The Status of Adolescent Testing and Treatment in PEPFAR-Supported Programs, October 2017 to September 2020.

BACKGROUND: Adolescents have poorer outcomes across the HIV cascade compared with adults. We aimed to assess progress in HIV case finding, antiretroviral treatment (ART), viral load coverage (VLC), and viral load suppression (VLS) among adolescents enrolled in the US President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR)-supported programs over a 3-year period that included the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We analyzed PEPFAR program data in 28 countries/regions for adolescents aged 10-19 years between year 1 (October 2017to September 2018), year 2 (October 2018 to September 2019), and year 3 (October 2019 to September 2020). We calculated the number and percent change for HIV tests, HIV-positive tests, and total number on ART. Calculated indicators included positivity, percent of positives newly initiated on ART (ART linkage), VLC (percent of ART patients on ART for ≥6 months with a documented viral load result within the past 12 months), and VLS (percent of viral load tests with <1000 copies/mL). RESULTS: Between years 1 and 3, the number of HIV tests conducted decreased by 44.2%, with a 29.1% decrease in the number of positive tests. Positivity increased from 1.3%-1.6%. The number of adolescents receiving ART increased by 10.4%. In addition, ART linkage increased (77.8%-86.7%) as did VLC (69.4%-79.4%) and VLS (72.8%-81.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate PEPFAR's success in increasing the adolescent treatment cohort. We identified ongoing gaps in adolescent case finding, linkage, VLC, and VLS that could be addressed with a strategic mix of testing strategies, optimal ART regimens, and adolescent-focused service delivery models.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Transmission in a Georgia School District-United States, December 2020-January 2021.

BACKGROUND: To inform prevention strategies, we assessed the extent of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission and settings in which transmission occurred in a Georgia public school district. METHODS: During 1 December 2020-22 January 2021, SARS-CoV-2-infected index cases and their close contacts in schools were identified by school and public health officials. For in-school contacts, we assessed symptoms and offered SARS-CoV-2 reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing; performed epidemiologic investigations and whole-genome sequencing to identify in-school transmission; and calculated secondary attack rate (SAR) by school setting (eg, sports, elementary school classroom), index case role (ie, staff, student), and index case symptomatic status. RESULTS: We identified 86 index cases and 1119 contacts, 688 (61.5%) of whom received testing. Fifty-nine of 679 (8.7%) contacts tested positive; 15 of 86 (17.4%) index cases resulted in ≥2 positive contacts. Among 55 persons testing positive with available symptom data, 31 (56.4%) were asymptomatic. Highest SARs were in indoor, high-contact sports settings (23.8% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 12.7%-33.3%]), staff meetings/lunches (18.2% [95% CI, 4.5%-31.8%]), and elementary school classrooms (9.5% [95% CI, 6.5%-12.5%]). The SAR was higher for staff (13.1% [95% CI, 9.0%-17.2%]) vs student index cases (5.8% [95% CI, 3.6%-8.0%]) and for symptomatic (10.9% [95% CI, 8.1%-13.9%]) vs asymptomatic index cases (3.0% [95% CI, 1.0%-5.5%]). CONCLUSIONS: Indoor sports may pose a risk to the safe operation of in-person learning. Preventing infection in staff members, through measures that include coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination, is critical to reducing in-school transmission. Because many positive contacts were asymptomatic, contact tracing should be paired with testing, regardless of symptoms.

Is Symptom Screening Useful for Identifying COVID-19 Infection in School Settings? Georgia, USA.

This study's goal was to characterize the utility of symptom screening in staff and students for COVID-19 identification and control of transmission in a school setting. We conducted a secondary analysis of cross-sectional data for staff, students and associated household members in a Georgia school district exposed to COVID-19 cases who received RT-PCR testing and symptom monitoring. Among positive contacts, 30/49 (61%) of students and 1/6 (17%) of staff reported no symptoms consistent with COVID-19. Symptom sensitivity was 30% in elementary students and 42% in middle/high students. Fifty-three percent (10/19) of symptomatic positive contacts had at least one household member test positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared with 50% (10/20) of asymptomatic positive contacts. The absence of symptoms in children is not indicative of a lack of SARS-CoV-2 infection or reduced risk of infection for associated household members. Testing all close contacts of people with COVID-19 in schools is needed to interrupt transmission networks.

Clusters of SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Elementary School Educators and Students in One School District - Georgia, December 2020-January 2021.

In-person learning benefits children and communities (1). Understanding the context in which transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), occurs in schools is critical to improving the safety of in-person learning. During December 1, 2020-January 22, 2021, Cobb and Douglas Public Health (CDPH), the Georgia Department of Public Health (GDPH), and CDC investigated SARS-CoV-2 transmission in eight public elementary schools in a single school district. COVID-19 cases* among educators and students were either self-reported or identified by local public health officials. Close contacts (contacts)† of persons with a COVID-19 case received testing. Among contacts who received positive test results, public health investigators assessed epidemiologic links, probable transmission directionality, and the likelihood of in-school transmission.§ Nine clusters of three or more epidemiologically linked COVID-19 cases were identified involving 13 educators and 32 students at six of the eight elementary schools. Two clusters involved probable educator-to-educator transmission that was followed by educator-to-student transmission and resulted in approximately one half (15 of 31) of school-associated cases. Sixty-nine household members of persons with school-associated cases were tested, and 18 (26%) received positive results. All nine transmission clusters involved less than ideal physical distancing, and five involved inadequate mask use by students. Educators were central to in-school transmission networks. Multifaceted mitigation measures in schools, including promotion of COVID-19 precautions outside of school, minimizing in-person adult interactions at school, and ensuring universal and correct mask use and physical distancing among educators and students when in-person interaction is unavoidable, are important in preventing in-school transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Although not required for reopening schools, COVID-19 vaccination should be considered as an additional mitigation measure to be added when available.

Limited Secondary Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in Child Care Programs - Rhode Island, June 1-July 31, 2020.

On June 1, 2020, with declines in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases and hospitalizations in Rhode Island,* child care programs in the state reopened after a nearly 3-month closure implemented as part of mitigation efforts. To reopen safely, the Rhode Island Department of Human Services (RIDHS) required licensed center- and home-based child care programs to reduce enrollment, initially to a maximum of 12 persons, including staff members, in stable groups (i.e., staff members and students not switching between groups) in physically separated spaces, increasing to a maximum of 20 persons on June 29. Additional requirements included universal use of masks for adults, daily symptom screening of adults and children, and enhanced cleaning and disinfection according to CDC guidelines.† As of July 31, 666 of 891 (75%) programs were approved to reopen, with capacity for 18,945 children, representing 74% of the state's January 2020 child care program population (25,749 children).

Timing of Community Mitigation and Changes in Reported COVID-19 and Community Mobility - Four U.S. Metropolitan Areas, February 26-April 1, 2020.

Community mitigation activities (also referred to as nonpharmaceutical interventions) are actions that persons and communities can take to slow the spread of infectious diseases. Mitigation strategies include personal protective measures (e.g., handwashing, cough etiquette, and face coverings) that persons can use at home or while in community settings; social distancing (e.g., maintaining physical distance between persons in community settings and staying at home); and environmental surface cleaning at home and in community settings, such as schools or workplaces. Actions such as social distancing are especially critical when medical countermeasures such as vaccines or therapeutics are not available. Although voluntary adoption of social distancing by the public and community organizations is possible, public policy can enhance implementation. The CDC Community Mitigation Framework (1) recommends a phased approach to implementation at the community level, as evidence of community spread of disease increases or begins to decrease and according to severity. This report presents initial data from the metropolitan areas of San Francisco, California; Seattle, Washington; New Orleans, Louisiana; and New York City, New York* to describe the relationship between timing of public policy measures, community mobility (a proxy measure for social distancing), and temporal trends in reported coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases. Community mobility in all four locations declined from February 26, 2020 to April 1, 2020, decreasing with each policy issued and as case counts increased. This report suggests that public policy measures are an important tool to support social distancing and provides some very early indications that these measures might help slow the spread of COVID-19.