Pediatric HIV Case Identification Across 22 PEPFAR-Supported Countries During the COVID-19 Pandemic, October 2019-September 2020.

During 2020, an estimated 150,000 persons aged 0-14 years acquired HIV globally (1). Case identification is the first step to ensure children living with HIV are linked to life-saving treatment, achieve viral suppression, and live long, healthy lives. Successful interventions to optimize pediatric HIV testing during the COVID-19 pandemic are needed to sustain progress toward achieving Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) 95-95-95 targets.* Changes in HIV testing and diagnoses among persons aged 1-14 years (children) were assessed in 22 U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR)-supported countries during October 1, 2019-September 30, 2020. This period corresponds to the two fiscal quarters before the COVID-19 pandemic (i.e., Q1 and Q2) and the two quarters after the pandemic began (i.e., Q3 and Q4). Testing was disaggregated by age group, testing strategy, and fiscal year quarter. During October 2019-September 2020, PEPFAR supported 4,312,343 HIV tests and identified 74,658 children living with HIV (CLHIV). The number of HIV tests performed was similar during Q1 and Q2, decreased 40.1% from Q2 to Q3, and increased 19.7% from Q3 to Q4. The number of HIV cases identified among children aged 1-14 years (cases identified) increased 7.4% from Q1 to Q2, decreased 29.4% from Q2 to Q3, and increased 3.3% from Q3 to Q4. Although testing in outpatient departments decreased 21% from Q1 to Q4, testing from other strategies increased during the same period, including mobile testing by 38%, facility-based index testing (offering an HIV test to partners and biological children of persons living with HIV) by 8%, and testing children with signs or symptoms of malnutrition within health facilities by 7%. In addition, most tests (61.3%) and cases identified (60.9%) were among children aged 5-14 years (school-aged children), highlighting the need to continue offering HIV testing to older children. These findings provide important information on the most effective strategies for identifying CLHIV during the COVID-19 pandemic. HIV testing programs should continue to use programmatic, surveillance, and financial data at both national and subnational levels to determine the optimal mix of testing strategies to minimize disruptions in pediatric case identification during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Adapting HIV services for pregnant and breastfeeding women, infants, children, adolescents and families in resource-constrained settings during the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted global health service delivery, including provision of HIV services. Countries with high HIV burden are balancing the need to minimize interactions with health facilities to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission, while delivering uninterrupted essential HIV prevention, testing and treatment services. Many of these adaptations in resource-constrained settings have not adequately accounted for the needs of pregnant and breastfeeding women, infants, children and adolescents. We propose whole-family, tailored programme adaptations along the HIV clinical continuum to protect the programmatic gains made in services. DISCUSSION: Essential HIV case-finding services for pregnant and breastfeeding women and children should be maintained and include maternal testing, diagnostic testing for infants exposed to HIV, index testing for children whose biological parents or siblings are living with HIV, as well as for children/adolescents presenting with symptoms concerning for HIV and comorbidities. HIV self-testing for children two years of age and older should be supported with caregiver and provider education. Adaptations include bundling services in the same visit and providing testing outside of facilities to the extent possible to reduce exposure risk to COVID-19. Virtual platforms can be used to identify vulnerable children at risk of HIV infection, abuse, harm or violence, and link them to necessary clinical and psychosocial support services. HIV treatment service adaptations for families should focus on family based differentiated service delivery models, including community-based ART initiation and multi-month ART dispensing. Viral load monitoring should not be a barrier to transitioning children and adolescents experiencing treatment failure to more effective ART regimens, and viral load monitoring for pregnant and breastfeeding women and children should be prioritized and bundled with other essential services. CONCLUSIONS: Protecting pregnant and breastfeeding women, infants, children and adolescents from acquiring SARS-CoV-2 while sustaining essential HIV services is an immense global health challenge. Tailored, family friendly programme adaptations for case-finding, ART delivery and viral load monitoring for these populations have the potential to limit SARS-CoV-2 transmission while ensuring the continuity of life-saving HIV case identification and treatment efforts.

A Comparison of Cervical Spine Motion After Immobilization With a Traditional Spine Board and Full-Body Vacuum-Mattress Splint.

BACKGROUND: The National Athletic Trainers' Association (NATA) advocates for cervical spine immobilization on a rigid board or vacuum splint and for removal of athletic equipment before transfer to an emergency medical facility. PURPOSE: To (1) compare triplanar cervical spine motion using motion capture between a traditional rigid spine board and a full-body vacuum splint in equipped and unequipped athletes, (2) assess cervical spine motion during the removal of a football helmet and shoulder pads, and (3) evaluate the effect of body mass on cervical spine motion. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: Twenty healthy male participants volunteered for this study to examine the influence of immobilization type and presence of equipment on triplanar angular cervical spine motion. Three-dimensional cervical spine kinematics was measured using an electromagnetic motion analysis system. Independent variables included testing condition (static lift and hold, 30° tilt, transfer, equipment removal), immobilization type (rigid, vacuum-mattress), and equipment (on, off). Peak sagittal-, frontal-, and transverse-plane angular motions were the primary outcome measures of interest. RESULTS: Subjective ratings of comfort and security did not differ between immobilization types (P > .05). Motion between the rigid board and vacuum splint did not differ by more than 2° under any testing condition, either with or without equipment. In removing equipment, the mean peak motion ranged from 12.5° to 14.0° for the rigid spine board and from 11.4° to 15.4° for the vacuum-mattress splint, and more transverse-plane motion occurred when using the vacuum-mattress splint compared with the rigid spine board (mean difference, 0.14 deg/s [95% CI, 0.05-0.23 deg/s]; P = .002). In patients weighing more than 250 lb, the rigid board provided less motion in the frontal plane (P = .027) and sagittal plane (P = .030) during the tilt condition and transfer condition, respectively. CONCLUSION: The current study confirms similar motion in the vacuum-mattress splint compared with the rigid backboard in varying sized equipped or nonequipped athletes. Cervical spine motion occurs when removing a football helmet and shoulder pads, at an unknown risk to the injured athlete. In athletes who weighed more than 250 lb, immobilization with the rigid board helped to reduce cervical spine motion. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Athletic trainers and team physicians should consider immobilization of athletes who weigh more than 250 lb with a rigid board.