Assessment of the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on UK HbA1c testing: implications for diabetes management and diagnosis.

AIMS: The COVID-19 pandemic, and the focus on mitigating its effects, has disrupted diabetes healthcare services worldwide. We aimed to quantify the effect of the pandemic on diabetes diagnosis/management, using glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) as surrogate, across six UK centres. METHODS: Using routinely collected laboratory data, we estimated the number of missed HbA1c tests for 'diagnostic'/'screening'/'management' purposes during the COVID-19 impact period (CIP; 23 March 2020 to 30 September 2020). We examined potential impact in terms of: (1) diabetes control in people with diabetes and (2) detection of new diabetes and prediabetes cases. RESULTS: In April 2020, HbA1c test numbers fell by ~80%. Overall, across six centres, 369 871 tests were missed during the 6.28 months of the CIP, equivalent to >6.6 million tests nationwide. We identified 79 131 missed 'monitoring' tests in people with diabetes. In those 28 564 people with suboptimal control, this delayed monitoring was associated with a 2-3 mmol/mol HbA1c increase. Overall, 149 455 'screening' and 141 285 'diagnostic' tests were also missed. Across the UK, our findings equate to 1.41 million missed/delayed diabetes monitoring tests (including 0.51 million in people with suboptimal control), 2.67 million screening tests in high-risk groups (0.48 million within the prediabetes range) and 2.52 million tests for diagnosis (0.21 million in the pre-diabetes range; ~70 000 in the diabetes range). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings illustrate the widespread collateral impact of implementing measures to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 in people with, or being investigated for, diabetes. For people with diabetes, missed tests will result in further deterioration in diabetes control, especially in those whose HbA1c levels are already high.

The Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on HbA1c Testing: Prioritization of High-Risk Cases and Impact of Social Deprivation.

INTRODUCTION: Studies show that the COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately affected people with diabetes and those from disadvantaged backgrounds. During the first 6 months of the UK lockdown, > 6.6 M glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) tests were missed. We now report variability in the recovery of HbA1c testing, and its association with diabetes control and demographic characteristics. METHODS: In a service evaluation, we examined HbA1c testing across ten UK sites (representing 9.9% of England's population) from January 2019 to December 2021. We compared monthly requests from April 2020 to those in the equivalent 2019 months. We examined effects of (i) HbA1c level, (ii) between-practice variability, and (iii) practice demographics. RESULTS: In April 2020, monthly requests dropped to 7.9-18.1% of 2019 volumes. By July 2020, testing had recovered to 61.7-86.9% of 2019 levels. During April-June 2020, we observed a 5.1-fold variation in the reduction of HbA1c testing between general practices (12.4-63.8% of 2019 levels). There was evidence of limited prioritization of testing for patients with HbA1c > 86 mmol/mol during April-June 2020 (4.6% of total tests vs. 2.6% during 2019). Testing in areas with the highest social disadvantage was lower during the first lockdown (April-June 2020; trend test p < 0.001) and two subsequent periods (July-September and October-December 2020; both p < 0.001). By February 2021, testing in the highest deprivation group had a cumulative fall in testing of 34.9% of 2019 levels versus 24.6% in those in the lowest group. CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight that the pandemic response had a major impact on diabetes monitoring and screening. Despite limited test prioritization in the > 86 mmol/mol group, this failed to acknowledge that those in the 59-86 mmol/mol group require consistent monitoring to achieve the best outcomes. Our findings provide additional evidence that those from poorer backgrounds were disproportionately disadvantaged. Healthcare services should redress this health inequality.

Evaluation and comparison of four quantitative SARS-CoV-2 serological assays in COVID-19 patients and immunized healthy individuals, cancer patients, and patients with immunosuppressive therapy.

BACKGROUND: Semi-quantitative and quantitative immunoassays are the most commonly used methodology to evaluate immunity post immunization. OBJECTIVES: To compare four quantitative SARS-CoV-2 serological assays in COVID-19 patients and immunized healthy individuals, cancer patients, and patients with immunosuppressive therapy. STUDY DESIGN: 210 serological samples from COVID-19 infection and vaccination cohorts were used to create a serological sample repository. Serological methods from four manufacturers, namely Euroimmun, Roche, Abbott, and DiaSorin, were evaluated for quantitative, semi-quantitative, and qualitative antibody measurements. All four methods measure IgG antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor-binding domain and report the results in Binding Antibody Unit/mL (BAU/mL). A Total Error Allowable (TEa) of ±25% was chosen as the criteria to determine whether two methods are clinically equivalent quantitatively. Semi-quantitative results (titers) were derived using numeric antibody concentration divided by the cut-off value for each method. RESULTS: All paired quantitative comparisons demonstrated unacceptable performance. With ±25% as TEa, the best agreement was 74 (35.2% out of 210 samples) between Euroimmun and DiaSorin, whereas the lowest agreement was 11 (5.2% out of 210 samples) between Euroimmun and Roche. Antibody titers amongst all four methods were significantly different (p < 0.001). The highest titer difference from the same sample is between Roche and DiaSorin with a 1392-fold difference. On qualitative comparison, none of the paired comparison showed acceptable comparison (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Poor correlation exists between four evaluated assays, quantitatively, semi-quantitatively, and qualitatively. Further harmonization of assays is required to achieve comparable measurements.

The Relationship between Health Literacy and COVID-19 Vaccination Prevalence during a Rapidly Evolving Pandemic and Infodemic.

The gap between how health information is communicated and what people understand and can use to make informed health decisions is called health literacy. This gap was exacerbated by the rapidly changing and excessive volume of information, misinformation, and disinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic. People with lower health literacy may not have understood the importance of COVID-19 vaccination for themselves or for their communities. Our aim was to understand health literacy levels within Fulton County, Georgia, and their relationship to vaccine prevalence. Fulton county residents ages 18 and over (n = 425) completed an on-line Health Literacy Questionnaire. Individual, organizational, functional, interactive, and critical health literacy scales were created. Vaccination prevalence data were collected from the Georgia Vaccine Distribution Dashboard. All data were divided into one of three county areas. There were statistically significant variations in vaccine prevalence χ2(3) = 29.325, p < 0.001 among the three county areas. All levels of health literacy predicted overall county vaccination prevalence F (4,420) = 85.941, p < 0.001, There were significant differences in health literacy levels among two of the three county area pairs; the lowest resourced county area had the lowest vaccination prevalence and health literacy rates. This is the first example of relating direct health literacy measures across a major metropolitan US county with vaccine prevalence data.

Variability in Test Interval Is Linked to Glycated Haemoglobin (HbA1c) Trajectory over Time.

Aims: We previously showed that the glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) testing frequency links to diabetes control. Here, we examine the effect of variability in test interval, adjusted for the frequency, on change in HbA1c (ΔHbA1c). Materials & Methods. HbA1c results were collected on 83,872 people with HbA1c results at baseline and 5 years (±3 months) later and ≥6 tests during this period. We calculated the standard deviation (SD) of test interval for each individual and examined the link between deciles of SD of the test interval and ΔHbA1c level, stratified by baseline HbA1c. Results: In general, less variability in testing frequency (more consistent monitoring) was associated with better diabetes control. This was most evident with moderately raised baseline HbA1c levels (7.0-9.0% (54-75 mmol/mol)). For example, in those with a starting HbA1c of 7.0-7.5% (54-58 mmol/mol), the lowest SD decile was associated with little change in HbA1c over 5 years, while for those with the highest decile, HbA1c rose by 0.4-0.6% (4-6 mmol/mol; p < 0.0001). Multivariate analysis showed that the association was independent of the age/sex/hospital site. Subanalysis suggested that the effect was most pronounced in those aged <65 years with baseline HbA1c of 7.0-7.5% (54-58 mmol/mol). We observed a 6.7-fold variation in the proportion of people in the top-three SD deciles across general practices. Conclusions: These findings indicate that the consistency of testing interval, not the just number of tests/year, is important in maintaining diabetes control, especially in those with moderately raised HbA1c levels. Systems to improve regularity of HbA1c testing are therefore needed, especially given the impact of COVID-19 on diabetes monitoring.

The Role of Staff in Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in Long-term Care Facilities.

BACKGROUND: US long-term care facilities (LTCFs) have experienced a disproportionate burden of COVID-19 morbidity and mortality. METHODS: We examined SARS-CoV-2 transmission among residents and staff in 60 LTCFs in Fulton County, Georgia, from March 2020 to September 2021. Using the Wallinga-Teunis method to estimate the time-varying reproduction number, R(t), and linear-mixed regression models, we examined associations between case characteristics and R(t). RESULTS: Case counts, outbreak size and duration, and R(t) declined rapidly and remained low after vaccines were first distributed to LTCFs in December 2020, despite increases in community incidence in summer 2021. Staff cases were more infectious than resident cases (average individual reproduction number, R i = 0.6 [95% confidence intervals [CI] = 0.4, 0.7] and 0.1 [95% CI = 0.1, 0.2], respectively). Unvaccinated resident cases were more infectious than vaccinated resident cases (R i = 0.5 [95% CI = 0.4, 0.6] and 0.2 [95% CI = 0.0, 0.8], respectively), but estimates were imprecise. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccines slowed transmission and contributed to reduced caseload in LTCFs. However, due to data limitations, we were unable to determine whether breakthrough vaccinated cases were less infectious than unvaccinated cases. Staff cases were six times more infectious than resident cases, consistent with the hypothesis that staff were the primary drivers of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in LTCFs.

Myocarditis and Cardiac Complications Associated With COVID-19 and mRNA Vaccination: A Pragmatic Narrative Review to Guide Clinical Practice.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus is likely to remain endemic globally despite widespread vaccination. There is increasing concern for myocardial involvement and ensuing cardiac complications due to COVID-19, however, the available evidence suggests these risks are low. Pandemic publishing has resulted in rapid manuscript availability though pre-print servers. Subsequent article retractions, a lack of standardised definitions, over-reliance on isolated troponin elevation and the heterogeneity of studied patient groups (i.e. severe vs. symptomatic vs all infections) resulted in early concern for high rates of myocarditis in patients with and recovering from COVID-19. The estimated incidence of myocarditis in COVID-19 infection is 11 cases per 100,000 infections compared with an estimated 2.7 cases per 100,000 persons following mRNA vaccination. For substantiated cases, the clinical course of myocarditis related to COVID-19 or mRNA vaccination appears mild and self-limiting, with reports of severe/fulminant myocarditis being rare. There is limited data available on the management of myocarditis in these settings. Clinical guidance for appropriate use of cardiac investigations and monitoring in COVID-19 is needed for effective risk stratification and efficient use of cardiac resources in Australia. An amalgamation of national and international position statements and guidelines is helpful for guiding clinical practice. This paper reviews the current available evidence and guidelines and provides a summary of the risks and potential use of cardiac investigations and monitoring for patients with COVID-19.

Integrating and Disseminating Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) Screening and Dispensing for Black Men Who Have Sex With Men in Atlanta, Georgia: Protocol for Community Pharmacies.

BACKGROUND: Black men who have sex with men (BMSM) suffer from alarmingly high rates of HIV in the United States. Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) can reduce the risk of HIV infection by 99% among men who have sex with men, yet profound racial disparities in the uptake of PrEP persist. Low PrEP uptake in BMSM is driven by poor access to PrEP, including inconvenient locations of PrEP-prescribing physicians, distrust of physicians, and stigma, which limit communication about PrEP and its side effects. Previous work indicates that offering HIV prevention services in pharmacies located in low-income, underserved neighborhoods is feasible and can reduce stigma because pharmacies offer a host of less stigmatized health services (eg, vaccinations). We present a protocol for a pharmacy PrEP model that seeks to address challenges and barriers to pharmacy-based PrEP specifically for BMSM. OBJECTIVE: We aim to develop a sustainable pharmacy PrEP delivery model for BMSM that can be implemented to increase PrEP access in low-income, underserved neighborhoods. METHODS: This study design is a pilot intervention to test a pharmacy PrEP delivery model among pharmacy staff and BMSM. We will examine the PrEP delivery model's feasibility, acceptability, and safety and gather early evidence of its impact and cost with respect to PrEP uptake. A mixed-methods approach will be performed, including three study phases: (1) a completed formative phase with qualitative interviews from key stakeholders; (2) a completed transitional pilot phase to assess customer eligibility and willingness to receive PrEP in pharmacies during COVID-19; and (3) a planned pilot intervention phase which will test the delivery model in 2 Atlanta pharmacies in low-income, underserved neighborhoods. RESULTS: Data from the formative phase showed strong support of pharmacy-based PrEP delivery among BMSM, pharmacists, and pharmacy staff. Important factors were identified to facilitate the implementation of PrEP screening and dissemination in pharmacies. During the transitional pilot phase, we identified 81 individuals who would have been eligible for the pilot phase. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacies have proven to be a feasible source for offering PrEP for White men who have sex with men but have failed to reach the most at-risk, vulnerable population (ie, BMSM). Increasing PrEP access and uptake will reduce HIV incidence and racial inequities in HIV. Translational studies are required to build further evidence and scale pharmacy-based PrEP services specifically for populations that are disconnected from HIV prevention resources. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/35590.

Politicians: please work together to minimise the spread of COVID-19

If the virus spreads further throughout our communities, and authorities ask people to limit social contact and self-isolate, cooperation with these necessary measures will play a crucial role in minimising COVID-19's spread and protecting the most vulnerable among us. Teams of infectious disease, public health and primary care experts are advising the Government on the best way to deal with this threat.

Mass Screening for SARS-CoV-2 Infection among Residents and Staff in Twenty-eight Long-term Care Facilities in Fulton County, Georgia

Mass screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection in long-term care facilities revealed significantly higher prevalence of infection in facilities that screened in response to a known infection compared to those that screened as a prevention measure. Response facilities had a SARS-CoV-2 prevalence of 28.9% while prevalence in preventive facilities was 1.6% (p <0.001).

Antimicrobial stewardship in human healthcare in Aotearoa New Zealand: urgent call for national leadership and co-ordinated efforts to preserve antimicrobial effectiveness

Within 30 years, the global number of deaths from AMR-associated infections is predicted to increase from ~700,000 to ~10 million people annually, if we do not act now.1 The Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ) response to the current COVID-19 pandemic has been lauded internationally-found-ed in science, responsive to expert advice, implemented with clear leadership and communication, and subject to ongoing critical evaluation and improvement. AMR-associated infections and related care (eg, time off work or school to travel to hospital for treatment) will disproportionately impact the most socioeconomically disadvantaged among us, those living in rural or remote settings, and Maori and Pacific populations who shoulder a greater infection and AMR burden and have increased reliance on antimicrobial therapy.6'7 One of the biggest drivers for AMR is antimicrobial use, which is high in human health in NZ compared with many developed countries.8'9 Most of our antimicrobial use (95%) is in the community9 and up to 50% may be inappropriate.2 The NZ community antibacterial consumption rate increased 49% between 2006 and 2014;in 2013, it exceeded that of 22 out of 29 European countries.8 A subsequent modest 14% decrease occurred across 2015 to 2018, mainly due to reductions in under 5 year olds,10 which is pleasing as antimicrobial use in childhood may create reservoirs of resistant pathogens impacting communities cross-generationally. In 2013, the Health Quality and Safety Commission (HQSC) published a scoping report that offered insight into what was needed to progress AMS in NZ.14 Key recommendations were to establish: * National leadership and coordination of AMS activities * National antimicrobial prescribing guidelines * Quality improvement tools and measures In the near decade that has followed this report, none of these recommendations have been achieved. The NCAMS should provide access to (and support use of) quality improvement tools (eg, auditing systems for between facility benchmarking), develop initiatives to improve antimicrobial use (including those involving consumers), monitor performance against quality markers, and establish clinical care standards with the oversight of NAMSEG.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Prevalences Among People Experiencing Homelessness and Homelessness Service Staff During Early Community Transmission in Atlanta, Georgia, April-May 2020.

BACKGROUND: In response to reported coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreaks among people experiencing homelessness (PEH) in other US cities, we conducted multiple, proactive, facility-wide testing events for PEH living sheltered and unsheltered and homelessness service staff in Atlanta, Georgia. We describe the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) prevalence and associated symptoms, and review shelter infection prevention and control (IPC) policies. METHODS: PEH and staff were tested for SARS-CoV-2 by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) during 7 April-6 May 2020. A subset of PEH and staff was screened for symptoms. Shelter assessments were conducted concurrently at a convenience sample of shelters using a standardized questionnaire. RESULTS: Overall, 2875 individuals at 24 shelters and 9 unsheltered outreach events underwent SARS-CoV-2 testing, and 2860 (99.5%) had conclusive test results. The SARS-CoV-2 prevalences were 2.1% (36/1684) among PEH living sheltered, 0.5% (3/628) among PEH living unsheltered, and 1.3% (7/548) among staff. Reporting fever, cough, or shortness of breath in the last week during symptom screening was 14% sensitive and 89% specific for identifying COVID-19 cases, compared with RT-PCR. Prevalences by shelter ranged 0-27.6%. Repeat testing 3-4 weeks later at 4 shelters documented decreased SARS-CoV-2 prevalences (0-3.9%). Of 24 shelters, 9 completed shelter assessments and implemented IPC measures as part of the COVID-19 response. CONCLUSIONS: PEH living in shelters experienced a higher SARS-CoV-2 prevalence compared with PEH living unsheltered. Facility-wide testing in congregate settings allowed for the identification and isolation of COVID-19 cases, and is an important strategy to interrupt SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

Disruption Caused by the COVID-19 Pandemic on HbA1c Testing and Its Implications for Diabetes (DM) Management/Diagnosis

We explored the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on DM management/diagnosis. We extracted routine HbA1c data from laboratory systems at 5 UK hospitals from October2017-September2020 (representing 3.3million people;~4.8% of the UK population). From these data(3million tests), we calculated monthly missed monitoring/diagnostic tests from 23 March-30September 2020. We found that HbA1c tests dropped by 82-88% in April and had not reached expected volumes by September(Figure 1). During the 6-month period, in people with DM/at risk of DM, 206,422 monitoring tests were missed. Of these, 23,466 (11.4%) had previous HbA1c values ≥59mmol/mol. The testing delay in this group would, on average, result in a mean increase in HbA1c of 5.7 mmol/mol above that expected if monitoring was according to NICE guidance. There were also an estimated 81,245 missed diagnostic tests. Of these, ~6,105(7.5%) would be expected to be in the pre-DM range(42-47 mmol/mol) and ~3,633(4.5%) within DM range (≥48 mmol/mol), with ~1,333 of these having HbA1c values of ≥76 mmol/mol. Extrapolating to the UK population, this equates to missed monitoring tests in 489,000 people with sub-optimally-controlled DM, ~127,000 missed pre-DM and 76,000 missed DM diagnoses. Our findings illustrate the widespread collateral impact of implementing measures to mitigate COVID-19 impact in people with, or being investigated for DM.

Implementation of close contact elicitation at the time of COVID-19 testing-Atlanta, GA, October-November 2020.

BACKGROUND: Contact tracing during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in the USA has been met with various challenges. In an attempt to improve the yield of close contact collection, the Fulton County Board of Health implemented a pilot approach to contact elicitation at the time of testing. METHODS: Between October and November 2020, close contacts were elicited from persons under investigation (PUIs) at one COVID-19 testing site in Fulton County, GA. Secure online data collection forms were used to record PUI demographic data, close contact information and reasons for not providing contacts. RESULTS: Of 1238 PUIs, 48% reported at least one contact. Among the 66 people who tested positive, 16 (24%) reported contacts compared to 578/1165 (50%) who tested negative. PUIs of increasing age were less likely to provide contacts; Black and Hispanic PUIs were also less likely to report any contacts compared to White and Asian PUIs. CONCLUSIONS: Our study revealed that PUIs testing positive were less likely to provide contacts compared to PUIs testing negative. Age and racial differences were also noted in the provision of contacts. Further investigation is needed to understand these discrepancies in order to devise more effective strategies for contact elicitation.

COVID-19 Infection Prevention and Control Adherence in Long-Term Care Facilities, Atlanta, Georgia.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Recommendations for infection prevention and control (IPC) of COVID-19 in long-term care settings were developed based on limited understanding of COVID-19 and should be evaluated to determine their efficacy in reducing transmission among high-risk populations. DESIGN AND SETTING: Site visits to 24 long-term care facilities (LTCFs) in Fulton County, Georgia, were conducted between June and July 2020 to assess adherence to current guidelines, provide real-time feedback on potential weaknesses, and identify specific indicators whose implementation or lack thereof was associated with higher or lower prevalence of COVID-19. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-four LTCFs were visited, representing 2,580 LTCF residents, among whom 1,004 (39%) were infected with COVID-19. MEASUREMENTS: Overall IPC adherence in LTCFs was analyzed for 33 key indicators across five categories: Hand Hygiene, Disinfection, Social Distancing, PPE, and Symptom Screening. Facilities were divided into Higher- and Lower-prevalence groups based on cumulative COVID-19 infection prevalence to determine differences in IPC implementation. RESULTS: IPC implementation was lowest in the Disinfection category (32%) and highest in the Symptom Screening category (74%). Significant differences in IPC implementation between the Higher- and Lower-prevalence groups were observed in the Social Distancing category (Higher-prevalence group 54% vs Lower-prevalence group 74%, P < .01) and the PPE category (Higher-prevalence group 41% vs Lower-prevalence group 72%, P < .01). CONCLUSION: LTCFs with lower COVID-19 prevalence among residents had significantly greater implementation of IPC recommendations compared to those with higher COVID-19 prevalence, suggesting the utility in adhering to current guidelines to reduce transmission in this vulnerable population.

Preventing COVID-19 Outbreaks in Long-Term Care Facilities Through Preemptive Testing of Residents and Staff Members - Fulton County, Georgia, March-May 2020.

Long-term care facility (LTCF) residents are at particularly high risk for morbidity and mortality associated with infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), given their age and high prevalence of chronic medical conditions, combined with functional impairment that often requires frequent, close contact with health care providers, who might inadvertently spread the virus to residents (1,2). During March-May 2020 in Fulton County, Georgia, >50% of COVID-19-associated deaths occurred among LTCF residents, although these persons represented <1% of the population (3,4). Mass testing for SARS-CoV-2 has been an effective strategy for identifying asymptomatic and presymptomatic infections in LTCFs (5). This analysis sought to evaluate the timing at which mass testing took place in relation to the known presence of a COVID-19 infection and the resulting number of infections that occurred. In 15 LTCFs that performed facility-wide testing in response to an identified case, high prevalences of additional cases in residents and staff members were found at initial testing (28.0% and 7.4%, respectively), suggesting spread of infection had already occurred by the time the first case was identified. Prevalence was also high during follow-up, with a total of 42.4% of residents and 11.8% of staff members infected overall in the response facilities. In comparison, 13 LTCFs conducted testing as a preventive strategy before a case was identified. Although the majority of these LTCFs identified at least one COVID-19 case, the prevalence was significantly lower at initial testing in both residents and staff members (0.5% and 1.0%, respectively) and overall after follow-up (1.5% and 1.7%, respectively). These findings indicate that early awareness of infections might help facilities prevent potential outbreaks by prioritizing and adhering more strictly to infection prevention and control (IPC) recommendations, resulting in fewer infections than would occur when relying on symptom-based screening (6,7).

Mass Screening for SARS-CoV-2 Infection among Residents and Staff in Twenty-eight Long-term Care Facilities in Fulton County, Georgia.

Mass screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection in long-term care facilities revealed significantly higher prevalence of infection in facilities that screened in response to a known infection compared to those that screened as a prevention measure. Response facilities had a SARS-CoV-2 prevalence of 28.9% while prevalence in preventive facilities was 1.6% (p <0.001).