Showing papers by "John T. Brooks published in 2020"

Evidence Supporting Transmission of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 While Presymptomatic or Asymptomatic.

Abstract: Recent epidemiologic, virologic, and modeling reports support the possibility of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission from persons who are presymptomatic (SARS-CoV-2 detected before symptom onset) or asymptomatic (SARS-CoV-2 detected but symptoms never develop). SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the absence of symptoms reinforces the value of measures that prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 by infected persons who may not exhibit illness despite being infectious. Critical knowledge gaps include the relative incidence of asymptomatic and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, the public health interventions that prevent asymptomatic transmission, and the question of whether asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection confers protective immunity.

Summary of Guidance for Public Health Strategies to Address High Levels of Community Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and Related Deaths, December 2020.

Abstract: In the 10 months since the first confirmed case of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was reported in the United States on January 20, 2020 (1), approximately 13.8 million cases and 272,525 deaths have been reported in the United States. On October 30, the number of new cases reported in the United States in a single day exceeded 100,000 for the first time, and by December 2 had reached a daily high of 196,227.* With colder weather, more time spent indoors, the ongoing U.S. holiday season, and silent spread of disease, with approximately 50% of transmission from asymptomatic persons (2), the United States has entered a phase of high-level transmission where a multipronged approach to implementing all evidence-based public health strategies at both the individual and community levels is essential. This summary guidance highlights critical evidence-based CDC recommendations and sustainable strategies to reduce COVID-19 transmission. These strategies include 1) universal face mask use, 2) maintaining physical distance from other persons and limiting in-person contacts, 3) avoiding nonessential indoor spaces and crowded outdoor spaces, 4) increasing testing to rapidly identify and isolate infected persons, 5) promptly identifying, quarantining, and testing close contacts of persons with known COVID-19, 6) safeguarding persons most at risk for severe illness or death from infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, 7) protecting essential workers with provision of adequate personal protective equipment and safe work practices, 8) postponing travel, 9) increasing room air ventilation and enhancing hand hygiene and environmental disinfection, and 10) achieving widespread availability and high community coverage with effective COVID-19 vaccines. In combination, these strategies can reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission, long-term sequelae or disability, and death, and mitigate the pandemic's economic impact. Consistent implementation of these strategies improves health equity, preserves health care capacity, maintains the function of essential businesses, and supports the availability of in-person instruction for kindergarten through grade 12 schools and preschool. Individual persons, households, and communities should take these actions now to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission from its current high level. These actions will provide a bridge to a future with wide availability and high community coverage of effective vaccines, when safe return to more everyday activities in a range of settings will be possible.

Hydroxychloroquine and Chloroquine Prescribing Patterns by Provider Specialty Following Initial Reports of Potential Benefit for COVID-19 Treatment — United States, January–June 2020

Abstract: 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.

Association of Immunosuppression and Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Viremia With Anal Cancer Risk in Persons Living With HIV in the United States and Canada.

Abstract: BACKGROUND People living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV; PLWH) have a markedly elevated anal cancer risk, largely due to loss of immunoregulatory control of oncogenic human papillomavirus infection. To better understand anal cancer development and prevention, we determined whether recent, past, cumulative, or nadir/peak CD4+ T-cell count (CD4) and/or HIV-1 RNA level (HIV RNA) best predict anal cancer risk. METHODS We studied 102 777 PLWH during 1996-2014 from 21 cohorts participating in the North American AIDS Cohort Collaboration on Research and Design. Using demographics-adjusted, cohort-stratified Cox models, we assessed associations between anal cancer risk and various time-updated CD4 and HIV RNA measures, including cumulative and nadir/peak measures during prespecified moving time windows. We compared models using the Akaike information criterion. RESULTS Cumulative and nadir/peak CD4 or HIV RNA measures from approximately 8.5 to 4.5 years in the past were generally better predictors for anal cancer risk than their corresponding more recent measures. However, the best model included CD4 nadir (ie, the lowest CD4) from approximately 8.5 years to 6 months in the past (hazard ratio [HR] for <50 vs ≥500 cells/µL, 13.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.5-51.0) and proportion of time CD4 <200 cells/µL from approximately 8.5 to 4.5 years in the past (a cumulative measure; HR for 100% vs 0%, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.5-6.6). CONCLUSIONS Our results are consistent with anal cancer promotion by severe, prolonged HIV-induced immunosuppression. Nadir and cumulative CD4 may represent useful markers for identifying PLWH at higher anal cancer risk.

Trends in HIV-2 Diagnoses and Use of the HIV-1/HIV-2 Differentiation Test - United States, 2010-2017.

Abstract: Since 2014, the recommended laboratory testing algorithm for diagnosing human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection has included a supplemental HIV-1/HIV-2 differentiation test to confirm infection type on the basis of the presence of type-specific antibodies (1). Correctly identifying HIV-1 and HIV-2 infections is vital because their epidemiology and clinical management differ. To describe the percentage of diagnoses for which an HIV-1/HIV-2 differentiation test result was reported and to categorize HIV type based on laboratory test results, 2010-2017 data from CDC's National HIV Surveillance System (NHSS) were analyzed. During 2010-2017, a substantial increase in the number of HIV-1/HIV-2 differentiation test results were reported to NHSS, consistent with implementation of the HIV laboratory-based testing algorithm recommended in 2014. However, >99.9% of all HIV infections identified in the United States were categorized as HIV-1, and the number of HIV-2 diagnoses (mono-infection or dual-infection) remained extremely low (<0.03% of all HIV infections). In addition, the overall number of false positive HIV-2 test results produced by the HIV-1/HIV-2 differentiation increased. The diagnostic value of a confirmatory antibody differentiation test in a setting with sensitive and specific screening tests and few HIV-2 infections might be limited. Evaluation and consideration of other HIV tests approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that might increase efficiencies in the CDC and Association of Public Health Laboratories-recommended HIV testing algorithm are warranted.

Prevalence, Incidence, and Clearance of Human Papillomavirus Types Covered by Current Vaccines in Men With Human Immunodeficiency Virus in the SUN Study.

Abstract: Author(s): Patel, Pragna; Bush, Tim; Conley, Lois; Unger, Elizabeth R; Darragh, Teresa M; Henry, Keith; Escota, Gerome; Brooks, John T; Kojic, Erna Milunka | Abstract: BackgroundHigh-risk anal human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is prevalent among men living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV); the association between 9-valent (9v) high-risk HPV (HR-HPV) vaccine types and abnormal cytology has not been well characterized.MethodsWe followed a prospective cohort study of persons with HIV at 7 HIV clinics in 4 US cities from March 2004 through June 2012. Annually, providers collected separate anal swabs for HPV detection and cytopathologic examination. Among men, we examined prevalence, incidence, and clearance of 9v HR-HPV vaccine types, compared with other HR types, and associations with abnormal cytology to assess potential vaccine impact.ResultsBaseline prevalence of any anal 9v HR-HPV type among men who have sex with men (MSM) and men who have sex with women (MSW) was 74% and 25% (P l .001), respectively. Among 299 MSM, abnormal cytology was detected in 161 (54%) MSM and was associated with the presence of any 9v HR-HPV (relative risk [RR], 1.8 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.3-2.6]; P l .001). Among 61 MSW, abnormal anal cytology was detected in 12 (20%) and was associated with the presence of any 9v HR-HPV (RR, 4.3 [95% CI, 1.6-11.5]; P l .001).ConclusionsAmong men with HIV, the prevalence of the 7 HR-HPV types in the 9v vaccine was high and was associated with abnormal cytology. These findings indicate that men with HIV could benefit from prophylactic administration of the 9v HPV vaccine.

Changes in HIV antiretroviral prescribing practices in the United States.

Abstract: We analyzed nationally representative medical record data from the Medical Monitoring Project (MMP) to estimate prevalence of antiretroviral (ARV) agents prescribed for US adults with diagnosed HIV...