Legionnaires' Disease Outbreak Associated With a Hot Tub Display at the North Carolina Mountain State Fair, September 2019.

OBJECTIVES: On September 23, 2019, the North Carolina Division of Public Health identified a legionellosis increase in western North Carolina; most patients had recently attended the North Carolina Mountain State Fair. We conducted a source investigation. METHODS: Cases were fair attendees with laboratory-confirmed legionellosis and symptom onset within 2 to 14 days (Legionnaires' disease) or ≤3 days (Pontiac fever). We conducted a case-control study matching cases to non-ill fair attendees as control participants and an environmental investigation, and we performed laboratory testing (Legionella bacteria culture and polymerase chain reaction) of 27 environmental samples from fairgrounds and hot tubs and 14 specimens from case patients. We used multivariable unconditional logistic regression models to calculate adjusted odds ratios for potential Legionella exposure sources and risk factors. RESULTS: Of 136 people identified with fair-associated legionellosis, 98 (72%) were hospitalized and 4 (3%) died. Case patients were more likely than control participants to report walking by hot tub displays (adjusted odds ratio = 10.0; 95% CI, 4.2-24.1). Complete hot tub water treatment records were not kept, precluding evaluation of water maintenance conducted on display hot tubs. Legionella pneumophila sequence types (STs) were consistent among 10 typed clinical specimens (ST224) but distinct from the only positive environmental sample from the fair (ST7 and ST8). CONCLUSIONS: Hot tub displays were identified as the most likely outbreak source, making this the largest hot tub-associated Legionnaires' disease outbreak worldwide. Following the investigation, the North Carolina Division of Public Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released guidance on mitigating risk of Legionella exposure from hot tub displays. Results highlight the importance of properly maintaining equipment that aerosolizes water, including hot tubs intended for display purposes only.

Application of a life table approach to assess duration of BNT162b2 vaccine-derived immunity by age using COVID-19 case surveillance data during the Omicron variant period.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variants have the potential to impact vaccine effectiveness and duration of vaccine-derived immunity. We analyzed U.S. multi-jurisdictional COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough surveillance data to examine potential waning of protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection for the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b) primary vaccination series by age. METHODS: Weekly numbers of SARS-CoV-2 infections during January 16, 2022-May 28, 2022 were analyzed by age group from 22 U.S. jurisdictions that routinely linked COVID-19 case surveillance and immunization data. A life table approach incorporating line-listed and aggregated COVID-19 case datasets with vaccine administration and U.S. Census data was used to estimate hazard rates of SARS-CoV-2 infections, hazard rate ratios (HRR) and percent reductions in hazard rate comparing unvaccinated people to people vaccinated with a Pfizer-BioNTech primary series only, by age group and time since vaccination. RESULTS: The percent reduction in hazard rates for persons 2 weeks after vaccination with a Pfizer-BioNTech primary series compared with unvaccinated persons was lowest among children aged 5-11 years at 35.5% (95% CI: 33.3%, 37.6%) compared to the older age groups, which ranged from 68.7%-89.6%. By 19 weeks after vaccination, all age groups showed decreases in the percent reduction in the hazard rates compared with unvaccinated people; with the largest declines observed among those aged 5-11 and 12-17 years and more modest declines observed among those 18 years and older. CONCLUSIONS: The decline in vaccine protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection observed in this study is consistent with other studies and demonstrates that national case surveillance data were useful for assessing early signals in age-specific waning of vaccine protection during the initial period of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant predominance. The potential for waning immunity during the Omicron period emphasizes the importance of continued monitoring and consideration of optimal timing and provision of booster doses in the future.

Trends in Laboratory-Confirmed SARS-CoV-2 Reinfections and Associated Hospitalizations and Deaths Among Adults Aged ≥18 Years - 18 U.S. Jurisdictions, September 2021-December 2022.

Although reinfections with SARS-CoV-2 have occurred in the United States with increasing frequency, U.S. epidemiologic trends in reinfections and associated severe outcomes have not been characterized. Weekly counts of SARS-CoV-2 reinfections, total infections, and associated hospitalizations and deaths reported by 18 U.S. jurisdictions during September 5, 2021-December 31, 2022, were analyzed overall, by age group, and by five periods of SARS-CoV-2 variant predominance (Delta and Omicron [BA.1, BA.2, BA.4/BA.5, and BQ.1/BQ.1.1]). Among reported reinfections, weekly trends in the median intervals between infections and frequencies of predominant variants during previous infections were calculated. As a percentage of all infections, reinfections increased substantially from the Delta (2.7%) to the Omicron BQ.1/BQ.1.1 (28.8%) periods; during the same periods, increases in the percentages of reinfections among COVID-19-associated hospitalizations (from 1.9% [Delta] to 17.0% [Omicron BQ.1/BQ.1.1]) and deaths (from 1.2% [Delta] to 12.3% [Omicron BQ.1/BQ.1.1]) were also substantial. Percentages of all COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths that were reinfections were consistently higher across variant periods among adults aged 18-49 years compared with those among adults aged ≥50 years. The median interval between infections ranged from 269 to 411 days by week, with a steep decline at the start of the BA.4/BA.5 period, when >50% of reinfections occurred among persons previously infected during the Alpha variant period or later. To prevent severe COVID-19 outcomes, including those following reinfection, CDC recommends staying up to date with COVID-19 vaccination and receiving timely antiviral treatments, when eligible.

COVID-19 Incidence and Mortality Among Unvaccinated and Vaccinated Persons Aged ≥12 Years by Receipt of Bivalent Booster Doses and Time Since Vaccination - 24 U.S. Jurisdictions, October 3, 2021-December 24, 2022.

On September 1, 2022, CDC recommended an updated (bivalent) COVID-19 vaccine booster to help restore waning protection conferred by previous vaccination and broaden protection against emerging variants for persons aged ≥12 years (subsequently extended to persons aged ≥6 months).* To assess the impact of original (monovalent) COVID-19 vaccines and bivalent boosters, case and mortality rate ratios (RRs) were estimated comparing unvaccinated and vaccinated persons aged ≥12 years by overall receipt of and by time since booster vaccination (monovalent or bivalent) during Delta variant and Omicron sublineage (BA.1, BA.2, early BA.4/BA.5, and late BA.4/BA.5) predominance.† During the late BA.4/BA.5 period, unvaccinated persons had higher COVID-19 mortality and infection rates than persons receiving bivalent doses (mortality RR = 14.1 and infection RR = 2.8) and to a lesser extent persons vaccinated with only monovalent doses (mortality RR = 5.4 and infection RR = 2.5). Among older adults, mortality rates among unvaccinated persons were significantly higher than among those who had received a bivalent booster (65-79 years; RR = 23.7 and ≥80 years; 10.3) or a monovalent booster (65-79 years; 8.3 and ≥80 years; 4.2). In a second analysis stratified by time since booster vaccination, there was a progressive decline from the Delta period (RR = 50.7) to the early BA.4/BA.5 period (7.4) in relative COVID-19 mortality rates among unvaccinated persons compared with persons receiving who had received a monovalent booster within 2 weeks-2 months. During the early BA.4/BA.5 period, declines in relative mortality rates were observed at 6-8 (RR = 4.6), 9-11 (4.5), and ≥12 (2.5) months after receiving a monovalent booster. In contrast, bivalent boosters received during the preceding 2 weeks-2 months improved protection against death (RR = 15.2) during the late BA.4/BA.5 period. In both analyses, when compared with unvaccinated persons, persons who had received bivalent boosters were provided additional protection against death over monovalent doses or monovalent boosters. Restored protection was highest in older adults. All persons should stay up to date with COVID-19 vaccination, including receipt of a bivalent booster by eligible persons, to reduce the risk for severe COVID-19.

Characteristics of an Outbreak of E-cigarette, or Vaping, Product Use-Associated Lung Injury-North Carolina, 2019.

BACKGROUND In August 2019, the North Carolina Division of Public Health (NCDPH) began investigating e-cigarette, or vaping, product use-associated lung injury (EVALI) cases as part of a national response. We describe clinical, epidemiologic, and laboratory findings of North Carolina EVALI patients.METHODS NCDPH requested that physicians report cases of respiratory illness or bilateral pulmonary infiltrates or opacities in patients who reported using e-cigarette, or vaping, products and had no infection or alternative plausible diagnoses. We reviewed medical records, interviewed patients, and tested vaping products for substances.RESULTS During August 13, 2019-February 18, 2020, 78 EVALI cases were reported in North Carolina. Median age of cases was 24 years (range: 13-72 years); 49 (63%) patients were male. Symptoms included cough (n = 70; 90%), shortness of breath (n = 66; 85%), and gastrointestinal symptoms (n = 63; 81%). Seventy-five patients (96%) were hospitalized, 32 (41%) required intensive care, and 12 (16%) required mechanical ventilation; none died. Among 20 patients interviewed, most reported using tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) (n = 16; 80%) or nicotine-containing products (n = 14; 70%). All obtained THC-containing products from informal sources, such as family, friends, or dealers, as THC is illegal in North Carolina. Among 82 products tested, 74 (90%) contained THC, cannabidiol, or cannabinol; 54 (66%) contained vitamin E acetate.LIMITATIONS In North Carolina, EVALI is not reportable by law, and THC is illegal. Thus, cases and exposures are likely underreported.CONCLUSIONS THC-containing products, particularly those containing vitamin E acetate, are associated with EVALI. Persons should not use these products, particularly from informal sources. Continued communication of health risks to persons who use e-cigarette, or vaping, products is essential.

SARS-CoV-2 infection in central North Carolina: Protocol for a population-based longitudinal cohort study and preliminary participant results.

Public health surveillance systems likely underestimate the true prevalence and incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection due to limited access to testing and the high proportion of subclinical infections in community-based settings. This ongoing prospective, observational study aimed to generate accurate estimates of the prevalence and incidence of, and risk factors for, SARS-CoV-2 infection among residents of a central North Carolina county. From this cohort, we collected survey data and nasal swabs every two weeks and venous blood specimens every month. Nasal swabs were tested for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 virus (evidence of active infection), and serum specimens for SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies (evidence of prior infection). As of June 23, 2021, we have enrolled a total of 153 participants from a county with an estimated 76,285 total residents. The anticipated study duration is at least 24 months, pending the evolution of the pandemic. Study data are being shared on a monthly basis with North Carolina state health authorities and future analyses aim to compare study data to state-wide metrics over time. Overall, the use of a probability-based sampling design and a well-characterized cohort will enable collection of critical data that can be used in planning and policy decisions for North Carolina and may be informative for other states with similar demographic characteristics.

Monitoring Incidence of COVID-19 Cases, Hospitalizations, and Deaths, by Vaccination Status - 13 U.S. Jurisdictions, April 4-July 17, 2021.

COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infection surveillance helps monitor trends in disease incidence and severe outcomes in fully vaccinated persons, including the impact of the highly transmissible B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Reported COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths occurring among persons aged ≥18 years during April 4-July 17, 2021, were analyzed by vaccination status across 13 U.S. jurisdictions that routinely linked case surveillance and immunization registry data. Averaged weekly, age-standardized incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for cases among persons who were not fully vaccinated compared with those among fully vaccinated persons decreased from 11.1 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 7.8-15.8) to 4.6 (95% CI = 2.5-8.5) between two periods when prevalence of the Delta variant was lower (<50% of sequenced isolates; April 4-June 19) and higher (≥50%; June 20-July 17), and IRRs for hospitalizations and deaths decreased between the same two periods, from 13.3 (95% CI = 11.3-15.6) to 10.4 (95% CI = 8.1-13.3) and from 16.6 (95% CI = 13.5-20.4) to 11.3 (95% CI = 9.1-13.9). Findings were consistent with a potential decline in vaccine protection against confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and continued strong protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalization and death. Getting vaccinated protects against severe illness from COVID-19, including the Delta variant, and monitoring COVID-19 incidence by vaccination status might provide early signals of changes in vaccine-related protection that can be confirmed through well-controlled vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies.

COVID-19 Case Investigation and Contact Tracing in the US, 2020.

Importance: Contact tracing is a multistep process to limit SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Gaps in the process result in missed opportunities to prevent COVID-19. Objective: To quantify proportions of cases and their contacts reached by public health authorities and the amount of time needed to reach them and to compare the risk of a positive COVID-19 test result between contacts and the general public during 4-week assessment periods. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study took place at 13 health departments and 1 Indian Health Service Unit in 11 states and 1 tribal nation. Participants included all individuals with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and their named contacts. Local COVID-19 surveillance data were used to determine the numbers of persons reported to have laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 who were interviewed and named contacts between June and October 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: For contacts, the numbers who were identified, notified of their exposure, and agreed to monitoring were calculated. The median time from index case specimen collection to contact notification was calculated, as were numbers of named contacts subsequently notified of their exposure and monitored. The prevalence of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test among named and tested contacts was compared with that jurisdiction's general population during the same 4 weeks. Results: The total number of cases reported was 74 185. Of these, 43 931 (59%) were interviewed, and 24 705 (33%) named any contacts. Among the 74 839 named contacts, 53 314 (71%) were notified of their exposure, and 34 345 (46%) agreed to monitoring. A mean of 0.7 contacts were reached by telephone by public health authorities, and only 0.5 contacts per case were monitored. In general, health departments reporting large case counts during the assessment (≥5000) conducted smaller proportions of case interviews and contact notifications. In 9 locations, the median time from specimen collection to contact notification was 6 days or less. In 6 of 8 locations with population comparison data, positive test prevalence was higher among named contacts than the general population. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of US local COVID-19 surveillance data, testing named contacts was a high-yield activity for case finding. However, this assessment suggests that contact tracing had suboptimal impact on SARS-CoV-2 transmission, largely because 2 of 3 cases were either not reached for interview or named no contacts when interviewed. These findings are relevant to decisions regarding the allocation of public health resources among the various prevention strategies and for the prioritization of case investigations and contact tracing efforts.

SARS-CoV-2 testing in North Carolina: Racial, ethnic, and geographic disparities.

SARS-CoV-2 testing data in North Carolina during the first three months of the state's COVID-19 pandemic were analyzed to determine if there were disparities among intersecting axes of identity including race, Latinx ethnicity, age, urban-rural residence, and residence in a medically underserved area. Demographic and residential data were used to reconstruct patterns of testing metrics (including tests per capita, positive tests per capita, and test positivity rate which is an indicator of sufficient testing) across race-ethnicity groups and urban-rural populations separately. Across the entire sample, 13.1% (38,750 of 295,642) of tests were positive. Within racial-ethnic groups, 11.5% of all tests were positive among non-Latinx (NL) Whites, 22.0% for NL Blacks, and 66.5% for people of Latinx ethnicity. The test positivity rate was higher among people living in rural areas across all racial-ethnic groups. These results suggest that in the first three months of the COVID-19 pandemic, access to COVID-19 testing in North Carolina was not evenly distributed across racial-ethnic groups, especially in Latinx, NL Black and other historically marginalized populations, and further disparities existed within these groups by gender, age, urban-rural status, and residence in a medically underserved area.

COVID-19 Contact Tracing in Two Counties - North Carolina, June-July 2020.

Contact tracing is a strategy implemented to minimize the spread of communicable diseases (1,2). Prompt contact tracing, testing, and self-quarantine can reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (3,4). Community engagement is important to encourage participation in and cooperation with SARS-CoV-2 contact tracing (5). Substantial investments have been made to scale up contact tracing for COVID-19 in the United States. During June 1-July 12, 2020, the incidence of COVID-19 cases in North Carolina increased 183%, from seven to 19 per 100,000 persons per day* (6). To assess local COVID-19 contact tracing implementation, data from two counties in North Carolina were analyzed during a period of high incidence. Health department staff members investigated 5,514 (77%) persons with COVID-19 in Mecklenburg County and 584 (99%) in Randolph Counties. No contacts were reported for 48% of cases in Mecklenburg and for 35% in Randolph. Among contacts provided, 25% in Mecklenburg and 48% in Randolph could not be reached by telephone and were classified as nonresponsive after at least one attempt on 3 consecutive days of failed attempts. The median interval from specimen collection from the index patient to notification of identified contacts was 6 days in both counties. Despite aggressive efforts by health department staff members to perform case investigations and contact tracing, many persons with COVID-19 did not report contacts, and many contacts were not reached. These findings indicate that improved timeliness of contact tracing, community engagement, and increased use of community-wide mitigation are needed to interrupt SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

Not Just Endocarditis: Hospitalizations for Selected Invasive Infections Among Persons With Opioid and Stimulant Use Diagnoses-North Carolina, 2010-2018.

BACKGROUND: While increases in overdoses, viral hepatitis, and endocarditis associated with drug use have been well-documented in North Carolina, the full scope of invasive drug-related infections (IDRIs) has not. We characterized trends in IDRIs among hospitalized patients in North Carolina. METHODS: We compared invasive infections that were related or not related to drug use among hospitalized patients aged 18-55 years based on retrospective review of administrative records from 2010-2018. Hospitalizations for endocarditis, central nervous system/spine infections, osteomyelitis, and septic arthritis were labeled as IDRIs if discharge codes included opioid and/or amphetamine misuse. Trends, rates, and distributions were calculated. RESULTS: Among 44 851 hospitalizations for the specified infections, 2830 (6.3%) were IDRIs. The proportion of infections attributable to drug use increased from 1.5% (2010) to 13.1% (2018), and the rate grew from 1.2 to 15.1 per 100 000. Compared with those who had non-drug-related infections, patients with IDRIs were younger (median age, 35 vs 46 years), more likely to be non-Hispanic white (81% vs 56%), and had longer hospitalizations (median, 8 vs 6 days). 43% of hospitalizations for IDRIs involved infective endocarditis. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of IDRIs in North Carolina increased substantially during 2010-2018, indicating an urgent need for enhanced infection prevention, harm reduction, and addiction services aimed at community and inpatient settings.

National Public Health Burden Estimates of Endocarditis and Skin and Soft-Tissue Infections Related to Injection Drug Use: A Review.

BACKGROUND: Despite concerns about the burden of the bacterial and fungal infection syndromes related to injection drug use (IDU), robust estimates of the public health burden of these conditions are lacking. The current article reviews and compares data sources and national burden estimates for infective endocarditis (IE) and skin and soft-tissue infections related to IDU in the United States. METHODS: A literature review was conducted for estimates of skin and soft-tissue infection and endocarditis disease burden with related IDU or substance use disorder terms since 2011. A range of the burden is presented, based on different methods of obtaining national projections from available data sources or published data. RESULTS: Estimates using available data suggest the number of hospital admissions for IE related to IDU ranged from 2900 admissions in 2013 to more than 20 000 in 2017. The only source of data available to estimate the annual number of hospitalizations and emergency department visits for skin and soft-tissue infections related to IDU yielded a crude estimate of 98 000 such visits. Including people who are not hospitalized, a crude calculation suggests that 155 000-540 000 skin infections related to IDU occur annually. DISCUSSION: These estimates carry significant limitations. However, regardless of the source or method, the burden of disease appears substantial, with estimates of thousands of episodes of IE among persons with IDU and at least 100 000 persons who inject drugs (PWID) with skin and soft-tissue infections annually in the United States. Given the importance of these types of infections, more robust and reliable estimates are needed to better quantitate the occurrence and understand the impact of interventions.

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.

Ocular Syphilis and Human Immunodeficiency Virus Coinfection Among Syphilis Patients in North Carolina, 2014-2016.

BACKGROUND: Ocular syphilis (OS) has been associated with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) coinfection previously. We compared demographic and clinical characteristics of syphilis patients with and without HIV to identify risk factors for developing OS. METHODS: We reviewed all syphilis cases (early and late) reported to the North Carolina Division of Public Health during 2014 to 2016 and categorized HIV status (positive, negative, unknown) and OS status based on report of ocular symptoms with no other defined etiology. We estimated prevalence ratios (PR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for OS by HIV status. Among syphilis patients with HIV, we compared viral loads and CD4 cell counts by OS status. We compared symptom resolution by HIV status for a subset of OS patients. RESULTS: Among 7123 confirmed syphilis cases, 2846 (39.9%) were living with HIV, 109 (1.5%) had OS, and 59 (0.8%) had both. Ocular syphilis was more prevalent in syphilis patients with HIV compared to HIV-negative/unknown-status patients (PR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.2-2.6). Compared with other patients with HIV, the prevalence of OS was higher in patients with viral loads greater than 200 copies/mL (1.7; 1.0-2.8) and in patients with a CD4 count of 200 cells/mL or less (PR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.3-4.2). Among 11 patients with severe OS, 9 (81.8%) were HIV-positive. Among 39 interviewed OS patients, OS symptom resolution was similar for HIV-positive (70.0%) and HIV-negative/unknown-status (68.4%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Syphilis patients with HIV were nearly twice as likely to report OS symptoms as were patients without documented HIV. Human immunodeficiency virus-related immunodeficiency possibly increases the risk of OS development in co-infected patients.

Trends in Drug Use-Associated Infective Endocarditis and Heart Valve Surgery, 2007 to 2017: A Study of Statewide Discharge Data.

Background: Drug use-associated infective endocarditis (DUA-IE) is increasing as a result of the opioid epidemic. Infective endocarditis may require valve surgery, but surgical treatment of DUA-IE has invoked controversy, and the extent of its use is unknown. Objective: To examine hospitalization trends for DUA-IE, the proportion of hospitalizations with surgery, patient characteristics, length of stay, and charges. Design: 10-year analysis of a statewide hospital discharge database. Setting: North Carolina hospitals, 2007 to 2017. Patients: All patients aged 18 years or older hospitalized for IE. Measurements: Annual trends in all IE admissions and in IE hospitalizations with valve surgery, stratified by patients' drug use status. Characteristics of DUA-IE surgical hospitalizations, including patient demographic characteristics, length of stay, disposition, and charges. Results: Of 22 825 IE hospitalizations, 2602 (11%) were for DUA-IE. Valve surgery was performed in 1655 IE hospitalizations (7%), including 285 (17%) for DUA-IE. Annual DUA-IE hospitalizations increased from 0.92 to 10.95 and DUA-IE hospitalizations with surgery from 0.10 to 1.38 per 100 000 persons. In the final year, 42% of IE valve surgeries were performed in patients with DUA-IE. Compared with other surgical patients with IE, those with DUA-IE were younger (median age, 33 vs. 56 years), were more commonly female (47% vs. 33%) and white (89% vs. 63%), and were primarily insured by Medicaid (38%) or uninsured (35%). Hospital stays for DUA-IE were longer (median, 27 vs. 17 days), with higher median charges ($250 994 vs. $198 764). Charges for 282 DUA-IE hospitalizations exceeded $78 million. Limitation: Reliance on administrative data and billing codes. Conclusion: DUA-IE hospitalizations and valve surgeries increased more than 12-fold, and nearly half of all IE valve surgeries were performed in patients with DUA-IE. The swell of patients with DUA-IE is reshaping the scope, type, and financing of health care resources needed to effectively treat IE. Primary Funding Source: National Institutes of Health.

Occupational and Take-home Lead Exposure Among Lead Oxide Manufacturing Employees, North Carolina, 2016.

OBJECTIVE: In 2016, North Carolina blood lead level (BLL) surveillance activities identified elevated BLLs among 3 children exposed to take-home lead by household members employed at a lead oxide manufacturing facility. We characterized BLLs among employees and associated children and identified risk factors for occupational and take-home lead exposure. METHODS: We reviewed BLL surveillance data for 2012-2016 to identify facility employees and associated children. We considered a BLL ≥5 µg/dL elevated for adults and children and compared adult BLLs with regulatory limits and recommended health-based thresholds. We also conducted an environmental investigation and interviewed current employees about exposure controls and cleanup procedures. RESULTS: During 2012-2016, 5 children associated with facility employees had a confirmed BLL ≥5 µg/dL. Among 77 people employed during 2012-2016, median BLLs increased from 22 µg/dL (range, 4-45 µg/dL) in 2012 to 37 µg/dL (range, 16-54 µg/dL) in 2016. All employee BLLs were <60 µg/dL, the national regulatory threshold for immediate medical removal from lead exposure; however, 55 (71%) had a BLL ≥20 µg/dL, a recommended health-based threshold for removal from lead exposure. Because of inadequate controls in the facility, areas considered clean were visibly contaminated with lead dust. Employees reported bringing personal items to work and then into their cars and homes, resulting in take-home lead exposure. CONCLUSIONS: Integration of child and adult BLL surveillance activities identified an occupational source of lead exposure among workers and associated children. Our findings support recent recommendations that implementation of updated lead standards will support better control of lead in the workplace and prevent lead from being carried home.

Assessment of Epidemiology Capacity in State Health Departments - United States, 2017.

In 2017, the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists performed its sixth periodic Epidemiology Capacity Assessment, a national assessment that evaluates trends in workforce size, funding, and epidemiology capacity among state health departments. A standardized web-based questionnaire was sent to the state epidemiologist in the 50 states, the District of Columbia (DC), and the U.S. territories and the Federated States of Micronesia inquiring about the number of current and optimal epidemiologist positions; sources of epidemiology activity and personnel funding; and each department's self-perceived capacity to lead activities, provide subject matter expertise, and obtain and manage resources for the four Essential Public Health Services (EPHS)* most closely linked to epidemiology. From 2013 to 2017, the number of state health department epidemiologists† increased 22%, from 2,752 to 3,369, the greatest number of workers since the first full Epidemiology Capacity Assessment enumeration in 2004. The federal government provided most (77%) of the funding for epidemiologic activities and personnel. Substantial to full capacity (50%-100%) was highest for investigating health problems (92% of health departments) and monitoring health status (84%), whereas capacity for evaluating effectiveness (39%) and applied research (29%) was considerably lower. An estimated additional 1,200 epidemiologists are needed to reach full capacity to conduct the four EPHS. Additional resources might be needed to ensure that state health department epidemiologists possess the specialized skills to deliver EPHS, particularly in evaluation and applied epidemiologic research.