Trends in COVID-19 Incidence After Implementation of Mitigation Measures - Arizona, January 22-August 7, 2020.

Mitigating the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), requires individual, community, and state public health actions to prevent person-to-person transmission. Community mitigation measures can help slow the spread of COVID-19; these measures include wearing masks, social distancing, reducing the number and size of large gatherings, pausing operation of businesses where maintaining social distancing is challenging, working from or staying at home, and implementing certain workplace and educational institution controls (1-4). The Arizona Department of Health Services' (ADHS) recommendations for mitigating exposure to SARS-CoV-2 were informed by continual monitoring of patient demographics, SARS-CoV-2 community spread, and the pandemic's impacts on hospitals. To assess the effect of mitigation strategies in Arizona, the numbers of daily COVID-19 cases and 7-day moving averages during January 22-August 7, 2020, relative to implementation of enhanced community mitigation measures, were examined. The average number of daily cases increased approximately 151%, from 808 on June 1, 2020 to 2,026 on June 15, 2020 (after stay-at-home order lifted), necessitating increased preventive measures. On June 17, local officials began implementing and enforcing mask wearing (via county and city mandates),* affecting approximately 85% of the state population. Statewide mitigation measures included limitation of public events; closures of bars, gyms, movie theaters, and water parks; reduced restaurant dine-in capacity; and voluntary resident action to stay at home and wear masks (when and where not mandated). The number of COVID-19 cases in Arizona peaked during June 29-July 2, stabilized during July 3-July 12, and further declined by approximately 75% during July 13-August 7. Widespread implementation and enforcement of sustained community mitigation measures informed by state and local officials' continual data monitoring and collaboration can help prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and decrease the numbers of COVID-19 cases.

Implementation of the Arizona Pain and Addiction Curriculum: Findings and Implications From a Statewide Evaluation.

Purpose: The U.S. is struggling with dual crises of chronic pain and opioid overdoses. To improve statewide pain and addiction care, the Arizona Department of Health Services and 18 health education programs collaboratively created the evidence-based, comprehensive Arizona Pain and Addiction Curriculum which includes a Toolbox for Operationalization with adult learning theory applications and an annual program survey to assess curriculum implementation. The purpose of this study is to analyze the first year's survey data to better understand the implementation of a novel curriculum across all programs in the state. Materials and Methods: Program surveys were sent 6 months after curriculum publication to all 18 health education programs in Arizona to assess the 6 Ds of curriculum implementation: Degree of implementation, Difficulty of implementation, Delivery methods, Faculty Development, Didactic dissonance and Discussion Opportunities. Results: Responses from all program types (14/18 programs) indicated that there was widespread implementation of the curriculum, with 71% reporting that all ten Core Components had been included in the past academic year. The majority of programs did not find the Components difficult to implement and had implemented them through lectures. Seventy-seven percent of programs did not have a process to ensure clinical rotation supervisors are teaching content consistent with the curriculum, 77% reported not addressing student's didactic dissonance, and 77% of programs did not report asking students about their interactions with industry representatives. Conclusion: In < 1 year after creation of the Arizona Pain and Addiction Curriculum, all program types reported wide implementation with little difficulty. This may represent a first step toward the transformation of pain and addiction education, and occurred statewide, across program types. Further focus on didactic dissonance, problem solving and faculty development is indicated, along with systematic education on pharmaceutical and industry influence on learners. Other programs may benefit from adopting this curriculum and may not experience significant challenges in doing so.

H1N1 2009 influenza virus infection during pregnancy in the USA.

BACKGROUND: Pandemic H1N1 2009 influenza virus has been identified as the cause of a widespread outbreak of febrile respiratory infection in the USA and worldwide. We summarised cases of infection with pandemic H1N1 virus in pregnant women identified in the USA during the first month of the present outbreak, and deaths associated with this virus during the first 2 months of the outbreak. METHODS: After initial reports of infection in pregnant women, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) began systematically collecting additional information about cases and deaths in pregnant women in the USA with pandemic H1N1 virus infection as part of enhanced surveillance. A confirmed case was defined as an acute respiratory illness with laboratory-confirmed pandemic H1N1 virus infection by real-time reverse-transcriptase PCR or viral culture; a probable case was defined as a person with an acute febrile respiratory illness who was positive for influenza A, but negative for H1 and H3. We used population estimates derived from the 2007 census data to calculate rates of admission to hospital and illness. FINDINGS: From April 15 to May 18, 2009, 34 confirmed or probable cases of pandemic H1N1 in pregnant women were reported to CDC from 13 states. 11 (32%) women were admitted to hospital. The estimated rate of admission for pandemic H1N1 influenza virus infection in pregnant women during the first month of the outbreak was higher than it was in the general population (0.32 per 100 000 pregnant women, 95% CI 0.13-0.52 vs 0.076 per 100 000 population at risk, 95% CI 0.07-0.09). Between April 15 and June 16, 2009, six deaths in pregnant women were reported to the CDC; all were in women who had developed pneumonia and subsequent acute respiratory distress syndrome requiring mechanical ventilation. INTERPRETATION: Pregnant women might be at increased risk for complications from pandemic H1N1 virus infection. These data lend support to the present recommendation to promptly treat pregnant women with H1N1 influenza virus infection with anti-influenza drugs. FUNDING: US CDC.