Prioritizing zoonotic diseases using a multisectoral, One Health approach for The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).

BACKGROUND: Zoonotic diseases pose a significant threat to human, animal, and environmental health. The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) has endured a significant burden of zoonotic disease impacts. To address zoonotic disease threats in ECOWAS, a One Health Zoonotic Disease Prioritization (OHZDP) was conducted over five days in December 2018 to prioritize zoonotic diseases of greatest regional concern and develop next steps for addressing these priority zoonoses through a regional, multisectoral, One Health approach. METHODS: The OHZDP Process uses a mixed methods prioritization process developed by the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. During the OHZDP workshop, representatives from human, animal, and environmental health ministries from all 15 ECOWAS Member States used a transparent and equal process to prioritize endemic and emerging zoonotic diseases of greatest regional concern that should be jointly addressed by One Health ministries and other partners. After the priority zoonotic diseases were identified, participants discussed recommendations and further regional actions to address the priority zoonoses and advance One Health in the region. RESULTS: ECOWAS Member States agreed upon a list of seven priority zoonotic diseases for the region - Anthrax, Rabies, Ebola and other viral hemorrhagic fevers (for example, Marburg fever, Lassa fever, Rift Valley fever, Crimean-Congo Hemorrhagic fever), zoonotic influenzas, zoonotic tuberculosis, Trypanosomiasis, and Yellow fever. Participants developed recommendations and further regional actions that could be taken, using a One Health approach to address the priority zoonotic diseases in thematic areas including One Health collaboration and coordination, surveillance and laboratory, response and preparedness, prevention and control, workforce development, and research. CONCLUSIONS: ECOWAS was the first region to use the OHZDP Process to prioritize zoonotic disease of greatest concern. With identified priority zoonotic diseases for the region, ECOWAS Member States can collaborate more effectively to address zoonotic diseases threats across the region using a One Health approach. Strengthening national and regional level multisectoral, One Health Coordination Mechanisms will allow ECOWAS Member States to advance One Health and have the biggest impact on improving health outcomes for both people and animals living in a shared environment.

Operationalizing the ECOWAS regional one health coordination mechanism (2016-2019): Scoping review on progress, challenges and way forward.

Based on recommendations from two consultative meetings held in Dakar, Senegal (2016) and Abuja, Nigeria (2017) the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) implemented a Regional One Health Coordination Mechanism (R-OHCM). This study analyzed the process, challenges and gaps in operationalizing the R-OHCM in West Africa. We utilized a scoping review to assess five dimensions of the operation of an R-OHCM based on political commitment, institutional structure, management and coordination capacity, joint planning and implementation, as well as technical and financial resources. Information was gathered through a desk review, interview of key informants, and the viewpoints of relevant stakeholders from ECOWAS region during a regional One Health technical meeting in Lomé, Togo in October 2019. It was found that political commitment at regional meetings and the countries adoption of regional frameworks were key strengths of the R-OHCM, although there are continued challenges with commitment, sustainability, and variability of awareness about One Health approach. ECOWAS formulated regional strategic documents and operationalized the One Health secretariat for strengthening coordination. The R-OHCM has technical working groups however, there is need for engagement of more specialized workforce and a harmonized reporting structure. Furthermore, inadequate focus on operational research, and weak national OHCM are identified as main gaps. Finally, the support of technical and financial partners will help to address the lack of funding which limits the implementation of the R-OHCM. West Africa has demonstrated profound effort in adopting the One Health approach at regional level but is presently deterred by challenges such as limited skilled One Health workforce, especially in the animal and environmental health sectors, and access to quality of One Health surveillance.

CDC Deployments to State, Tribal, Local, and Territorial Health Departments for COVID-19 Emergency Public Health Response - United States, January 21-July 25, 2020.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a viral respiratory illness caused by SARS-CoV-2. During January 21-July 25, 2020, in response to official requests for assistance with COVID-19 emergency public health response activities, CDC deployed 208 teams to assist 55 state, tribal, local, and territorial health departments. CDC deployment data were analyzed to summarize activities by deployed CDC teams in assisting state, tribal, local, and territorial health departments to identify and implement measures to contain SARS-CoV-2 transmission (1). Deployed teams assisted with the investigation of transmission in high-risk congregate settings, such as long-term care facilities (53 deployments; 26% of total), food processing facilities (24; 12%), correctional facilities (12; 6%), and settings that provide services to persons experiencing homelessness (10; 5%). Among the 208 deployed teams, 178 (85%) provided assistance to state health departments, 12 (6%) to tribal health departments, 10 (5%) to local health departments, and eight (4%) to territorial health departments. CDC collaborations with health departments have strengthened local capacity and provided outbreak response support. Collaborations focused attention on health equity issues among disproportionately affected populations (e.g., racial and ethnic minority populations, essential frontline workers, and persons experiencing homelessness) and through a place-based focus (e.g., persons living in rural or frontier areas). These collaborations also facilitated enhanced characterization of COVID-19 epidemiology, directly contributing to CDC data-informed guidance, including guidance for serial testing as a containment strategy in high-risk congregate settings, targeted interventions and prevention efforts among workers at food processing facilities, and social distancing.

Disparities in Incidence of COVID-19 Among Underrepresented Racial/Ethnic Groups in Counties Identified as Hotspots During June 5-18, 2020 - 22 States, February-June 2020.

During January 1, 2020-August 10, 2020, an estimated 5 million cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were reported in the United States.* Published state and national data indicate that persons of color might be more likely to become infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, experience more severe COVID-19-associated illness, including that requiring hospitalization, and have higher risk for death from COVID-19 (1-5). CDC examined county-level disparities in COVID-19 cases among underrepresented racial/ethnic groups in counties identified as hotspots, which are defined using algorithmic thresholds related to the number of new cases and the changes in incidence.† Disparities were defined as difference of ≥5% between the proportion of cases and the proportion of the population or a ratio ≥1.5 for the proportion of cases to the proportion of the population for underrepresented racial/ethnic groups in each county. During June 5-18, 205 counties in 33 states were identified as hotspots; among these counties, race was reported for ≥50% of cumulative cases in 79 (38.5%) counties in 22 states; 96.2% of these counties had disparities in COVID-19 cases in one or more underrepresented racial/ethnic groups. Hispanic/Latino (Hispanic) persons were the largest group by population size (3.5 million persons) living in hotspot counties where a disproportionate number of cases among that group was identified, followed by black/African American (black) persons (2 million), American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) persons (61,000), Asian persons (36,000), and Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander (NHPI) persons (31,000). Examining county-level data disaggregated by race/ethnicity can help identify health disparities in COVID-19 cases and inform strategies for preventing and slowing SARS-CoV-2 transmission. More complete race/ethnicity data are needed to fully inform public health decision-making. Addressing the pandemic's disproportionate incidence of COVID-19 in communities of color can reduce the community-wide impact of COVID-19 and improve health outcomes.

Trends in Number and Distribution of COVID-19 Hotspot Counties - United States, March 8-July 15, 2020.

The geographic areas in the United States most affected by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have changed over time. On May 7, 2020, CDC, with other federal agencies, began identifying counties with increasing COVID-19 incidence (hotspots) to better understand transmission dynamics and offer targeted support to health departments in affected communities. Data for January 22-July 15, 2020, were analyzed retrospectively (January 22-May 6) and prospectively (May 7-July 15) to detect hotspot counties. No counties met hotspot criteria during January 22-March 7, 2020. During March 8-July 15, 2020, 818 counties met hotspot criteria for ≥1 day; these counties included 80% of the U.S. population. The daily number of counties meeting hotspot criteria peaked in early April, decreased and stabilized during mid-April-early June, then increased again during late June-early July. The percentage of counties in the South and West Census regions* meeting hotspot criteria increased from 10% and 13%, respectively, during March-April to 28% and 22%, respectively, during June-July. Identification of community transmission as a contributing factor increased over time, whereas identification of outbreaks in long-term care facilities, food processing facilities, correctional facilities, or other workplaces as contributing factors decreased. Identification of hotspot counties and understanding how they change over time can help prioritize and target implementation of U.S. public health response activities.

COVID-19 Among Workers in Meat and Poultry Processing Facilities - 19 States, April 2020.

Congregate work and residential locations are at increased risk for infectious disease transmission including respiratory illness outbreaks. SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), is primarily spread person to person through respiratory droplets. Nationwide, the meat and poultry processing industry, an essential component of the U.S. food infrastructure, employs approximately 500,000 persons, many of whom work in proximity to other workers (1). Because of reports of initial cases of COVID-19, in some meat processing facilities, states were asked to provide aggregated data concerning the number of meat and poultry processing facilities affected by COVID-19 and the number of workers with COVID-19 in these facilities, including COVID-19-related deaths. Qualitative data gathered by CDC during on-site and remote assessments were analyzed and summarized. During April 9-27, aggregate data on COVID-19 cases among 115 meat or poultry processing facilities in 19 states were reported to CDC. Among these facilities, COVID-19 was diagnosed in 4,913 (approximately 3%) workers, and 20 COVID-19-related deaths were reported. Facility barriers to effective prevention and control of COVID-19 included difficulty distancing workers at least 6 feet (2 meters) from one another (2) and in implementing COVID-19-specific disinfection guidelines.* Among workers, socioeconomic challenges might contribute to working while feeling ill, particularly if there are management practices such as bonuses that incentivize attendance. Methods to decrease transmission within the facility include worker symptom screening programs, policies to discourage working while experiencing symptoms compatible with COVID-19, and social distancing by workers. Source control measures (e.g., the use of cloth face covers) as well as increased disinfection of high-touch surfaces are also important means of preventing SARS-CoV-2 exposure. Mitigation efforts to reduce transmission in the community should also be considered. Many of these measures might also reduce asymptomatic and presymptomatic transmission (3). Implementation of these public health strategies will help protect workers from COVID-19 in this industry and assist in preserving the critical meat and poultry production infrastructure (4).

Plague and Pregnancy: Why Special Considerations Are Needed.

Pregnant women are an important at-risk population to consider during public health emergencies. These women, like nonpregnant adults, may be faced with the risk of acquiring life-threatening infections during outbreaks or bioterrorism (BT) events and, in some cases, can experience increased severity of infection and higher morbidity compared with nonpregnant adults. Yersinia pestis, the bacterium that causes plague, is a highly pathogenic organism. There are 4 million births annually in the United States, and thus the unique needs of pregnant women and their infants should be considered in pre-event planning for a plague outbreak or BT event.

Plague During Pregnancy: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Yersinia pestis continues to cause sporadic cases and outbreaks of plague worldwide and is considered a tier 1 bioterrorism select agent due to its potential for intentional use. Knowledge about the clinical manifestations of plague during pregnancy, specifically the maternal, fetal, and neonatal risks, is very limited. METHODS: We searched 12 literature databases, performed hand searches, and consulted plague experts to identify publications on plague during pregnancy. Articles were included if they reported a case of plague during pregnancy and at least 1 maternal or fetal outcome. RESULTS: Our search identified 6425 articles, of which 59 were eligible for inclusion and described 160 cases of plague among pregnant women. Most published cases occurred during the preantibiotic era. Among those treated with antimicrobials, the most commonly used were sulfonamides (75%) and streptomycin (54%). Among cases treated with antimicrobials, maternal mortality and fetal fatality were 29% and 62%, respectively; for untreated cases, maternal mortality and fetal fatality were 67% and 74%, respectively. Five cases demonstrated evidence of Y. pestis in fetal or neonatal tissues. CONCLUSIONS: Untreated Y. pestis infection during pregnancy is associated with a high risk of maternal mortality and pregnancy loss. Appropriate antimicrobial treatment can improve maternal survival, although even with antimicrobial treatment, there remains a high risk of pregnancy loss. Limited evidence suggests that maternal-fetal transmission of Y. pestis is possible, particularly in the absence of antimicrobial treatment. These results emphasize the need to treat or prophylax pregnant women with suspected plague with highly effective antimicrobials as quickly as possible.

Prenatal HIV Testing and the Impact of State HIV Testing Laws, 2004 to 2011.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to analyze prenatal human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing rates over time and describe the impact of state HIV testing laws on prenatal testing. METHODS: During 2004-2011, self-reported prenatal HIV testing data for women with live births in 35 states and New York City were collected. Prevalence of testing was estimated overall and by state and year. An annual percent change was calculated in states with at least 6 years of data to analyze testing changes over time. An attorney-coder used WestlawNext to identify states with laws that direct prenatal care providers to screen all pregnant women or direct all women to be tested for HIV and document changes in laws to meet this threshold. RESULTS: The overall prenatal HIV testing rate for 2004 through 2011 combined was 75.7%. State-level data showed a wide range of testing rates (43.2%-92.8%) for 2004 through 2011 combined. In areas with 6 years of data, 4 experienced an annual drop in testing (Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, and Illinois). States that changed laws to meet the threshold generally had the highest testing rates, averaging 80%, followed by states with a preexisting law, at approximately 70%. States with no law, or no law meeting the threshold, had an average prenatal testing rate of 65%. CONCLUSIONS: Prenatal HIV testing remained stable between 2004 and 2011 but remained below universal recommendations. Testing varied widely across states and was generally higher in areas that changed their laws to meet the threshold or had preexisting prenatal HIV testing laws, compared with those with no or limited prenatal HIV testing language.

Zika Virus -10 Public Health Achievements in 2016 and Future Priorities.

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

Update: Interim Guidance for Preconception Counseling and Prevention of Sexual Transmission of Zika Virus for Persons with Possible Zika Virus Exposure - United States, September 2016.

CDC has updated its interim guidance for persons with possible Zika virus exposure who are planning to conceive (1) and interim guidance to prevent transmission of Zika virus through sexual contact (2), now combined into a single document. Guidance for care for pregnant women with possible Zika virus exposure was previously published (3). Possible Zika virus exposure is defined as travel to or residence in an area of active Zika virus transmission (http://www.cdc.gov/zika/geo/index.html), or sex* without a condom† with a partner who traveled to or lived in an area of active transmission. Based on new though limited data, CDC now recommends that all men with possible Zika virus exposure who are considering attempting conception with their partner, regardless of symptom status,§ wait to conceive until at least 6 months after symptom onset (if symptomatic) or last possible Zika virus exposure (if asymptomatic). Recommendations for women planning to conceive remain unchanged: women with possible Zika virus exposure are recommended to wait to conceive until at least 8 weeks after symptom onset (if symptomatic) or last possible Zika virus exposure (if asymptomatic). Couples with possible Zika virus exposure, who are not pregnant and do not plan to become pregnant, who want to minimize their risk for sexual transmission of Zika virus should use a condom or abstain from sex for the same periods for men and women described above. Women of reproductive age who have had or anticipate future Zika virus exposure who do not want to become pregnant should use the most effective contraceptive method that can be used correctly and consistently. These recommendations will be further updated when additional data become available.

State Laws Governing HIV Testing in Correctional Settings.

At the end of 2010, 1.5% of inmates in state prisons were known to be HIV positive, a prevalence rate approximately 3 times that of the general population of the United States. Increased HIV testing in correctional settings has the potential to identify previously undiagnosed infections. This article offers a systematic review and analysis of state laws governing HIV testing in correctional settings, including HIV testing upon admission or prior to release, HIV testing for individuals charged with or convicted of specific crimes, and HIV testing of inmates in situations where contact between the inmate and law enforcement or corrections personnel may have led to an exposure. The implications of these laws for facilitating access to HIV testing within correctional settings are discussed.

Youth Drinking in the United States: Relationships With Alcohol Policies and Adult Drinking.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between the alcohol policy environment (ie, the combined effectiveness and implementation of multiple existing alcohol policies) and youth drinking in the United States has not been assessed. We hypothesized that stronger alcohol policy environments are inversely associated with youth drinking, and this relationship is partly explained by adult drinking. METHODS: Alcohol Policy Scale (APS) scores that characterized the strength of the state-level alcohol policy environments were assessed with repeated cross-sectional Youth Risk Behavior Survey data of representative samples of high school students in grades 9 to 12, from biennial years between 1999 and 2011. RESULTS: In fully adjusted models, a 10 percentage point increase in APS scores (representing stronger policy environments) was associated with an 8% reduction in the odds of youth drinking and a 7% reduction in the odds of youth binge drinking. After we accounted for youth-oriented alcohol policies, the subgroup of population-oriented policies was independently associated with lower odds of youth drinking (adjusted odds ratio 0.94; 95% confidence interval 0.92-0.97) and youth binge drinking (adjusted odds ratio 0.96; 95% confidence interval 0.94-0.99). State-level per capita consumption mediated the relationship between population-oriented alcohol policies and binge drinking among youth. CONCLUSIONS: Stronger alcohol policies, including those that do not target youth specifically, are related to a reduced likelihood of youth alcohol consumption. These findings suggest that efforts to reduce youth drinking should incorporate population-based policies to reduce excessive drinking among adults as part of a comprehensive approach to preventing alcohol-related harms. Future research should examine influence of alcohol policy subgroups and discrete policies.

The alcohol policy environment and policy subgroups as predictors of binge drinking measures among US adults.

OBJECTIVES: We examined the relationships of the state-level alcohol policy environment and policy subgroups with individual-level binge drinking measures. METHODS: We used generalized estimating equations regression models to relate the alcohol policy environment based on data from 29 policies in US states from 2004 to 2009 to 3 binge drinking measures in adults from the 2005 to 2010 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System surveys. RESULTS: A 10 percentage point higher alcohol policy environment score, which reflected increased policy effectiveness and implementation, was associated with an 8% lower adjusted odds of binge drinking and binge drinking 5 or more times, and a 10% lower adjusted odds of consuming 10 or more drinks. Policies that targeted the general population rather than the underage population, alcohol consumption rather than impaired driving, and raising the price or reducing the availability of alcohol had the strongest independent associations with reduced binge drinking. Alcohol taxes and outlet density accounted for approximately half of the effect magnitude observed for all policies. CONCLUSIONS: A small number of policies that raised alcohol prices and reduced its availability appeared to affect binge drinking.

A new scale of the U.S. alcohol policy environment and its relationship to binge drinking.

BACKGROUND: Of outcomes related to excessive drinking, binge drinking accounts for approximately half of alcohol-attributable deaths, two thirds of years of potential life lost, and three fourths of economic costs. The extent to which the alcohol policy environment accounts for differences in binge drinking in U.S. states is unknown. PURPOSE: The goal of the study was to describe the development of an Alcohol Policy Scale (APS) designed to measure the aggregate state-level alcohol policy environment in the U.S. and assess the relationship of APS scores to state-level adult binge drinking prevalence in U.S. states. METHODS: Policy efficacy and implementation ratings were developed with assistance from a panel of policy experts. Data on 29 policies in 50 states and Washington DC from 2000-2010 were collected from multiple sources and analyzed between January 2012 and January 2013. Five methods of aggregating policy data to calculate APS scores were explored; all but one was weighted for relative policy efficacy and/or implementation. Adult (aged ≥18 years) binge drinking prevalence data from 2001-2010 was obtained from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System surveys. APS scores from a particular state-year were used to predict binge drinking prevalence during the following year. RESULTS: All methods of calculating APS scores were significantly correlated (r >0.50), and all APS scores were significantly inversely associated with adult binge drinking prevalence. Introducing efficacy and implementation ratings optimized goodness of fit in statistical models (e.g., unadjusted beta=-3.90, p<0.0001, R(2)=0.31). CONCLUSIONS: The composite measure(s) of the alcohol policy environment have internal and construct validity. Higher APS scores (representing stronger policy environments) were associated with less adult binge drinking and accounted for a substantial proportion of the state-level variation in binge drinking among U.S. states.