Search

The U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) supports country programs in identifying persons living with HIV infection (PLHIV), providing life-saving treatment, and reducing the spread of HIV in countries around the world (1,2). CDC used Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting (MER) data* to assess the extent to which COVID-19 mitigation strategies affected HIV service delivery across the HIV care continuum

Purpose Early COVID-19 mitigation relied on people staying home except for essential trips. The ability to stay home may differ by sociodemographic factors. We analyzed how factors related to social vulnerability impact a community's ability to stay home during a stay-at-home order. Methods Using generalized, linear mixed models stratified by stay-at-home order (mandatory or not mandatory), we analyzed county-level stay-at-home behavior (inferred from mobile devices) during a period when a majority of United States counties had stay-at-home orders (April 7–April 20, 2020) with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Social Vulnerability Index (CDC SVI). Results Counties with higher percentages of single-parent households, mobile homes, and persons with lower educational attainment were associated with lower stay-at-home behavior compared with counties with lower respective percentages. Counties with higher unemployment, higher percentages of limited-English-language speakers, and more multi-unit housing were associated with increases in stay-at-home behavior compared with counties with lower respective percentages. Stronger effects were found in counties with mandatory orders. Conclusions Sociodemographic factors impact a community's ability to stay home during COVID-19 stay-at-home orders. Communities with higher social vulnerability may have more essential workers without work-from-home options or fewer resources to stay home for extended periods, which may increase risk for COVID-19. Results are useful for tailoring messaging, COVID-19 vaccine delivery, and public health responses to future outbreaks.

Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, primarily used to treat autoimmune diseases and to prevent and treat malaria, received national attention in early March 2020, as potential treatment and prophylaxis for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (1). On March 20, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for chloroquine phosphate and hydroxychloroquine sulfate in the Strategic National Stockpile to be used by licensed health care providers to treat patients hospitalized with COVID-19 when the providers determine the potential benefit outweighs the potential risk to the patient.* Following reports of cardiac and other adverse events in patients receiving hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 (2), on April 24, 2020, FDA issued a caution against its use† and on June 15, rescinded its EUA for hydroxychloroquine from the Strategic National Stockpile.§ Following the FDA's issuance of caution and EUA rescindment, on May 12 and June 16, the federal COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel issued recommendations against the use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine to treat COVID-19; the panel also noted that at that time no medication could be recommended for COVID-19 pre- or postexposure prophylaxis outside the setting of a clinical trial (3). However, public discussion concerning the effectiveness of these drugs on outcomes of COVID-19 (4,5), and clinical trials of hydroxychloroquine for prophylaxis of COVID-19 continue.¶ In response to recent reports of notable increases in prescriptions for hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine (6), CDC analyzed outpatient retail pharmacy transaction data to identify potential differences in prescriptions dispensed by provider type during January-June 2020 compared with the same period in 2019. Before 2020, primary care providers and specialists who routinely prescribed hydroxychloroquine, such as rheumatologists and dermatologists, accounted for approximately 97% of new prescriptions. New prescriptions by specialists who did not typically prescribe these medications (defined as specialties accounting for ≤2% of new prescriptions before 2020) increased from 1,143 prescriptions in February 2020 to 75,569 in March 2020, an 80-fold increase from March 2019. Although dispensing trends are returning to prepandemic levels, continued adherence to current clinical guidelines for the indicated use of these medications will ensure their availability and benefit to patients for whom their use is indicated (3,4), because current data on treatment and pre- or postexposure prophylaxis for COVID-19 indicate that the potential benefits of these drugs do not appear to outweigh their risks.

PROBLEM/CONDITION A 2017 report quantified the higher percentage of potentially excess (or preventable) deaths in nonmetropolitan areas (often referred to as rural areas) compared with metropolitan areas. In that report, CDC compared national, regional, and state estimates of potentially excess deaths among the five leading causes of death in nonmetropolitan and metropolitan counties for 2010 and 2014. This report enhances the geographic detail by using the six levels of the 2013 National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) urban-rural classification scheme for counties and extending estimates of potentially excess deaths by annual percent change (APC) and for additional years (2010-2017). Trends were tested both with linear and quadratic terms. PERIOD COVERED 2010-2017. DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM Mortality data for U.S. residents from the National Vital Statistics System were used to calculate potentially excess deaths from the five leading causes of death among persons aged

Objective The 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak progressed rapidly from a public health (PH) emergency of international concern (World Health Organization [WHO], 30 January 2020) to a pandemic (WHO, 11 March 2020). The declaration of a national emergency in the United States (13 March 2020) necessitated the addition and modification of terminology related to COVID-19 and development of the disease’s case definition. During this period, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and standard development organizations released guidance on data standards for reporting COVID-19 clinical encounters, laboratory results, cause-of-death certifications, and other surveillance processes for COVID-19 PH emergency operations. The CDC COVID-19 Information Management Repository was created to address the need for PH and health-care stakeholders at local and national levels to easily obtain access to comprehensive and up-to-date information management resources. Materials and Methods We introduce the clinical and health-care informatics community to the CDC COVID-19 Information Management Repository: a new, national COVID-19 information management tool. We provide a description of COVID-19 informatics resources, including data requirements for COVID-19 data reporting. Results We demonstrate the CDC COVID-19 Information Management Repository’s categorization and management of critical COVID-19 informatics documentation and standards. We also describe COVID-19 data exchange standards, forms, and specifications. Conclusions This information will be valuable to clinical and PH informaticians, epidemiologists, data analysts, standards developers and implementers, and information technology managers involved in the development of COVID-19 situational awareness and response reporting and analytics.

Background State and local public health agencies collect and use surveillance data to identify outbreaks, track cases, investigate causes, and implement measures to protect the public's health through various surveillance systems and data exchange practices. Purpose The purpose of this assessment was to better understand current practices at state and local public health agencies for collecting, managing, processing, reporting, and exchanging notifiable disease surveillance information. Methods Over an 18-month period (January 2014-June 2015), we evaluated the process of data exchange between surveillance systems, reporting burdens, and challenges within 3 states (California, Idaho, and Massachusetts) that were using 3 different reporting systems. Results All 3 states use a combination of paper-based and electronic information systems for managing and exchanging data on reportable conditions within the state. The flow of data from local jurisdictions to the state health departments varies considerably. When state and local information systems are not interoperable, manual duplicative data entry and other work-arounds are often required. The results of the assessment show the complexity of disease reporting at the state and local levels and the multiple systems, processes, and resources engaged in preparing, processing, and transmitting data that limit interoperability and decrease efficiency. Conclusions Through this structured assessment, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has a better understanding of the complexities for surveillance of using commercial off-the-shelf data systems (California and Massachusetts), and CDC-developed National Electronic Disease Surveillance System Base System. More efficient data exchange and use of data will help facilitate interoperability between National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance Systems.

PROBLEM/CONDITION Higher rates of death in nonmetropolitan areas (often referred to as rural areas) compared with metropolitan areas have been described but not systematically assessed. PERIOD COVERED 1999-2014 DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM: Mortality data for U.S. residents from the National Vital Statistics System were used to calculate age-adjusted death rates and potentially excess deaths for nonmetropolitan and metropolitan areas for the five leading causes of death. Age-adjusted death rates included all ages and were adjusted to the 2000 U.S. standard population by the direct method. Potentially excess deaths are defined as deaths among persons aged

In 2014, the all-cause age-adjusted death rate in the United States reached a historic low of 724.6 per 100,000 population (1). However, mortality in rural (nonmetropolitan) areas of the United States has decreased at a much slower pace, resulting in a widening gap between rural mortality rates (830.5) and urban mortality rates (704.3) (1). During 1999–2014, annual age-adjusted death rates for the five leading causes of death in the United States (heart disease, cancer, unintentional injury, chronic lower respiratory disease (CLRD), and stroke) were higher in rural areas than in urban (metropolitan) areas (Figure 1). In most public health regions (Figure 2), the proportion of deaths among persons aged

Death rates by specific causes vary across the 50 states and the District of Columbia.* Information on differences in rates for the leading causes of death among states might help state health officials determine prevention goals, priorities, and strategies. CDC analyzed National Vital Statistics System data to provide national and state-specific estimates of potentially preventable deaths among the five leading causes of death in 2014 and compared these estimates with estimates previously published for 2010. Compared with 2010, the estimated number of potentially preventable deaths changed (supplemental material at https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/42472); cancer deaths decreased 25% (from 84,443 to 63,209), stroke deaths decreased 11% (from 16,973 to 15,175), heart disease deaths decreased 4% (from 91,757 to 87,950), chronic lower respiratory disease (CLRD) (e.g., asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema) deaths increased 1% (from 28,831 to 29,232), and deaths from unintentional injuries increased 23% (from 36,836 to 45,331). A better understanding of progress made in reducing potentially preventable deaths in the United States might inform state and regional efforts targeting the prevention of premature deaths from the five leading causes in the United States.

Overdose deaths involving opioid pain medications are epidemic in the United States, in part because of high opioid prescribing rates and associated abuse of these drugs (1). In 2014, nearly 2 million U.S. residents either abused or were dependent on prescription opioids (2). In Massachusetts, unintentional opioid-related overdose deaths, including deaths involving heroin, increased 45% from 2012 to 2013.* In 2014, the rate of these deaths reached 20.0 per 100,000, nearly 2.5 times higher than the U.S. rate overall (3,4). On July 1, 2012, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts (BCBSMA), the largest insurer in the state with approximately 2.8 million members,† implemented a comprehensive opioid utilization program after learning that many of its members were receiving new prescriptions with a >30-day supply of opioids. The 2016 CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain recommends avoiding opioids as a first-line therapy for chronic pain and limiting quantities when initiating opioids for acute pain (5). CDC analyzed BCBSMA prescription claims data for the period 2011-2015 to assess the effect of the new utilization program on opioid prescribing rates. During the first 3 years after policy implementation, the average monthly prescribing rate for opioids decreased almost 15%, from 34 per 1,000 members to 29. The percentage of BCBSMA members per month with current opioid prescriptions also declined. The temporal association between implementation of the program and statistically significant declines in both prescribing rates and proportion of members using opioids suggests that the BCBSMA initiative played a role in reducing the use of prescription opioids among its members. Public and private insurers in the United States could benefit from developing their own best practices for prescription opioid utilization that ensure accessible pain care, while reducing the risk for dependence and abuse associated with these drugs.

Drug overdose is the leading cause of unintentional injury-associated death in the United States. Among 70,237 fatal drug overdoses in 2017, prescription opioids were involved in 17,029 (24.2%) (1). Higher rates of opioid-related deaths have been recorded in nonmetropolitan (rural) areas (2). In 2017, 14 rural counties were among the 15 counties with the highest opioid prescribing rates.* Higher opioid prescribing rates put patients at risk for addiction and overdose (3). Using deidentified data from the Athenahealth electronic health record (EHR) system, opioid prescribing rates among 31,422 primary care providers† in the United States were analyzed to evaluate trends from January 2014 to March 2017. This analysis assessed how prescribing practices varied among six urban-rural classification categories of counties, before and after the March 2016 release of CDC's Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain (Guideline) (4). Patients in noncore (the most rural) counties had an 87% higher chance of receiving an opioid prescription compared with persons in large central metropolitan counties during the study period. Across all six county groups, the odds of receiving an opioid prescription decreased significantly after March 2016. This decrease followed a flat trend during the preceding period in micropolitan and large central metropolitan county groups; in contrast, the decrease continued previous downward trends in the other four county groups. Data from EHRs can effectively supplement traditional surveillance methods for monitoring trends in opioid prescribing and other areas of public health importance, with minimal lag time under ideal conditions. As less densely populated areas appear to indicate both substantial progress in decreasing opioid prescribing and ongoing need for reduction, community health care practices and intervention programs must continue to be tailored to community characteristics.

Survey data from men who have sex with men (MSM) in Asian cities indicate drastic increases in HIV prevalence. It is unknown which factors are most important in driving these epidemics. The objective of this study was to identify patterns of condom use among MSM Internet users living in Viet Nam, as well as risk factors associated with inconsistent condom use and non-condom use. A national Internet-based survey of sexual behaviours was administered in 2011. Results showed that 44.9% of MSM reported not using a condom during their last anal sex encounter with a male partner. MSM were less likely to report condom use during anal sex with long-term partners than with casual partners. Twenty-three and a half per cent of MSM surveyed had ever taken an HIV test and received the results. Study findings highlight the urgent need for targeted strategies focused on increasing the rate of consistent condom use during anal sex with male partners among MSM in Viet Nam.

Men who have sex with men (MSM) are one of the largest HIV risk groups in Viet Nam and have been understudied. Sexual concurrency and multiple sex partnerships may contribute to high HIV incidence among MSM in Viet Nam. Limited information is available on concurrency and multiple sexual partnerships among MSM in Viet Nam or on the extent to which this population engages in concurrent and multiple unprotected anal intercourse. Data are from a self-administered Internet-based survey of Vietnamese MSM aged 18 years or older, having sex with male partner(s) in the last 12 months and recruited from social networking MSM-specific websites in Viet Nam. Multiple partnerships and concurrency were measured using the UNAIDS-recommended sexual partner matrix, a key component in the questionnaire. Concurrent and multiple sexual partnerships were analyzed at the individual level. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to assess the demographic characteristics and behaviors associated with multiple sexual partnerships. A total of 1695 MSM reported on multiple sexual partnerships; 69.5% indicated multiple sexual partnerships in the last 6 months. A total of 257 MSM reported on concurrent sexual partnerships, with 51.0% reporting penetrative sex with concurrent partners in the last 6 months. Respondents were more likely to engage in multiple sexual partnerships if they were no longer a student, consumed alcohol before and/or during sex, used the Internet to meet casual sex partners and had never participated in a behavioral HIV intervention. Multiple sexual partnerships in the previous 6 months were common among MSM surveyed, as was sexual concurrency. High levels of multiple and concurrent sexual partnerships may be catalyzing the transmission of HIV among MSM in Viet Nam. Given the high prevalence of this high-risk sexual behavior, our findings underscore the urgent need for targeted prevention efforts, focusing on the reduction of multiple and concurrent sexual partners among this key population.

© 2013 García et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited., Background Men who have sex with men in Viet Nam have been under-studied as a high-risk group for HIV infection, and this population’s percentage and determinants of HIV testing have not been comprehensively investigated. Methods A national Internet-based survey of self-reported sexual and health seeking behaviours was conducted between August and October 2011 with 2077 Vietnamese men who had sex with men in the last twelve months to identify the frequency of ‘never testing for HIV’ among Internet-using MSM living in Viet Nam, as well as the factors associated with this HIV-related high-rish behavior. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to assess the demographic characteristics and behaviours predicting never testing for HIV. Results A total of 76.5% of men who have sex with men who were surveyed reported never having been voluntarily tested for HIV. Predictors of never being tested included having a monthly income less than VND 5 Million, being a student, using the Internet less than 15 hour per week, and not participating in a behavioural HIV intervention. Conclusions Never testing for HIV is common among Internet-using men who have sex with men in Viet Nam. Given the dangerously high prevalence of this high-risk behaviour, our findings underscore the urgent need for segmented and targeted HIV prevention, care and treatment strategies, focusing on drastically reducing the number of men who have sex with men never testing for HIV in Viet Nam.