HIV risk behaviour, viraemia, and transmission across HIV cascade stages including low-level viremia: Analysis of 14 cross-sectional population-based HIV Impact Assessment surveys in sub-Saharan Africa.

As antiretroviral treatment (ART) coverage for people living with HIV (PLHIV) increases, HIV programmes require up-to-date information about evolving HIV risk behaviour and transmission risk, including those with low-level viremia (LLV; >50 to ≤1000 copies/mL), to guide prevention priorities. We aimed to assess differences in sexual risk behaviours, distribution of viral load (VL) and proportion of transmission across PLHIV subgroups. We analysed data from Population-based HIV Impact Assessment surveys in 14 sub-Saharan African countries during 2015-2019. We estimated adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR) of self-reported HIV high-risk behaviour (multiple partners and condomless sex) across cascade stages via generalised estimation equations. We modelled the proportions of transmission from each subgroup using relative self-reported sexual risk, a Hill function for transmission rate by VL, and proportions within cascade stages from surveys and UNAIDS country estimates for 2010-2020. Compared to PLHIV with undetectable VL (≤50 copies/mL), undiagnosed PLHIV (aPR women: 1.28 [95% CI: 1.08-1.52]; men: 1.61 [1.33-1.95]) and men diagnosed but untreated (2.06 [1.52-2.78]) were more likely to self-report high-risk sex. High-risk behaviour was not significantly associated with LLV. Mean VL was similar among undiagnosed, diagnosed but untreated, and on ART but non-suppressed sub-groups. Across surveys, undiagnosed and diagnosed but untreated contributed most to transmission (40-91% and 1-41%, respectively), with less than 1% from those with LLV. Between 2010 and 2020, the proportion of transmission from individuals on ART but non-suppressed increased. In settings with high ART coverage, effective HIV testing, ART linkage, and retention remain priorities to reduce HIV transmission. Persons with LLV are an increasing share of PLHIV but their contribution to HIV transmission was small. Improving suppression among PLHIV on ART with VL ≥1000 copies/mL will become increasingly important.

Implementation of core elements of antibiotic stewardship in nursing homes-National Healthcare Safety Network, 2016-2018.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the national uptake of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) core elements of antibiotic stewardship in nursing homes from 2016 to 2018 and the effect of infection prevention and control (IPC) hours on the implementation of the core elements. DESIGN: Retrospective, repeated cross-sectional analysis. SETTING: US nursing homes. METHODS: We used the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) Long-Term Care Facility Component annual surveys from 2016 to 2018 to assess nursing home characteristics and percent implementation of the core elements. We used log-binomial regression models to estimate the association between weekly IPC hours and the implementation of all 7 core elements while controlling for confounding by facility characteristics. RESULTS: We included 7,506 surveys from 2016 to 2018. In 2018, 71% of nursing homes reported implementation of all 7 core elements, a 28% increase from 2016. The greatest increases in implementation from 2016 to 2018 were in education (19%), reporting (18%), and drug expertise (15%). In 2018, 71% of nursing homes reported pharmacist involvement in improving antibiotic use, an increase of 27% since 2016. Nursing homes that reported at least 20 hours of IPC activity per week were 14% (95% confidence interval, 7%-20%) more likely to implement all 7 core elements when controlling for facility ownership and affiliation. CONCLUSIONS: Nursing homes reported substantial progress in antibiotic stewardship implementation from 2016 to 2018. Improvements in access to drug expertise, education, and reporting antibiotic use may reflect increased stewardship awareness and resource use among nursing home providers under new regulatory requirements. Nursing home stewardship programs may benefit from increased IPC staff hours.

Early COVID-19 First-Dose Vaccination Coverage Among Residents and Staff Members of Skilled Nursing Facilities Participating in the Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program - United States, December 2020-January 2021.

Residents and staff members of long-term care facilities (LTCFs), because they live and work in congregate settings, are at increased risk for infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (1,2). In particular, skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), LTCFs that provide skilled nursing care and rehabilitation services for persons with complex medical needs, have been documented settings of COVID-19 outbreaks (3). In addition, residents of LTCFs might be at increased risk for severe outcomes because of their advanced age or the presence of underlying chronic medical conditions (4). As a result, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has recommended that residents and staff members of LTCFs be offered vaccination in the initial COVID-19 vaccine allocation phase (Phase 1a) in the United States (5). In December 2020, CDC launched the Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program* to facilitate on-site vaccination of residents and staff members at enrolled LTCFs. To evaluate early receipt of vaccine during the first month of the program, the number of eligible residents and staff members in enrolled SNFs was estimated using resident census data from the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN†) and staffing data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Payroll-Based Journal.§ Among 11,460 SNFs with at least one vaccination clinic during the first month of the program (December 18, 2020-January 17, 2021), an estimated median of 77.8% of residents (interquartile range [IQR] = 61.3%- 93.1%) and a median of 37.5% (IQR = 23.2%- 56.8%) of staff members per facility received ≥1 dose of COVID-19 vaccine through the Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program. The program achieved moderately high coverage among residents; however, continued development and implementation of focused communication and outreach strategies are needed to improve vaccination coverage among staff members in SNFs and other long-term care settings.

Rates of COVID-19 Among Residents and Staff Members in Nursing Homes - United States, May 25-November 22, 2020.

During the beginning of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, nursing homes were identified as congregate settings at high risk for outbreaks of COVID-19 (1,2). Their residents also are at higher risk than the general population for morbidity and mortality associated with infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, in light of the association of severe outcomes with older age and certain underlying medical conditions (1,3). CDC's National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) launched nationwide, facility-level COVID-19 nursing home surveillance on April 26, 2020. A federal mandate issued by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), required nursing homes to commence enrollment and routine reporting of COVID-19 cases among residents and staff members by May 25, 2020. This report uses the NHSN nursing home COVID-19 data reported during May 25-November 22, 2020, to describe COVID-19 rates among nursing home residents and staff members and compares these with rates in surrounding communities by corresponding U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) region.* COVID-19 cases among nursing home residents increased during June and July 2020, reaching 11.5 cases per 1,000 resident-weeks (calculated as the total number of occupied beds on the day that weekly data were reported) (week of July 26). By mid-September, rates had declined to 6.3 per 1,000 resident-weeks (week of September 13) before increasing again, reaching 23.2 cases per 1,000 resident-weeks by late November (week of November 22). COVID-19 cases among nursing home staff members also increased during June and July (week of July 26 = 10.9 cases per 1,000 resident-weeks) before declining during August-September (week of September 13 = 6.3 per 1,000 resident-weeks); rates increased by late November (week of November 22 = 21.3 cases per 1,000 resident-weeks). Rates of COVID-19 in the surrounding communities followed similar trends. Increases in community rates might be associated with increases in nursing home COVID-19 incidence, and nursing home mitigation strategies need to include a comprehensive plan to monitor local SARS-CoV-2 transmission and minimize high-risk exposures within facilities.

Antibiotic-resistant pathogens associated with urinary tract infections in nursing homes: Summary of data reported to the National Healthcare Safety Network Long-Term Care Facility Component, 2013-2017.

OBJECTIVE: Antibiotic resistance (AR) is a growing and highly prevalent problem in nursing homes. We describe selected AR phenotypes from pathogens causing urinary tract infections (UTIs) reported by nursing homes to the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN). DESIGN: Pathogens and antibiotic susceptibility testing results for UTI events in nursing homes between January 2013 and December 2017 were analyzed. The pathogen distribution and pooled mean proportion of isolates that tested resistant to select antibiotic agents are reported. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: US nursing homes voluntarily participating in the Long-Term Care Facility component of the NHSN. RESULTS: Overall, 243 nursing homes reported 1 or more UTIs: 121 (50%) were nonprofit facilities, median bed size was 91 (range: 9-801), and average occupancy was 87%. In total, 6,157 pathogens were reported for 5,485 UTI events. Moreover, 9 pathogens accounted for 90% of all reported UTIs; the 3 most frequently identified were Escherichia coli (41%), Proteus species (14%), and Klebsiella pneumoniae/oxytoca (13%). Among E. coli, fluoroquinolone, and extended-spectrum cephalosporin resistance were most prevalent (50% and 20%, respectively). Although Staphylococcus aureus and Enterococcus faecium represented <5% of pathogens reported, they had the highest rates of resistance (67% methicillin resistant and 60% vancomycin resistant, respectively). Multidrug resistance was most common in Pseudomonas aeruginosa (11%). For the resistant phenotypes we assessed, 36% of all UTIs reported were associated with a resistant pathogen. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first summary of AR among common pathogens causing UTIs reported to NHSN by nursing homes. Improved understanding of the resistance burden among common infections helps inform facility infection prevention and antibiotic stewardship efforts.

The National Healthcare Safety Network Long-term Care Facility Component early reporting experience: January 2013-December 2015.

BACKGROUND: In 2012, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention launched the Long-term Care Facility (LTCF) Component of the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) designed for LTCFs to monitor Clostridium difficile infections (CDIs), urinary tract infections (UTIs), infections due to multidrug-resistant organisms, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), and infection prevention process measures. METHODS: We describe characteristics and reporting patterns of facilities enrolled in the first 3 years of the surveillance system and rate estimates for CDI, UTI, and MRSA data submitted between 2013 and 2015. RESULTS: From 2013-2015, 279 LTCFs were enrolled and eligible to report to the NHSN with variability in reporting from year to year. Crude rate estimates pooled over these 3 years from reporting facilities were 0.98 incident LTCF-onset CDI cases per 10,000 resident days, 0.59 UTI cases per 1,000 resident days, and 0.10 LTCF-onset MRSA cases per 1,000 resident days. CONCLUSIONS: These initial data demonstrate the capability of the NHSN LTCF Component as a national surveillance system for monitoring infections in LTCFs. Further investigation is needed to understand factors associated with successful enrollment and reporting. As participation increases, data from a larger group of LTCFs will be used to establish national baselines and track prevention goals.

Increase in Multistate Foodborne Disease Outbreaks-United States, 1973-2010.

INTRODUCTION: Changes in food production and distribution have increased opportunities for foods contaminated early in the supply chain to be distributed widely, increasing the possibility of multistate outbreaks. In recent decades, surveillance systems for foodborne disease have been improved, allowing officials to more effectively identify related cases and to trace and identify an outbreak's source. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed multistate foodborne disease outbreaks reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Foodborne Disease Outbreak Surveillance System during 1973-2010. We calculated the percentage of multistate foodborne disease outbreaks relative to all foodborne disease outbreaks and described characteristics of multistate outbreaks, including the etiologic agents and implicated foods. RESULTS: Multistate outbreaks accounted for 234 (0.8%) of 27,755 foodborne disease outbreaks, 24,003 (3%) of 700,600 outbreak-associated illnesses, 2839 (10%) of 29,756 outbreak-associated hospitalizations, and 99 (16%) of 628 outbreak-associated deaths. The median annual number of multistate outbreaks increased from 2.5 during 1973-1980 to 13.5 during 2001-2010; the number of multistate outbreak-associated illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths also increased. Most multistate outbreaks were caused by Salmonella (47%) and Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (26%). Foods most commonly implicated were beef (22%), fruits (13%), and leafy vegetables (13%). CONCLUSIONS: The number of identified and reported multistate foodborne disease outbreaks has increased. Improvements in detection, investigation, and reporting of foodborne disease outbreaks help explain the increasing number of reported multistate outbreaks and the increasing percentage of outbreaks that were multistate. Knowing the etiologic agents and foods responsible for multistate outbreaks can help to identify sources of food contamination so that the safety of the food supply can be improved.

Increased outbreaks associated with nonpasteurized milk, United States, 2007-2012.

The number of US outbreaks caused by nonpasteurized milk increased from 30 during 2007-2009 to 51 during 2010-2012. Most outbreaks were caused by Campylobacter spp. (77%) and by nonpasteurized milk purchased from states in which nonpasteurized milk sale was legal (81%). Regulations to prevent distribution of nonpasteurized milk should be enforced.

Outbreaks attributed to cheese: differences between outbreaks caused by unpasteurized and pasteurized dairy products, United States, 1998-2011.

INTRODUCTION: The interstate commerce of unpasteurized fluid milk, also known as raw milk, is illegal in the United States, and intrastate sales are regulated independently by each state. However, U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulations allow the interstate sale of certain types of cheeses made from unpasteurized milk if specific aging requirements are met. We describe characteristics of these outbreaks, including differences between outbreaks linked to cheese made from pasteurized or unpasteurized milk. METHODS: We reviewed reports of outbreaks submitted to the Foodborne Disease Outbreak Surveillance System during 1998-2011 in which cheese was implicated as the vehicle. We describe characteristics of these outbreaks, including differences between outbreaks linked to cheese made from pasteurized versus unpasteurized milk. RESULTS: During 1998-2011, 90 outbreaks attributed to cheese were reported; 38 (42%) were due to cheese made with unpasteurized milk, 44 (49%) to cheese made with pasteurized milk, and the pasteurization status was not reported for the other eight (9%). The most common cheese-pathogen pairs were unpasteurized queso fresco or other Mexican-style cheese and Salmonella (10 outbreaks), and pasteurized queso fresco or other Mexican-style cheese and Listeria (6 outbreaks). The cheese was imported from Mexico in 38% of outbreaks caused by cheese made with unpasteurized milk. In at least five outbreaks, all due to cheese made from unpasteurized milk, the outbreak report noted that the cheese was produced or sold illegally. Outbreaks caused by cheese made from pasteurized milk occurred most commonly (64%) in restaurant, delis, or banquet settings where cross-contamination was the most common contributing factor. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to using pasteurized milk to make cheese, interventions to improve the safety of cheese include limiting illegal importation of cheese, strict sanitation and microbiologic monitoring in cheese-making facilities, and controls to limit food worker contamination.