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.

High Impact for Whom? A Qualitative Analysis of Organization Concerns About the Transition to High-Impact Prevention Policy.

HIV represents a significant health burden in the United States. In 2012, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) stopped recommending many once-promoted interventions as part of a shift from one HIV intervention policy, Diffusion of Effective Behavioral Interventions (DEBI), to another, High Impact Prevention (HIP). Twenty-nine staff members from 10 organizations were interviewed to explore how organizations reacted to this shift. Three major themes emerged: (1) Personal experience, community assessment, and epidemiological evidence influenced organizations' perceptions of efficacy and preference for earlier interventions. (2) Organizations were concerned that HIP interventions were not a good fit for their priority populations. (3) Organizations were frustrated with the top-down approach by the CDC prioritizing HIP interventions over earlier interventions. These results indicate that organizations continue to see value in and provide DEBI interventions. In addition, a more participatory process incorporating qualitative evidence and organizations' experiences may be necessary to achieve widespread de-implementation of DEBI interventions.

Better Service by Doing Less: Introducing De-implementation Research in HIV.

The course of HIV research has led to a multitude of interventions to prevent and treat HIV. With the arrival of more effective interventions comes the need to end, or de-implement, less effective interventions. PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To describe the state of de-implementation research in HIV and provide a rationale for expanded research in this area. RECENT FINDINGS: Existing studies have identified a set of HIV-specific interventions appropriate for de-implementing and described the persistence of interventions that should be ended. However, to our knowledge, strategies to successfully promote appropriate de-implementation of HIV-specific interventions have not been examined. De-implementing interventions that are no longer needed is an opportunity to improve the quality and effectiveness of HIV services. Opportunities to expand this field of research abound.

Persistence of inefficient HIV prevention interventions: a mixed-method analysis of the reasons why.

Growing evidence suggests that public health organizations continue to provide inefficient interventions even when better intervention options may be available. Factors informing an organization's decision to continue providing inefficient interventions are unclear. We present an analysis of HIV service organizations to understand factors influencing organizations to continue or end interventions. Between 2017 and 2019, HIV service organizations were recruited from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) website gettested.org, in the 20 metropolitan areas with the highest HIV incidence. Organizations were eligible to participate if they had provided at least one of 37 HIV prevention interventions identified as inefficient by the CDC. 877 organizations were recruited, with a response rate of 66%, (n = 578). Thirty-eight percent (n = 213) of organizations met the eligibility criteria, and 188 organizations completed the survey asking about reasons for continuing or ending interventions. Funding status (41%, n = 79) and client demand for interventions (60%, n = 116) were reported as the primary driving factors why organizations continued ineffective interventions. Scientific evidence was a rarely reported reason for ending an inefficient intervention (12%, n = 23). Qualitative responses indicated interventions were continued if clients demanded interventions they found useful or if staff perceived interventions as improving client behavior and health outcomes. Conversely, interventions were ended if client demand or retention was low, not relevant to the target population or funding ended. The decision to continue or end inefficient interventions is influenced by a number of factors-most often by funding and client interest but not scientific evidence.