competing Interest StatementAllison Naleway receives research funding from Pfizer and Vir Biotechnology and Jennifer Kuntz receives research funding from Pfizer, Novartis, and Vir Biotechnology for unrelated studies. All other authors: No conflicts. Funding StatementThis work was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases [contracts 75D30120R68013 to Marshfield Clinic Research Institute, 75D30120C08379 to the University of Arizona, and 75D30120C08150 to Abt Associates].Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This study is governed by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention IRB review board and gave ethical approval for this work.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.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.YesAll data produced in the pres nt work are contained in the manuscript

BACKGROUND Information is limited on messenger RNA (mRNA) BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna) COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection or attenuating disease when administered in real-world conditions.METHODS Prospective cohorts of 3,975 healthcare personnel, first responders, and other essential and frontline workers completed weekly SARS-CoV-2 testing during December 14 2020—April 10 2021. Self-collected mid-turbinate nasal swabs were tested by qualitative and quantitative reverse-transcription–polymerase-chain-reaction (RT-PCR). VE was calculated as 100%×(1−hazard ratio); adjusted VE was calculated using vaccination propensity weights and adjustments for site, occupation, and local virus circulation.RESULTS SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 204 (5.1%) participants; 16 were partially (≥14 days post-dose-1 to 13 days after dose-2) or fully (≥14 days post-dose-2) vaccinated, and 156 were unvaccinated; 32 with indeterminate status (&lt;14 days after dose-1) were excluded. Adjusted mRNA VE of full vaccination was 91% (95% confidence interval [CI]=76%–97%) against symptomatic or asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection; VE of partial vaccination was 81% (95% CI=64%-90%). Among partially or fully vaccinated participants with SARS-CoV-2 infection, mean viral RNA load (Log10 copies/mL) was 40% lower (95% CI=16%-57%), the risk of self-reported febrile COVID-19 was 58% lower (Risk Ratio=0.42, 95% CI=0.18-0.98), and 2.3 fewer days (95% CI=0.8-3.7) were spent sick in bed compared to unvaccinated infected participants.CONCLUSIONS Authorized mRNA vaccines were highly effective among working-age adults in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infections when administered in real-world conditions and attenuated viral RNA load, febrile symptoms, and illness duration among those with breakthrough infection despite vaccination.Competing Interest StatementAllison L. Naleway reported funding from Pfizer for a meningococcal B vaccine study unrelated to the submitted work. Kurt T. Hegmann serves at the Editor of the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine evidence-based practice guidelines. Matthew S. These reported grants and personal fees from Reed Group and the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, outside the submitted work. Other authors have reported no conflicts of interest.Funding StatementFunding provided in whole or in part by federal funds from the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention under contract numbers 75D30120R68013 awarded to Marshfield Clinic Research Laboratory, 75D30120C08379 to University of Arizona, and 75D30120C08150 awarded to Abt Associates, Inc.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This study was reviewed and approved by the University of Arizona IRB as the single IRB for this studyAll 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.YesSummary data will be available once all study objectives are met.

Short-term probabilistic forecasts of the trajectory of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States have served as a visible and important communication channel between the scientific modeling community and both the general public and decision-makers. Forecasting models provide specific, quantitative, and evaluable predictions that inform short-term decisions such as healthcare staffing needs, school closures, and allocation of medical supplies. In 2020, the COVID-19 Forecast Hub (https://covid19forecasthub.org/) collected, disseminated, and synthesized hundreds of thousands of specific predictions from more than 50 different academic, industry, and independent research groups. This manuscript systematically evaluates 23 models that regularly submitted forecasts of reported weekly incident COVID-19 mortality counts in the US at the state and national level. One of these models was a multi-model ensemble that combined all available forecasts each week. The performance of individual models showed high variability across time, geospatial units, and forecast horizons. Half of the models evaluated showed better accuracy than a naïve baseline model. In combining the forecasts from all teams, the ensemble showed the best overall probabilistic accuracy of any model. Forecast accuracy degraded as models made predictions farther into the future, with probabilistic accuracy at a 20-week horizon more than 5 times worse than when predicting at a 1-week horizon. This project underscores the role that collaboration and active coordination between governmental public health agencies, academic modeling teams, and industry partners can play in developing modern modeling capabilities to support local, state, and federal response to outbreaks.Competing Interest StatementAV, MC, and APP report grants from Metabiota Inc outside the submitted work.Funding StatementFor teams that reported receiving funding for their work, we report the sources and disclosures below. CMU-TimeSeries: CDC Center of Excellence, gifts from Google and Facebook. CU-select: NSF DMS-2027369 and a gift from the Morris-Singer Foundation. COVIDhub: This work has been supported by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (1U01IP001122) and the National Institutes of General Medical Sciences (R35GM119582). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of CDC, NIGMS or the National Institutes of Health. Johannes Bracher was supported by the Helmholtz Foundation via the SIMCARD Information&amp; Data Science Pilot Project. Tilmann Gneiting gratefully acknowledges support by the Klaus Tschira Foundation. DDS-NBDS: NSF III-1812699. EPIFORECASTS-ENSEMBLE1: Wellcome Trust (210758/Z/18/Z) GT_CHHS-COVID19: William W. George Endowment, Virginia C. and Joseph C. Mello Endowments, NSF DGE-1650044, NSF MRI 1828187, research cyberinfrastructure resources and services provided by the Partnership for an Advanced Computing Environment (PACE) at Georgia Tech, and the following benefactors at Georgia Tech: Andrea Laliberte, Joseph C. Mello, Richard Rick E. &amp; Charlene Zalesky, and Claudia &amp; Paul Raines GT-DeepCOVID: CDC MInD-Healthcare U01CK000531-Supplement. NSF (Expeditions CCF-1918770, CAREER IIS-2028586, RAPID IIS-2027862, Medium IIS-1955883, NRT DGE-1545362), CDC MInD program, ORNL and funds/computing resources from Georgia Tech and GTRI. IHME: This work was supported by the Bill &amp; Melinda Gates Foundation, as well as funding from the state of Washington and the National Science Foundation (award no. FAIN: 2031096). IowaStateLW-STEM: Iowa State University Plant Sciences Institute Scholars Program, NSF DMS-1916204, NSF CCF-1934884, Laurence H. Baker Center for Bioinformatics and Biological Statistics. JHU_IDD-CovidSP: State of California, US Dept of Health and Human Services, US Dept of Homeland Security, US Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance, Johns Hopkins Health System, Office of the Dean at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University Modeling and Policy Hub, Centers fo Disease Control and Prevention (5U01CK000538-03), University of Utah Immunology, Inflammation, &amp; Infectious Disease Initiative (26798 Seed Grant). LANL-GrowthRate: LANL LDRD 20200700ER. MOBS-GLEAM_COVID: COVID Supplement CDC-HHS-6U01IP001137-01. NotreDame-mobility and NotreDame-FRED: NSF RAPID DEB 2027718 UA-EpiCovDA: NSF RAPID Grant # 2028401. UCSB-ACTS: NSF RAPID IIS 2029626. UCSD-NEU: Google Faculty Award, DARPA W31P4Q-21-C-0014, COVID Supplement CDC-HHS-6U01IP001137-01. UMass-MechBayes: NIGMS R35GM119582, NSF 1749854. UMich-RidgeTfReg: The University of Michigan Physics Department and the University of Michigan Office of Research.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:UMass-Amherst IRBAll 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.YesAll data and code referred to in the manuscript are publicly available. https://github.com/reichlab/covid19-forecast-hub/ https://github.com/reichlab/covidEnsembles https://zoltardata.com/project/44

Introduction In a multi-center prospective cohort of essential workers, we assessed knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) by vaccine intention, prior SARS-CoV-2 positivity, and occupation, and their impact on vaccine uptake over time.Methods Initiated in July 2020, HEROES-RECOVER cohort provided socio-demographics and COVID-19 vaccination data. Using follow-up two surveys approximately three months apart, COVID-19 vaccine KAP, intention, and receipt was collected; the first survey categorized participants as reluctant, reachable, or endorsers.Results A total of 4,803 participants were included in the analysis. Most (70%) were vaccine endorsers, 16% were reachable, and 14% were reluctant. By May 2021, 77% had received at least one vaccine dose. KAP responses strongly predicted vaccine uptake, particularly positive attitudes about safety (aOR=5.46, 95% CI: 1.4-20.8) and effectiveness (aOR=5.0, 95% CI: 1.3-19.1). Participants prior SARS-CoV-2 infection were 22% less likely to believe the COVID-19 vaccine was effective compared with uninfected participants (aOR 0.78, 95% CI: 0.64-0.96). This was even more pronounced in first responders compared with other occupations, with first responders 42% less likely to believe in COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (aOR=0.58, 95% CI 0.40-0.84). KAP responses shifted positively, with reluctant and reachable participant scores modestly increasing in positive responses for perceived vaccine effectiveness (7% and 12%, respectively) on the second follow-up survey; 25% of initially reluctant participants received the COVID-19 vaccine.Discussion Our study demonstrates attitudes associated with COVID-19 vaccine uptake and a positive shift in attitudes over time. First responders, despite potential high exposure to SARS-CoV-2, and participants with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection were more vaccine reluctant.Conclusions COVID-19 vaccine KAP responses predicted vaccine uptake and associated attitudes improved over time. Perceptions of the COVID-19 vaccine can shift over time. Targeting messages about the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness in reducing SARS-CoV-2 virus infection and illness severity may increase vaccine uptake for reluctant and reachable participants.Competing Interest StatementThe findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Allison L. Naleway reported funding from Pfizer for a meningococcal B vaccine study unrelated to the submitted work.Funding StatementThis study was funded by the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (contracts 75D30120R68013 to Marshfield Clinic Research Institute, 75D30120C08379 to the University of Arizona, and 75D30120C08150 to Abt Associates).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:- Ethics committee/IRB of University of Arizona gave ethical approval for this work - Ethic committee/IRB of all RECOVER Abt sites (University of Utah, Baylor Scott &amp; White, University of Miami, St Luke's, and Kaiser Permanente) gave ethical approval for this work - Ethics committee/IRB of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention deferred to RECOVER Abt sites and University of Arizona for this workI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.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 repo ted 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.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authorsFDAU.S. Food and Drug AdministrationCDCCenters for Disease Control and PreventionEUAEmergency Use AuthorizationKAPKnowledge, attitudes, and practicesHEROESArizona Healthcare, Emergency Response and Other Essential Workers SurveillanceRECOVERStudy and Research on the Epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 in Essential Response PersonnelH-RHEROES-RECOVERHCPHealth care personnelFWFrontline workersPPEPersonal protective equipment

Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs), firefighters, and other first responders are at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to healthcare personnel but have relatively low COVID-19 vaccine uptake. Resistance to COVID-19 vaccine mandates among first responders has the potential to disrupt essential public services and threaten public health and safety. Using data from the HEROES-RECOVER prospective cohorts, we report on the increased illness burden of COVID-19 among unvaccinated first responders. From January to September 2021, first responders contributed to weekly active surveillance for COVID-19-like illness (CLI). Self-collected respiratory specimens collected weekly, irrespective of symptoms, and at the onset CLI were tested by Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) assay for SARSCoV-2. Among 1415 first responders, 17% were LEOs, 68% firefighters, and 15% had other first responder occupations. Unvaccinated (41%) compared to fully vaccinated (59%) first responders were less likely to believe COVID-19 vaccines are very or extremely effective (17% versus 54%) or very or extremely safe (15% versus 54%). From January through September 2021, among unvaccinated LEOs, the incidence of COVID-19 was 11.9 per 1,000 person-weeks (95%CI=7.0-20.1) compared to only 0.6 (95%CI=0.2-2.5) among vaccinated LEOs. Incidence of COVID-19 was also higher among unvaccinated firefighters (9.0 per 1,000 person-weeks; 95%CI=6.4-12.7) compared to those vaccinated (1.8 per 1,000; 95%CI=1.1-2.8). Once they had laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, unvaccinated first responders were sick for a mean+/-SD of 14.7+/-21.7 days and missed a mean of 38.0+/-46.0 hours of work. These findings suggest that state and local governments with large numbers of unvaccinated first responders may face major disruptions in their workforce due to COVID-19 illness. Copyright The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.

Objective: To determine whether modified K-12 student quarantine policies that allow some students to continue in-person education during their quarantine period increase schoolwide SARS-CoV-2 transmission risk following the increase in cases in winter 2020-2021. Method(s): We conducted a prospective cohort study of COVID-19 cases and exposures among students and staff (n=65,621) in 103 Missouri public schools. Participants were offered free, saliva-based RT-PCR testing. An adjusted Cox regression model compared hazard rates of school-based SARS-CoV-2 infections between schools with a modified versus standard quarantine policy. Result(s): From January-March 2021, a projected 23 (1%) school-based transmission events occurred among 1,636 school close contacts. There was no difference in the adjusted hazard rates of school-based SARS-CoV-2 infections between schools with a modified versus standard quarantine policy (hazard ratio=1.00; 95% confidence interval: 0.97-1.03). Discussion(s): School-based SARS-CoV-2 transmission was rare in 103 K-12 schools implementing multiple COVID-19 prevention strategies. Modified student quarantine policies were not associated with increased school incidence of COVID-19. Modifications to student quarantine policies may be a useful strategy for K-12 schools to safely reduce disruptions to in-person education during times of increased COVID-19 community incidence. Copyright The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. This article is a US Government work. It is not subject to copyright under 17 USC 105 and is also made available for use under a CC0 license.

Widespread disease outbreaks can result in prolonged wear times of National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Approved N95 filtering facepiece respirators by healthcare personnel. Prolonged wear times of these devices can cause the development of various adverse facial skin conditions. Healthcare personnel have been reported to apply "skin protectants" to the face to reduce pressure and friction of respirators. Because tight-fitting respirators rely on a good face seal to protect the wearer, it is important to understand if fit is affected when skin protectants are used. This laboratory pilot study included 10 volunteers who performed quantitative fit tests to evaluate respirator fit while wearing skin protectants. Three N95 filtering facepiece respirator models and three skin protectants were evaluated. Three replicate fit tests were performed for each combination of subject, skin protectant (including a control condition of no protectant), and respirator model. Fit Factor (FF) was affected differently by the combination of protectant type and respirator model. The main effects of protectant type and respirator model were both significant (p <0.001); additionally, their interaction was significant (p = 0.02), indicating FF is affected by the combined effects of protectant type and respirator model. Compared to the control condition, using a bandage-type or surgical tape skin protectant decreased the odds of passing the fit test. Using a barrier cream skin protectant also decreased the odds of passing the fit test across all models compared to the control condition; however, the probability of passing a fit test was not statistically significantly different from the control condition (p = 0.174). These results imply that all three skin protectants reduced mean fit factors for all N95 filtering facepiece respirator models tested. The bandage-type and surgical tape skin protectants both reduced fit factors and passing rates to a greater degree than the barrier cream. Respirator users should follow respirator manufacturers' guidance on the use of skin protectants. If a skin protectant is to be worn with a tight-fitting respirator, the fit of the respirator should be evaluated with the skin protectant applied before use in the workplace.

BACKGROUND: Timely and reliable data are crucial for clinical, epidemiologic, and program management decision making. Electronic health information systems provide platforms for managing large longitudinal patient records. Nigeria implemented the National Data Repository (NDR) to create a central data warehouse of all people living with human immunodeficiency virus (PLHIV) while providing useful functionalities to aid decision making at different levels of program implementation. OBJECTIVE: We describe the Nigeria NDR and its development process, including its use for surveillance, research, and national HIV program monitoring toward achieving HIV epidemic control. METHODS: Stakeholder engagement meetings were held in 2013 to gather information on data elements and vocabulary standards for reporting patient-level information, technical infrastructure, human capacity requirements, and information flow. Findings from these meetings guided the development of the NDR. An implementation guide provided common terminologies and data reporting structures for data exchange between the NDR and the electronic medical record (EMR) systems. Data from the EMR were encoded in extensible markup language and sent to the NDR over secure hypertext transfer protocol after going through a series of validation processes. RESULTS: By June 30, 2021, the NDR had up-to-date records of 1,477,064 (94.4%) patients receiving HIV treatment across 1,985 health facilities, of which 1,266,512 (85.7%) patient records had fingerprint template data to support unique patient identification and record linkage to prevent registration of the same patient under different identities. Data from the NDR was used to support HIV program monitoring, case-based surveillance and production of products like the monthly lists of patients who have treatment interruptions and dashboards for monitoring HIV test and start. CONCLUSION: The NDR enabled the availability of reliable and timely data for surveillance, research, and HIV program monitoring to guide program improvements to accelerate progress toward epidemic control.

BACKGROUND: Availability of personal protective equipment (PPE) and its effective use may influence safety climate perceptions among health care personnel (HCP). It is unclear how health care organizations can leverage the effective use of respiratory protection to engage in continuous improvement of their safety climate, which can inform opportunities for employee education and engagement. METHODS: After using an elastomeric half mask respirator (EHMR) as their primary form of respiratory protection for several months, 1,080 HCP provided feedback in an electronic survey about respiratory protection training, confidence in EHMR use, barriers during use, and perceived safety climate. Ordinal logistic regressions were used as nonlinear models to test relationships between these variables. FINDINGS: We observed that an increase in user confidence (p < .013), training content (p < .001), training formats (p < .001), and a decrease in EHMR barriers (p < .001) were associated with a statistically significant increase in proactive safety climate. In the second model, an increase in user confidence (p < .006) and training content (p < .001), and a decrease in barriers (p < .001), was associated with a statistically significant increase in compliant safety climate. CONCLUSIONS/APPLICATION TO PRACTICE: HCP EHMR confidence was positively associated with safety climate perceptions, underscoring the value of competency building by respiratory protection leaders prior to implementation. Because fewer barriers experienced while using an EHMR were associated with a more positive perception of safety climate, it is important to first communicate with end users about potential barriers and, second, to continue research with end users and manufacturers to improve the design of EHMRs moving forward.

Messenger RNA (mRNA) BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna) COVID-19 vaccines have been shown to be effective in preventing symptomatic COVID-19 in randomized placebo-controlled Phase III trials (1,2); however, the benefits of these vaccines for preventing asymptomatic and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) infection, particularly when administered in real-world conditions, is less well understood. Using prospective cohorts of health care personnel, first responders, and other essential and frontline workers* in eight U.S. locations during December 14, 2020-March 13, 2021, CDC routinely tested for SARS-CoV-2 infections every week regardless of symptom status and at the onset of symptoms consistent with COVID-19-associated illness. Among 3,950 participants with no previous laboratory documentation of SARS-CoV-2 infection, 2,479 (62.8%) received both recommended mRNA doses and 477 (12.1%) received only one dose of mRNA vaccine.(†) Among unvaccinated participants, 1.38 SARS-CoV-2 infections were confirmed by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) per 1,000 person-days.(§) In contrast, among fully immunized (≥14 days after second dose) persons, 0.04 infections per 1,000 person-days were reported, and among partially immunized (≥14 days after first dose and before second dose) persons, 0.19 infections per 1,000 person-days were reported. Estimated mRNA vaccine effectiveness for prevention of infection, adjusted for study site, was 90% for full immunization and 80% for partial immunization. These findings indicate that authorized mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are effective for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection, regardless of symptom status, among working-age adults in real-world conditions. COVID-19 vaccination is recommended for all eligible persons.

BACKGROUND: People with a maternal substance use disorder (SUD) may experience a lack of access to necessary healthcare and more specifically, postpartum healthcare. It is not known whether increased insurance coverage introduced by Medicaid expansion has improved postpartum healthcare utilization among this population. METHODS: Oregon 2008-2016 birth certificates and Medicaid claims were used to examine whether continuous insurance enrollment and postpartum healthcare utilization increased post-Medicaid expansion in a population with and without SUD (n = 9,337). International Classification of Diseases codes were used to identify deliveries, SUD, and postpartum healthcare. Univariable and multivariable generalized linear regression with standard errors clustered by individual were used to estimate the association between Medicaid expansion and postpartum healthcare utilization, stratified by maternal SUD. RESULTS: Among the 10.3% with SUD, expansion was not associated with increased continuous enrollment or postpartum healthcare utilization. Among those without SUD, post-expansion deliveries were associated with increased continuous enrollment (+105.0 days; 95% CI=96.9-113.2), total (+4.4; 95% CI=2.9-6.0), postpartum (+0.3; 95% CI=0.2-0.4), inpatient (+0.9; 95% CI=0.7-1.1), outpatient (+2.3; 95% CI=1.4-3.3), office (+0.9; 95% CI=0.2-1.6), and emergency department (+0.3; 95% CI=0.1-0.5) visits. Among deliveries to postpartum people with SUD, 27.2% had opioid use disorder (OUD); expansion was associated with increased OUD medication use (12.0% vs 18.3%) and number of fills (6.7 vs 16.6). CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid expansion in Oregon was only associated with increased Medicaid-financed healthcare utilization for postpartum people without SUD, with the exception of those with OUD, demonstrating the need for assessing various strategies to improve postpartum healthcare utilization.

Early during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) leveraged an existing surveillance system infrastructure to monitor COVID-19 cases and deaths in the United States. Given the time needed to report individual-level (also called line-level) COVID-19 case and death data containing detailed information from individual case reports, CDC designed and implemented a new aggregate case surveillance system to inform emergency response decisions more efficiently, with timelier indicators of emerging areas of concern. We describe the processes implemented by CDC to operationalize this novel, multifaceted aggregate surveillance system for collecting COVID-19 case and death data to track the spread and impact of the SARS-CoV-2 virus at national, state, and county levels. We also review the processes established to acquire, process, and validate the aggregate number of cases and deaths due to COVID-19 in the United States at the county and jurisdiction levels during the pandemic. These processes include time-saving tools and strategies implemented to collect and validate authoritative COVID-19 case and death data from jurisdictions, such as web scraping to automate data collection and algorithms to identify and correct data anomalies. This topical review highlights the need to prepare for future emergencies, such as novel disease outbreaks, by having an event-agnostic aggregate surveillance system infrastructure in place to supplement line-level case reporting for near-real-time situational awareness and timely data.

In a cohort of essential workers in the United States previously infected with SARS-CoV-2, risk factors for reinfection included being unvaccinated, infrequent mask use, time since first infection, and being non-Hispanic Black. Protecting workers from reinfection requires a multipronged approach including up-to-date vaccination, mask use as recommended, and reduction in underlying health disparities.

Fire-based emergency management service (EMS) personnel are dispatched to various incidents daily, many of which have unique occupational risks. To fully understand the variability of incident types and how to best prepare and respond, an exploration of the U.S. coding system of incident types is necessary. This study uses potential exposure to SARS-CoV-2 as a case example to understand if and how coding categories for incident call types may be updated to improve data standardization and emergency response decision making. Researchers received emergency response incident data generated by three fire department computer-aided dispatch (CAD) systems between March and September 2020. Each incident was labeled EMS, Fire, or Other. Of the 162,766 incidents, approximately 8.1% (n = 13,144) noted potential SARS-CoV-2 exposure within their narrative descriptions of which 86.3% were coded as EMS, 9.9% as Fire, and 3.9% as Other. To assess coding variability across incident types, researchers used the original 3-incident type variable and a new 5-incident type variable reassigned by researchers into EMS, Fire, Other, Hazmat, and Motor Vehicle. Logit regressions compared differences in potential exposure using the 3- and 5-incident type variables. When evaluating the 3-incident type variable, those responding to a Fire versus an EMS incident were 84% less likely to be associated with potential exposure to SARS-CoV-2. For the 5-incident type variable, those responding to Fire incidents were 77% less likely to be associated with a potential exposure than those responding to EMS incidents. Changes in potential exposure between the 3- and 5-incident type models show the need to understand how incident types are assigned. This demonstrates the need for data standardization to accurately categorize incident types to improve emergency preparedness and response. Results have implications for incident type coding at fire department municipality and national levels.

BACKGROUND: Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM) continue to be overrepresented in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection in the United States. HIV prevention and care interventions that are tailored to an individual's serostatus have the potential to lower the rate of new infections among GBMSM. Mobile technology is a critical tool for disseminating targeted messaging and increasing uptake of basic prevention services including HIV testing, sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing, and pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). Mobile Messaging for Men (M-Cubed) is a mobile health HIV prevention intervention designed to deliver video- and text-based prevention messages, provide STI and HIV information, and link GBMSM to prevention and healthcare resources. The current report describes an iterative process of identifying and selecting publicly available videos to be used as part of the M-Cubed intervention. We also conducted interviews with GBMSM to assess the acceptability, comprehension, and potential audience reach of the selected video messages. METHODS: The selection of videos included balancing of specific criteria [e.g., accuracy of scientific information, video length, prevention domains: HIV/STI testing, antiretroviral therapy (ART), PrEP, engagement in care, and condom use] to ensure that they were intended for our GBMSM audiences: HIV-negative men who engage in condomless anal sex, HIV-negative men who do not engage in condomless anal sex, and men living with HIV. This formative study included in-person interviews with 26 GBMSM from three U.S. cities heavily impacted by the HIV epidemic-New York City, Detroit, and Atlanta. RESULTS: Following a qualitative content analysis, the study team identified five themes across the interviews: participant reactions to the video messages, message comprehension, PrEP concerns, targeting of video messaging, and prompted action. CONCLUSIONS: Study results informed a final selection of 12 video messages for inclusion in a randomized controlled trial of M-Cubed. Findings may serve as a guide for researchers who plan to develop HIV prevention interventions that utilize publicly available videos to promote behavioral change. Further, the findings presented here suggest the importance of developing videos with broad age and gender diversity for use in interventions such as M-Cubed, and in other health promotion settings.

Since 2003, the US President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) has supported implementation and maintenance of health information systems for HIV/AIDS and related diseases, such as tuberculosis, in numerous countries. As the COVID-19 pandemic emerged, several countries conducted rapid assessments and enhanced existing PEPFAR-funded HIV and national health information systems to support COVID-19 surveillance data collection, analysis, visualization, and reporting needs. We describe efforts at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia, USA, and CDC country offices that enhanced existing health information systems in support COVID-19 pandemic response. We describe CDC activities in Haiti as an illustration of efforts in PEPFAR countries. We also describe how investments used to establish and maintain standards-based health information systems in resource-constrained settings can have positive effects on health systems beyond their original scope.

Rotavirus (RV) was a common healthcare-associated infection prior to the introduction of the RV vaccine. Following widespread RV vaccination, healthcare-associated rotavirus cases are rare. We describe an investigation of a cluster of rotavirus infections in a pediatric hospital in which an uncommon genotype not typically circulating in the United States was detected.