Synergistic Disparities and Public Health Mitigation of COVID-19 in the Rural United States.

Public health emergencies expose social injustice and health disparities, resulting in calls to address their structural causes once the acute crisis has passed. The COVID-19 pandemic is highlighting and exacerbating global, national, and regional disparities in relation to the benefits and burdens of undertaking critical basic public health mitigation measures such as physical distancing. In the United States, attempts to address the COVID-19 pandemic are complicated by striking racial, economic, and geographic inequities. These synergistic inequities exist in both urban and rural areas but take on a particular character and impact in areas of rural poverty. Rural areas face a diverse set of structural challenges, including inadequate public health, clinical, and other infrastructure and economic precarity, hampering the ability of communities and individuals to implement mitigation measures. Public health ethics demands that personnel address both the tactical, real-time adjustment of typical mitigation tools to improve their effectiveness among the rural poor as well as the strategic, longer-term structural causes of health and social injustice that continue to disadvantage this population.

Advancing Ethical Neuroscience Research.

As neuroscience research advances, researchers, clinicians, and other stakeholders will face a host of ethical challenges. The Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (Bioethics Commission) has published two reports that provide recommendations on how to advance research endeavors ethically. The commission addressed, among other issues, how to prioritize different types of neuroscience research and how to include research participants who have impaired consent capacity. The Bioethics Commission's recommendations provide a foundation for ethical guidelines as neuroscience research advances and progresses.

Randomized trial of clinical safety of daily oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate among HIV-uninfected men who have sex with men in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical safety of daily tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) among HIV-negative men who have sex with men. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Participants were randomized 1:1:1:1 to immediate or delayed study drug (TDF, 300 mg orally per day, or placebo). METHODS: Four hundred healthy HIV-uninfected men who have sex with men reporting anal sex with another man within the previous 12 months enrolled in Atlanta, Boston, and San Francisco. HIV serostatus, clinical and laboratory adverse events (AEs), adherence (pill count, Medication Event Monitoring System, and self-report), and sexual and other sociobehavioral data were assessed at 3-month intervals for 24 months. Primary outcomes were clinical safety, assessed by incidence of AEs and laboratory abnormalities. RESULTS: Study drug was initiated by 373 (93%) participants (186 TDF and 187 placebo), of whom 325 (87%) completed the final study visit. Of 2428 AEs reported among 334 (90%) participants, 2366 (97%) were mild or moderate in severity. Frequencies of commonly reported AEs did not differ significantly between TDF and placebo arms. In multivariable analyses, back pain was more likely among TDF recipients (P = 0.04); these reports were not associated with documented fractures or other objective findings. There were no grade ≥3 creatinine elevations; grades 1 and 2 creatinine increases were not associated with TDF receipt. Estimated percentage of study drug doses taken was 92% by pill count and 77% by Medication Event Monitoring System. Seven seroconversions occurred: 4 on placebo and 3 among delayed arm participants not yet on study drug. CONCLUSIONS: Daily oral TDF was well tolerated, with reasonable adherence. No significant renal concerns were identified.

Antiretroviral preexposure prophylaxis for heterosexual HIV transmission in Botswana.

BACKGROUND: Preexposure prophylaxis with antiretroviral agents has been shown to reduce the transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) among men who have sex with men; however, the efficacy among heterosexuals is uncertain. METHODS: We randomly assigned HIV-seronegative men and women to receive either tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine (TDF-FTC) or matching placebo once daily. Monthly study visits were scheduled, and participants received a comprehensive package of prevention services, including HIV testing, counseling on adherence to medication, management of sexually transmitted infections, monitoring for adverse events, and individualized counseling on risk reduction; bone mineral density testing was performed semiannually in a subgroup of participants. RESULTS: A total of 1219 men and women underwent randomization (45.7% women) and were followed for 1563 person-years (median, 1.1 years; maximum, 3.7 years). Because of low retention and logistic limitations, we concluded the study early and followed enrolled participants through an orderly study closure rather than expanding enrollment. The TDF-FTC group had higher rates of nausea (18.5% vs. 7.1%, P<0.001), vomiting (11.3% vs. 7.1%, P=0.008), and dizziness (15.1% vs. 11.0%, P=0.03) than the placebo group, but the rates of serious adverse events were similar (P=0.90). Participants who received TDF-FTC, as compared with those who received placebo, had a significant decline in bone mineral density. K65R, M184V, and A62V resistance mutations developed in 1 participant in the TDF-FTC group who had had an unrecognized acute HIV infection at enrollment. In a modified intention-to-treat analysis that included the 33 participants who became infected during the study (9 in the TDF-FTC group and 24 in the placebo group; 1.2 and 3.1 infections per 100 person-years, respectively), the efficacy of TDF-FTC was 62.2% (95% confidence interval, 21.5 to 83.4; P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Daily TDF-FTC prophylaxis prevented HIV infection in sexually active heterosexual adults. The long-term safety of daily TDF-FTC prophylaxis, including the effect on bone mineral density, remains unknown. (Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health; TDF2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00448669.).