Search

Background: In 2022-2023, 15- and 20-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCV15/PCV20) were recommended for infants. We aimed to estimate the incidence of outpatient visits and antibiotic prescriptions in US children (≤17 years) from 2016-2019 for acute otitis media, pneumonia, and sinusitis associated with PCV15- and PCV20-additional (non-PCV13) serotypes to quantify PCV15/20 potential impacts., Methods: We estimated the incidence of PCV15/20-additional serotype-attributable visits and antibiotic prescriptions as the product of all-cause incidence rates, derived from national health care surveys and MarketScan databases, and PCV15/20-additional serotype-attributable fractions. We estimated serotype-specific attributable fractions using modified vaccine-probe approaches incorporating incidence changes post-PCV13 and ratios of PCV13 versus PCV15/20 serotype frequencies, estimated through meta-analyses., Results: Per 1000 children annually, PCV15-additional serotypes accounted for an estimated 2.7 (95% confidence interval, 1.8-3.9) visits and 2.4 (95% CI, 1.6-3.4) antibiotic prescriptions. PCV20-additional serotypes resulted in 15.0 (95% CI, 11.2-20.4) visits and 13.2 (95% CI, 9.9-18.0) antibiotic prescriptions annually per 1000 children. PCV15/20-additional serotypes account for 0.4% (95% CI, 0.2%-0.6%) and 2.1% (95% CI, 1.5%-3.0%) of pediatric outpatient antibiotic use., Conclusions: Compared with PCV15-additional serotypes, PCV20-additional serotypes account for > 5 times the burden of visits and antibiotic prescriptions. Higher-valency PCVs, especially PCV20, may contribute to preventing pediatric pneumococcal respiratory infections and antibiotic use., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. L. M. K. reports consulting fees from Merck Sharpe & Dohme and Vaxcyte for unrelated work. J. A. L. reports research grants from Pfizer and Merck Sharpe & Dohme; and consulting fees from Pfizer, Merck, Sharpe & Dohme, and Vaxcyte for unrelated work. S. Y. T. reports research grants from Pfizer for unrelated work. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America 2024.)

Background: A U.S. case-control study (2010-2014) demonstrated vaccine effectiveness (VE) for ≥ 1 dose of the thirteen-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) against vaccine-type (VT) invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) at 86 %; however, it lacked statistical power to examine VE by number of doses and against individual serotypes., Methods: We used the indirect cohort method to estimate PCV13 VE against VT-IPD among children aged < 5 years in the United States from May 1, 2010 through December 31, 2019 using cases from CDC's Active Bacterial Core surveillance, including cases enrolled in a matched case-control study (2010-2014). Cases and controls were defined as individuals with VT-IPD and non-PCV13-type-IPD (NVT-IPD), respectively. We estimated absolute VE using the adjusted odds ratio of prior PCV13 receipt (1-aOR x 100 %)., Results: Among 1,161 IPD cases, 223 (19.2 %) were VT cases and 938 (80.8 %) were NVT controls. Of those, 108 cases (48.4 %; 108/223) and 600 controls (64.0 %; 600/938) had received > 3 PCV13 doses; 23 cases (17.6 %) and 15 controls (2.4 %) had received no PCV doses. VE ≥ 3 PCV13 doses against VT-IPD was 90.2 % (95 % Confidence Interval75.4-96.1 %), respectively. Among the most commonly circulating VT-IPD serotypes, VE of ≥ 3 PCV13 doses was 86.8 % (73.7-93.3 %), 50.2 % (28.4-80.5 %), and 93.8 % (69.8-98.8 %) against serotypes 19A, 3, and 19F, respectively., Conclusions: At least three doses of PCV13 continue to be effective in preventing VT-IPD among children aged < 5 years in the US. PCV13 was protective against serotypes 19A and 19F IPD; protection against serotype 3 IPD did not reach statistical significance., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: [Lee Harrison provides service on advisory boards (Pfizer, Sanofi, GSK) and a DSMB (Merck); while LH does not receive any fees for this work he is reimbursed for occasional travel. Tamara Pilishvili reports a relationship with GSK that includes: employment. During data collection, analysis, and write-up, TP was employed by CDC. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.]., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Objective: To describe the implementation of a test-negative design case-control study in California during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic., Study Design: Test-negative case-control study., Methods: Between February 24, 2021 - February 24, 2022, a team of 34 interviewers called 38,470 Californians, enrolling 1,885 that tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (cases) and 1,871 testing negative for SARS-CoV-2 (controls) for 20-minute telephone survey. We estimated adjusted odds ratios for answering the phone and consenting to participate using mixed effects logistic regression. We used a web-based anonymous survey to compile interviewer experiences., Results: Cases had 1.29-fold (95% CI: 1.24-1.35) higher adjusted odds of answering the phone and 1.69-fold (1.56-1.83) higher adjusted odds of consenting to participate compared to controls. Calls placed from 4pm to 6pm had the highest adjusted odds of being answered. Some interviewers experienced mental wellness challenges interacting with participants with physical (e.g., food, shelter, etc.) and emotional (e.g., grief counseling) needs, and enduring verbal harassment from individuals called., Conclusions: Calls placed during afternoon hours may optimize response rate when enrolling controls to a case-control study during a public health emergency response. Proactive check-ins and continual collection of interviewer experience(s) and may help maintain mental wellbeing of investigation workforce. Remaining adaptive to the dynamic needs of the investigation team is critical to a successful study, especially in emergent public health crises, like that represented by the COVID-19 pandemic., Competing Interests: The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Joseph Leonard has received grants and honoraria from Pfizer, Inc, outside the submitted work. There are no patents, products in development or marketed products associated with this research to declare. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials., (Copyright: © 2024 Fukui et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Concerns about the duration of protection conferred by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines have arisen in postlicensure evaluations. "Depletion of susceptibles," a bias driven by differential accrual of infection among vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, may obscure vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates, hindering interpretation. We enrolled California residents who received molecular SARS-CoV-2 tests in a matched, test-negative design, case-control study to estimate VE of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines between February 23 and December 5, 2021. We analyzed waning protection following 2 vaccine doses using conditional logistic regression models. Additionally, we used data from a population-based serological study to adjust for "depletion-of-susceptibles" bias and estimated VE for 3 doses, by time since second dose receipt. Pooled VE of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection was 91.3% (95% confidence interval (CI): 83.8, 95.4) at 14 days after second-dose receipt and declined to 50.8% (95% CI: 19.7, 69.8) at 7 months. Adjusting for depletion-of-susceptibles bias, we estimated VE of 53.2% (95% CI: 23.6, 71.2) at 7 months after primary mRNA vaccination series. A booster dose of BN162b2 or mRNA-1273 increased VE to 95.0% (95% CI: 82.8, 98.6). These findings confirm that observed waning of protection is not attributable to epidemiologic bias and support ongoing efforts to administer additional vaccine doses to mitigate burden of COVID-19., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.)

Introduction: Uptake of COVID-19 vaccination remains suboptimal in the United States and other settings. Though early reports indicated that a strong majority of people were interested in receiving the COVID-19 vaccine, the association between vaccine intention and uptake is not yet fully understood. Ourobjective was todescribe predictors of vaccine uptake, and estimate the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of self-reported COVID-19 vaccine status compared to a comprehensive statewide COVID-19 vaccine registry., Methods: A cohort of California residents that received a molecular test for SARS-CoV-2 infection during 24 February-5 December 2021 were enrolled in a telephone-administered survey. Survey participants were matched with records in a statewide immunization registry. Cox proportional hazards model were used to compare time to vaccination among those unvaccinated at survey enrollment by self-reported COVID-19 vaccination intention., Results: Among 864 participants who were unvaccinated at the time of interview, 272 (31%) had documentation of receipt of COVID-19 vaccination at a later date; including 194/423 (45.9%) who had initially reported being willing to receive vaccination, 41/185 (22.2%) who reported being unsure about vaccination, and 37/278 (13.3%) who reported unwillingness to receive vaccination.Adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for registry-confirmed COVID-19 vaccination were 0.49 (95% confidence interval: 0.32-0.76) and 0.21 (0.12-0.36) for participants expressing uncertainty and unwillingness to receive vaccination, respectively, as compared with participants who reported being willing to receive vaccination. Time to vaccination was shorter among participants from higher-income households (aHR = 3.30 [2.02-5.39]) and who reported co-morbidities or immunocompromising conditions (aHR = 1.54 [1.01-2.36]).Sensitivity of self-reported COVID-19 vaccination status was 82% (80-85%) overall, and 98% (97-99%) among those referencing vaccination records; specificity was 87% (86-89%)., Conclusion: Willingness to receive COVID-19 vaccination was an imperfect predictor of real-world vaccine uptake. Improved messaging about COVID-19 vaccination regardless of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection status may help improve uptake., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: [Jake M. Pry reports financial support was provided by California Department of Public Health Center for Infectious Diseases.]., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Despite lower circulation of influenza virus throughout 2020-2022 during the COVID-19 pandemic, seasonal influenza vaccination has remained a primary tool to reduce influenza-associated illness and death. The relationship between the decision to receive a COVID-19 vaccine and/or an influenza vaccine is not well understood., Methods: We assessed predictors of receipt of 2021-2022 influenza vaccine in a secondary analysis of data from a case-control study enrolling individuals who received SARS-CoV-2 testing. We used mixed effects logistic regression to estimate factors associated with receipt of seasonal influenza vaccine. We also constructed multinomial adjusted marginal probability models of being vaccinated for COVID-19 only, seasonal influenza only, or both as compared with receipt of neither vaccination., Results: Among 1261 eligible participants recruited between 22 October 2021-22 June 2022, 43% (545) were vaccinated with both seasonal influenza vaccine and >1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, 34% (426) received >1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine only, 4% (49) received seasonal influenza vaccine only, and 19% (241) received neither vaccine. Receipt of >1 COVID-19 vaccine dose was associated with seasonal influenza vaccination (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 3.72; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.15-6.43); this association was stronger among participants receiving >1 COVID-19 booster dose (aOR = 16.50 [10.10-26.97]). Compared with participants testing negative for SARS- CoV-2 infection, participants testing positive had lower odds of receipt of 2021-2022 seasonal influenza vaccine (aOR = 0.64 [0.50-0.82])., Conclusions: Recipients of a COVID-19 vaccine were more likely to receive seasonal influenza vaccine during the 2021-2022 season. Factors associated with individuals' likelihood of receiving COVID-19 and seasonal influenza vaccines will be important to account for in future studies of vaccine effectiveness against both conditions. Participants who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in our sample were less likely to have received seasonal influenza vaccine, suggesting an opportunity to offer influenza vaccination before or after a COVID-19 diagnosis., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: co-author J.A.L. discloses receipt of grants and honoraria from Pfizer, Inc, outside the submitted work. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) are recommended for COVID-19 prevention. However, the effectiveness of NPIs in preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission remains poorly quantified., Methods: We conducted a test-negative design case-control study enrolling cases (testing positive for SARS-CoV-2) and controls (testing negative) with molecular SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic test results reported to California Department of Public Health between 24 February-12 November, 2021. We used conditional logistic regression to estimate adjusted odds ratios (aORs) of case status among participants who reported contact with an individual known or suspected to have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 ("high-risk exposure") ≤14 days before testing., Results: 751 of 1448 cases (52%) and 255 of 1443 controls (18%) reported high-risk exposures ≤14 days before testing. Adjusted odds of case status were 3.02-fold (95% confidence interval: 1.75-5.22) higher when high-risk exposures occurred with household members (vs. other contacts), 2.10-fold (1.05-4.21) higher when exposures occurred indoors (vs. outdoors only), and 2.15-fold (1.27-3.67) higher when exposures lasted ≥3 hours (vs. shorter durations) among unvaccinated and partially-vaccinated individuals; excess risk associated with such exposures was mitigated among fully-vaccinated individuals. Cases were less likely than controls to report mask usage during high-risk exposures (aOR = 0.50 [0.29-0.85]). The adjusted odds of case status was lower for fully-vaccinated (aOR = 0.25 [0.15-0.43]) participants compared to unvaccinated participants. Benefits of mask usage were greatest among unvaccinated and partially-vaccinated participants, and in interactions involving non-household contacts or interactions occurring without physical contact., Conclusions: NPIs reduced the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection following high-risk exposure. Vaccine effectiveness was substantial for partially and fully vaccinated persons., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Estimates of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine effectiveness under real-world conditions, and understanding of barriers to uptake, are necessary to inform vaccine rollout., Methods: We enrolled cases (testing positive) and controls (testing negative) from among the population whose SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostic test results from 24 February to 29 April 2021 were reported to the California Department of Public Health. Participants were matched on age, sex, and geographic region. We assessed participants' self-reported history of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine receipt (BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273). Participants were considered fully vaccinated 2 weeks after second dose receipt. Among unvaccinated participants, we assessed willingness to receive vaccination. We measured vaccine effectiveness (VE) via the matched odds ratio of prior vaccination, comparing cases with controls., Results: We enrolled 1023 eligible participants aged ≥18 years. Among 525 cases, 71 (13.5%) received BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273; 20 (3.8%) were fully vaccinated with either product. Among 498 controls, 185 (37.1%) received BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273; 86 (16.3%) were fully vaccinated with either product. Two weeks after second dose receipt, VE was 87.0% (95% confidence interval: 68.6-94.6%) and 86.2% (68.4-93.9%) for BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, respectively. Fully vaccinated participants receiving either product experienced 91.3% (79.3-96.3%) and 68.3% (27.9-85.7%) VE against symptomatic and asymptomatic infection, respectively. Among unvaccinated participants, 42.4% (159/375) residing in rural regions and 23.8% (67/281) residing in urban regions reported hesitancy to receive COVID-19 vaccination., Conclusions: Authorized mRNA-based vaccines are effective at reducing documented SARS-CoV-2 infections within the general population of California. Vaccine hesitancy presents a barrier to reaching coverage levels needed for herd immunity., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: The San Francisco Bay Area was the first region in the United States to enact school closures to mitigate SARS-CoV-2 transmission. The effects of closures on contact patterns for schoolchildren and their household members remain poorly understood., Methods: We conducted serial cross-sectional surveys (May 2020, September 2020, February 2021) of Bay Area households with children to estimate age-structured daily contact rates for children and their adult household members. We examined changes in contact rates over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, including after vaccination of household members, and compared contact patterns by household demographics using generalized estimating equations clustered by household., Results: We captured contact histories for 1,967 households on behalf of 2,674 children, comprising 15,087 non-household contacts over the three waves of data collection. Shortly after the start of shelter-in-place orders in May 2020, daily contact rates were higher among children from Hispanic families (1.52 more contacts per child per day; [95% CI: 1.14-2.04]), households whose parents were unable to work from home (1.82; [1.40-2.40]), and households with income < $150,000 (1.75; [1.33-2.33]), after adjusting for other demographic characteristics and household clustering. Between May and August 2020, non-household contacts of children increased by 145% (ages 5-12) and 172% (ages 13-17), despite few children returning to in-person instruction. Non-household contact rates among children were higher-by 1.75 [1.28-2.40] and 1.42 [0.89-2.24] contacts per child per day in 5-12 and 13-17 age groups, respectively, in households where at least one adult was vaccinated against COVID-19, compared to children's contact rates in unvaccinated households., Conclusions: Child contact rates rebounded despite schools remaining closed, as parents obtained childcare, children engaged in contact in non-school settings, and family members were vaccinated. The waning reductions observed in non-household contact rates of schoolchildren and their family members during a prolonged school closure suggests the strategy may be ineffective for long-term SARS-CoV-2 transmission mitigation. Reductions in age-assortative contacts were not as apparent amongst children from lower income households or households where adults could not work from home. Heterogeneous reductions in contact patterns raise concerning racial, ethnic and income-based inequities associated with long-term school closures as a COVID-19 mitigation strategy., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

The use of face masks or respirators (N95/KN95) is recommended to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 (1). Well-fitting face masks and respirators effectively filter virus-sized particles in laboratory conditions (2,3), though few studies have assessed their real-world effectiveness in preventing acquisition of SARS-CoV-2 infection (4). A test-negative design case-control study enrolled randomly selected California residents who had received a test result for SARS-CoV-2 during February 18-December 1, 2021. Face mask or respirator use was assessed among 652 case-participants (residents who had received positive test results for SARS-CoV-2) and 1,176 matched control-participants (residents who had received negative test results for SARS-CoV-2) who self-reported being in indoor public settings during the 2 weeks preceding testing and who reported no known contact with anyone with confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection during this time. Always using a face mask or respirator in indoor public settings was associated with lower adjusted odds of a positive test result compared with never wearing a face mask or respirator in these settings (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.44; 95% CI = 0.24-0.82). Among 534 participants who specified the type of face covering they typically used, wearing N95/KN95 respirators (aOR = 0.17; 95% CI = 0.05-0.64) or surgical masks (aOR = 0.34; 95% CI = 0.13-0.90) was associated with significantly lower adjusted odds of a positive test result compared with not wearing any face mask or respirator. These findings reinforce that in addition to being up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccinations, consistently wearing a face mask or respirator in indoor public settings reduces the risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection. Using a respirator offers the highest level of personal protection against acquiring infection, although it is most important to wear a mask or respirator that is comfortable and can be used consistently., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Joseph A. Lewnard discloses receipt of research grants and consulting fees from Pfizer, Inc., unrelated to the current study. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Background: Hundreds of thousands of biodigesters have been constructed in Nepal. These household-level systems use human and animal waste to produce clean-burning biogas used for cooking, which can reduce household air pollution from woodburning cookstoves and prevent respiratory illnesses. The biodigesters, typically operated by female caregivers, require the handling of animal waste, which may increase domestic fecal contamination, exposure to diarrheal pathogens, and the risk of enteric infections, especially among young children., Objective: We estimated the effect of daily reported biogas cookstove use on incident diarrhea among children < 5 y old in the Kavrepalanchok District of Nepal. Secondarily, we assessed effect measure modification and statistical interaction of individual- and household-level covariates (child sex, child age, birth order, exclusive breastfeeding, proof of vaccination, roof type, sanitation, drinking water treatment, food insecurity) as well as recent 14-d acute lower respiratory infection (ALRI) and season., Methods: We analyzed 300,133 person-days for 539 children in an observational prospective cohort study to estimate the average effect of biogas stove use on incident diarrhea using cross-validated targeted maximum likelihood estimation (CV-TMLE)., Results: Households reported using biogas cookstoves in the past 3 d for 23% of observed person-days. The adjusted relative risk of diarrhea for children exposed to biogas cookstove use was 1.31 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.00, 1.71) compared to unexposed children. The estimated effect of biogas stove use on diarrhea was stronger among breastfed children (2.09; 95% CI: 1.35, 3.25) than for nonbreastfed children and stronger during the dry season (2.03; 95% CI: 1.17, 3.53) than in the wet season. Among children exposed to biogas cookstove use, those with a recent ALRI had the highest mean risk of diarrhea, estimated at 4.53 events (95% CI: 1.03, 8.04) per 1,000 person-days., Discussion: This analysis provides new evidence that child diarrhea may be an unintended health risk of biogas cookstove use. Additional studies are needed to identify exposure pathways of fecal pathogen contamination associated with biodigesters to improve the safety of these widely distributed public health interventions. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP9468.

Background: We examined school reopening policies amidst ongoing transmission of the highly transmissible Delta variant, accounting for vaccination among individuals ≥12 years., Methods: We collected data on social contacts among school-aged children in the California Bay Area and developed an individual-based transmission model to simulate transmission of the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 in schools. We evaluated the additional infections in students and teachers/staff resulting over a 128-day semester from in-school instruction compared to remote instruction when various NPIs (mask use, cohorts, and weekly testing of students/teachers) were implemented, across various community-wide vaccination coverages (50%, 60%, 70%), and student (≥12 years) and teacher/staff vaccination coverages (50% - 95%)., Findings: At 70% vaccination coverage, universal masking reduced infections by >57% among students. Masking plus 70% vaccination coverage enabled achievement of <50 excess cases per 1,000 students/teachers, but stricter risk tolerances, such as <25 excess infections per 1,000 students/teachers, required a cohort approach in elementary and middle school populations. In the absence of NPIs, increasing the vaccination coverage of community members from 50% to 70% or elementary teachers from 70% to 95% reduced the excess rate of infection among elementary school students attributable to school transmission by 24% and 37%, respectively., Interpretations: Amidst Delta variant circulation, we found that schools are not inherently low risk, yet can be made so with high community vaccination coverages and masking. Vaccination of adults protects unvaccinated children., Funding: National Science Foundation grant no. 2032210; National Institutes of Health grant nos. R01AI125842 and R01AI148336; MIDAS Coordination Center (MIDASSUP2020-4)., Competing Interests: None to declare., (© 2021 The Author(s).)

School closures may reduce the size of social networks among children, potentially limiting infectious disease transmission. To estimate the impact of K-12 closures and reopening policies on children's social interactions and COVID-19 incidence in California's Bay Area, we collected data on children's social contacts and assessed implications for transmission using an individual-based model. Elementary and Hispanic children had more contacts during closures than high school and non-Hispanic children, respectively. We estimated that spring 2020 closures of elementary schools averted 2167 cases in the Bay Area (95% CI: -985, 5572), fewer than middle (5884; 95% CI: 1478, 11.550), high school (8650; 95% CI: 3054, 15 940) and workplace (15 813; 95% CI: 9963, 22 617) closures. Under assumptions of moderate community transmission, we estimated that reopening for a four-month semester without any precautions will increase symptomatic illness among high school teachers (an additional 40.7% expected to experience symptomatic infection, 95% CI: 1.9, 61.1), middle school teachers (37.2%, 95% CI: 4.6, 58.1) and elementary school teachers (4.1%, 95% CI: -1.7, 12.0). However, we found that reopening policies for elementary schools that combine universal masking with classroom cohorts could result in few within-school transmissions, while high schools may require masking plus a staggered hybrid schedule. Stronger community interventions (e.g. remote work, social distancing) decreased the risk of within-school transmission across all measures studied, with the influence of community transmission minimized as the effectiveness of the within-school measures increased.

Background: Malaria infection poses a significant risk in pregnancy, yet chemoprophylaxis for pregnant women is limited. A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the incidence of adverse outcomes after atovaquone-proguanil (AP) exposure during pregnancy., Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, the authors searched PubMed, MEDLINE, and the Malaria in Pregnancy Consortium Library to identify relevant literature including infant outcomes after exposure to atovaquone, proguanil, or AP in pregnancy. Two authors independently screened the titles, abstracts, and full texts, and extracted data into an EpiInfo database. Overall proportions and 95% confidence intervals of adverse outcomes were determined by pooling data across studies., Results: Of 455 records identified, 16 studies were included: ten AP studies and six proguanil studies. The overall proportions and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of adverse outcomes reported for the 446 women exposed to AP include miscarriage (8.08% CI: 5.07, 12.08%), stillbirth (1.05% CI: 0.03, 5.73%), early neonatal death (0% CI: 0, 7.4%), and congenital anomalies (2.56% CI: 1.28, 4.53%)., Conclusions: The limited available data suggest that outcomes following AP exposure during pregnancy are similar to expected rates in similar populations. AP may be a promising option for pregnant women, but further data are needed on its safety in pregnancy., (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)