Providing differentiated service delivery to the ageing population of people living with HIV.

INTRODUCTION: Differentiated service delivery (DSD) models for HIV are a person-centred approach to providing services across the HIV care cascade; DSD has an increasing policy and implementation support in high-burden HIV countries. The life-course approach to DSD for HIV treatment has focused on earlier life phases, childhood and adolescence, families, and supporting sexual and reproductive health during childbearing years. Older adults, defined as those over the age of 50, represent a growing proportion of HIV treatment cohorts with approximately 20% of those supported by PEPFAR in this age band and have specific health needs that differ from younger populations. Despite this, DSD models have not been designed or implemented to address the health needs of older adults. DISCUSSION: Older adults living with HIV are more likely to have significant co-morbid medical conditions. In addition to the commonly discussed co-morbidities of hypertension and diabetes, they are at increased risk of cognitive impairment, frailty and mental health conditions. Age and HIV-related cognitive impairment may necessitate the development of adapted educational materials. Identifying the optimal package of differentiated services to this population, including the frequency of clinical visits, types and location of services is important as is capacitating the healthcare cadres to adapt to these challenges. Technological advances, which have made remote monitoring of adherence and other aspects of disease management easier for younger populations, may not be as readily available or as familiar to older adults. To date, adaptations to service delivery have not been scaled and are limited to nascent programmes working to integrate treatment of common co-morbidities. CONCLUSIONS: Older individuals living with HIV may benefit from a DSD approach that adapts care to the specific challenges of ageing with HIV. Models could be developed and validated using outcome measures, such as viral suppression and treatment continuity. DSD models for older adults should consider their specific health needs, such as high rates of co-morbidities. This may require educational materials, health worker capacity building and outreach designed specifically to treat this age group.

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.

Factors Associated with Participation in Elementary School-Based SARS-CoV-2 Testing - Salt Lake County, Utah, December 2020-January 2021.

During December 3, 2020-January 31, 2021, CDC, in collaboration with the University of Utah Health and Economic Recovery Outreach Project,* Utah Department of Health (UDOH), Salt Lake County Health Department, and one Salt Lake county school district, offered free, in-school, real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) saliva testing as part of a transmission investigation of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, in elementary school settings. School contacts† of persons with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, including close contacts, were eligible to participate (1). Investigators approached parents or guardians of student contacts by telephone, and during January, using school phone lines to offer in-school specimen collection; the testing procedures were explained in the preferred language of the parent or guardian. Consent for participants was obtained via an electronic form sent by e-mail. Analyses examined participation (i.e., completing in-school specimen collection for SARS-CoV-2 testing) in relation to factors§ that were programmatically important or could influence likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 testing, including race, ethnicity, and SARS-CoV-2 incidence in the community (2). Crude prevalence ratios (PRs) were calculated using univariate log-binomial regression.¶ This activity was reviewed by CDC and was conducted consistent with federal law and CDC policy.*.

Pilot Investigation of SARS-CoV-2 Secondary Transmission in Kindergarten Through Grade 12 Schools Implementing Mitigation Strategies - St. Louis County and City of Springfield, Missouri, December 2020.

Many kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) schools offering in-person learning have adopted strategies to limit the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 (1). These measures include mandating use of face masks, physical distancing in classrooms, increasing ventilation with outdoor air, identification of close contacts,* and following CDC isolation and quarantine guidance† (2). A 2-week pilot investigation was conducted to investigate occurrences of SARS-CoV-2 secondary transmission in K-12 schools in the city of Springfield, Missouri, and in St. Louis County, Missouri, during December 7-18, 2020. Schools in both locations implemented COVID-19 mitigation strategies; however, Springfield implemented a modified quarantine policy permitting student close contacts aged ≤18 years who had school-associated contact with a person with COVID-19 and met masking requirements during their exposure to continue in-person learning.§ Participating students, teachers, and staff members with COVID-19 (37) from 22 schools and their school-based close contacts (contacts) (156) were interviewed, and contacts were offered SARS-CoV-2 testing. Among 102 school-based contacts who received testing, two (2%) had positive test results indicating probable school-based SARS-CoV-2 secondary transmission. Both contacts were in Springfield and did not meet criteria to participate in the modified quarantine. In Springfield, 42 student contacts were permitted to continue in-person learning under the modified quarantine; among the 30 who were interviewed, 21 were tested, and none received a positive test result. Despite high community transmission, SARS-CoV-2 transmission in schools implementing COVID-19 mitigation strategies was lower than that in the community. Until additional data are available, K-12 schools should continue implementing CDC-recommended mitigation measures (2) and follow CDC isolation and quarantine guidance to minimize secondary transmission in schools offering in-person learning.

Low SARS-CoV-2 Transmission in Elementary Schools - Salt Lake County, Utah, December 3, 2020-January 31, 2021.

School closures affected more than 55 million students across the United States when implemented as a strategy to prevent the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 (1). Reopening schools requires balancing the risks for SARS-CoV-2 infection to students and staff members against the benefits of in-person learning (2). During December 3, 2020-January 31, 2021, CDC investigated SARS-CoV-2 transmission in 20 elementary schools (kindergarten through grade 6) that had reopened in Salt Lake County, Utah. The 7-day cumulative number of new COVID-19 cases in Salt Lake County during this time ranged from 290 to 670 cases per 100,000 persons.† Susceptible§ school contacts¶ (students and staff members exposed to SARS-CoV-2 in school) of 51 index patients** (40 students and 11 staff members) were offered SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing. Among 1,041 susceptible school contacts, 735 (70.6%) were tested, and five of 12 cases identified were classified as school-associated; the secondary attack rate among tested susceptible school contacts was 0.7%. Mask use among students was high (86%), and the median distance between students' seats in classrooms was 3 ft. Despite high community incidence and an inability to maintain ≥6 ft of distance between students at all times, SARS-CoV-2 transmission was low in these elementary schools. The results from this investigation add to the increasing evidence that in-person learning can be achieved with minimal SARS-CoV-2 transmission risk when multiple measures to prevent transmission are implemented (3,4).

Real-time virtual infection prevention and control assessments in skilled nursing homes, New York, March 2020-A pilot project.

OBJECTIVE: To describe a pilot project infection prevention and control (IPC) assessment conducted in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) in New York State (NYS) during a pivotal 2-week period when the region became the nation's epicenter for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). DESIGN: A telephone and video assessment of IPC measures in SNFs at high risk or experiencing COVID-19 activity. PARTICIPANTS: SNFs in 14 New York counties, including New York City. INTERVENTION: A 3-component remote IPC assessment: (1) screening tool; (2) telephone IPC checklist; and (3) COVID-19 video IPC assessment (ie, "COVIDeo"). RESULTS: In total, 92 SNFs completed the IPC screening tool and checklist: 52 (57%) were conducted as part COVID-19 investigations, and 40 (43%) were proactive prevention-based assessments. Among the 40 proactive assessments, 14 (35%) identified suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases. COVIDeo was performed in 26 (28%) of 92 assessments and provided observations that other tools would have missed: personal protective equipment (PPE) that was not easily accessible, redundant, or improperly donned, doffed, or stored and specific challenges implementing IPC in specialty populations. The IPC assessments took ∼1 hour each and reached an estimated 4 times as many SNFs as on-site visits in a similar time frame. CONCLUSIONS: Remote IPC assessments by telephone and video were timely and feasible methods of assessing the extent to which IPC interventions had been implemented in a vulnerable setting and to disseminate real-time recommendations. Remote assessments are now being implemented across New York State and in various healthcare facility types. Similar methods have been adapted nationally by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

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.

Serial Testing for SARS-CoV-2 and Virus Whole Genome Sequencing Inform Infection Risk at Two Skilled Nursing Facilities with COVID-19 Outbreaks - Minnesota, April-June 2020.

SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), can spread rapidly in high-risk congregate settings such as skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) (1). In Minnesota, SNF-associated cases accounted for 3,950 (8%) of 48,711 COVID-19 cases reported through July 21, 2020; 35% of SNF-associated cases involved health care personnel (HCP*), including six deaths. Facility-wide, serial testing in SNFs has been used to identify residents with asymptomatic and presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection to inform mitigation efforts, including cohorting of residents with positive test results and exclusion of infected HCP from the workplace (2,3). During April-June 2020, the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH), with CDC assistance, conducted weekly serial testing at two SNFs experiencing COVID-19 outbreaks. Among 259 tested residents, and 341 tested HCP, 64% and 33%, respectively, had positive reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) SARS-CoV-2 test results. Continued SARS-CoV-2 transmission was potentially facilitated by lapses in infection prevention and control (IPC) practices, up to 12-day delays in receiving HCP test results (53%) at one facility, and incomplete HCP participation (71%). Genetic sequencing demonstrated that SARS-CoV-2 viral genomes from HCP and resident specimens were clustered by facility, suggesting facility-based transmission. Residents and HCP working in SNFs are at risk for infection with SARS-CoV-2. As part of comprehensive COVID-19 preparation and response, including early identification of cases, SNFs should conduct serial testing of residents and HCP, maximize HCP testing participation, ensure availability of personal protective equipment (PPE), and enhance IPC practices† (4-5).

Facility-Wide Testing for SARS-CoV-2 in Nursing Homes - Seven U.S. Jurisdictions, March-June 2020.

Undetected infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) contributes to transmission in nursing homes, settings where large outbreaks with high resident mortality have occurred (1,2). Facility-wide testing of residents and health care personnel (HCP) can identify asymptomatic and presymptomatic infections and facilitate infection prevention and control interventions (3-5). Seven state or local health departments conducted initial facility-wide testing of residents and staff members in 288 nursing homes during March 24-June 14, 2020. Two of the seven health departments conducted testing in 195 nursing homes as part of facility-wide testing all nursing homes in their state, which were in low-incidence areas (i.e., the median preceding 14-day cumulative incidence in the surrounding county for each jurisdiction was 19 and 38 cases per 100,000 persons); 125 of the 195 nursing homes had not reported any COVID-19 cases before the testing. Ninety-five of 22,977 (0.4%) persons tested in 29 (23%) of these 125 facilities had positive SARS-CoV-2 test results. The other five health departments targeted facility-wide testing to 93 nursing homes, where 13,443 persons were tested, and 1,619 (12%) had positive SARS-CoV-2 test results. In regression analyses among 88 of these nursing homes with a documented case before facility-wide testing occurred, each additional day between identification of the first case and completion of facility-wide testing was associated with identification of 1.3 additional cases. Among 62 facilities that could differentiate results by resident and HCP status, an estimated 1.3 HCP cases were identified for every three resident cases. Performing facility-wide testing immediately after identification of a case commonly identifies additional unrecognized cases and, therefore, might maximize the benefits of infection prevention and control interventions. In contrast, facility-wide testing in low-incidence areas without a case has a lower proportion of test positivity; strategies are needed to further optimize testing in these settings.