Explore the vast range of titles available.

Exposure to nature may reduce stress in low-income parents. This prospective randomized trial compares the effect of a physician's counseling about nature with or without facilitated group outings on stress and other outcomes among low-income parents. Parents of patients aged 4-18 years at a clinic serving low-income families were randomized to a supported park prescription versus independent park prescription in a 2:1 ratio. Parents in both groups received physician counseling about nature, maps of local parks, a journal, and pedometer. The supported group received additional phone and text reminders to attend three weekly family nature outings with free transportation, food, and programming. Outcomes measured in parents at baseline, one month and three months post-enrollment included: stress (using the 40-point Perceived Stress Scale [PSS10]); park visits per week (self-report and journaling); loneliness (modified UCLA-Loneliness Scale); physical activity (self-report, journaling, pedometry); physiologic stress (salivary cortisol); and nature affinity (validated scale). We enrolled 78 parents, 50 in the supported and 28 in the independent group. One-month follow-up was available for 60 (77%) participants and three-month follow up for 65 (83%). Overall stress decreased by 1.71 points (95% CI, -3.15, -0.26). The improvement in stress did not differ significantly by group assignment, although the independent group had more park visits per week (mean difference 1.75; 95% CI [0.46, 3.04], p = 0.0085). In multivariable analysis, each unit increase in park visits per week was associated with a significant and incremental decrease in stress (change in PSS10-0.53; 95% CI [-0.89, -0.16]; p = 0.005) at three months. While we were unable to demonstrate the additional benefit of group park visits, we observed an overall decrease in parental stress both overall and as a function of numbers of park visits per week. Paradoxically the park prescription without group park visits led to a greater increase in weekly park visits than the group visits. To understand the benefits of this intervention, larger trials are needed. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02623855.

There is a public health need to understand how different frequencies of COVID-19 booster vaccines may mitigate the risk of severe COVID-19, while accounting for waning of protection and differential risk by age and immune status. By analyzing United States COVID-19 surveillance and seroprevalence data in a microsimulation model, here we show that more frequent COVID-19 booster vaccination (every 6–12 months) in older age groups and the immunocompromised population would effectively reduce the burden of severe COVID-19, while frequent boosters in the younger population may only provide modest benefit against severe disease. In persons 75+ years, the model estimated that annual boosters would reduce absolute annual risk of severe COVID-19 by 199 (uncertainty interval: 183–232) cases per 100,000 persons, compared to a one-time booster vaccination. In contrast, for persons 18–49 years, the model estimated that annual boosters would reduce this risk by 14 (10–19) cases per 100,000 persons. Those with prior infection had lower benefit of more frequent boosting, and immunocompromised persons had larger benefit. Scenarios with emerging variants with immune evasion increased the benefit of more frequent variant-targeted boosters. This study underscores the benefit of considering key risk factors to inform frequency of COVID-19 booster vaccines in public health guidance and ensuring at least annual boosters in high-risk populations. The optimal frequency of COVID-19 booster vaccination is unclear. Here, the authors use a microsimulation model to assess the impact of different vaccine schedules on severe disease and show that regular boosters have large benefits for older and immunocompromised individuals but less so for younger age groups.

Dolutegravir (DTG) is a once-daily unboosted second-generation integrase-inhibitor that along with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors is one of several regimens recommended by the United States, United Kingdom and European Union for first-line antiretroviral treatment of people with HIV infection. Our objective was to review the evidence for the efficacy and safety of DTG-based first-line regimens compared to efavirenz (EFV)-based regimens. We conducted a systematic review. We comprehensively searched a range of databases as well as conference abstracts and a trials registry. We used Cochrane methods in screening and data collection and assessed each study's risk of bias with the Cochrane tool. We meta-analyzed data using a fixed-effects model. We used GRADE to assess evidence quality. From 492 search results, we identified two randomized controlled trials, reported in five peer-reviewed articles and one conference abstract. One trial tested two DTG-based regimens (DTG + abacavir (ABC) + lamivudine (3TC) or DTG + tenofovir + emtricitabine) against an EFV-based regimen (EFV+ ABC+3TC). The other trial tested DTG+ABC+3TC against EFV+ABC+3TC. In meta-analysis, DTG-containing regimens were superior to EFV-containing regimens at 48 weeks and at 96 weeks (RR = 1.10, 95% CI 1.04-1.16; and RR = 1.12, 95% CI 1.04-1.21, respectively). In one trial, the DTG-containing regimen was superior at 144 weeks (RR = 1.13, 95% CI 1.02-1.24). DTG-containing regimens were superior in reducing treatment discontinuation compared to those containing EFV at 96 weeks and at 144 weeks (RR = 0.27, 95% CI 0.15-0.50; and RR = 0.28, 95% CI 0.16-0.48, respectively). Risk of serious adverse events was similar in each regimen at 96 weeks (RR = 1.15, 95% CI 0.80-1.63) and 144 weeks (RR = 0.93, 95% CI 0.68-1.29). Risk of bias was moderate overall, as was GRADE evidence quality. DTG-based regimens should be considered in future World Health Organization guidelines for initial HIV treatment.

Increasing the proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infections that are asymptomatic with the simple public health measure of universal masking might help make the infection less deadly and increase population-level immunity without severe illnesses and deaths.

Routine viral testing strategies for SARS-CoV-2 infection might facilitate safe airline travel during the COVID-19 pandemic and mitigate global spread of the virus. However, the effectiveness of these test-and-travel strategies to reduce passenger risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and population-level transmission remains unknown. In this simulation study, we developed a microsimulation of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in a cohort of 100 000 US domestic airline travellers using publicly available data on COVID-19 clinical cases and published natural history parameters to assign individuals one of five health states of susceptible to infection, latent period, early infection, late infection, or recovered. We estimated a per-day risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2 corresponding to a daily incidence of 150 infections per 100 000 people. We assessed five testing strategies: (1) anterior nasal PCR test within 3 days of departure, (2) PCR within 3 days of departure and 5 days after arrival, (3) rapid antigen test on the day of travel (assuming 90% of the sensitivity of PCR during active infection), (4) rapid antigen test on the day of travel and PCR test 5 days after arrival, and (5) PCR test 5 days after arrival. Strategies 2 and 4 included a 5-day quarantine after arrival. The travel period was defined as 3 days before travel to 2 weeks after travel. Under each scenario, individuals who tested positive before travel were not permitted to travel. The primary study outcome was cumulative number of infectious days in the cohort over the travel period without isolation or quarantine (population-level transmission risk), and the key secondary outcome was the number of infectious people detected on the day of travel (passenger risk of infection). We estimated that in a cohort of 100 000 airline travellers, in a scenario with no testing or screening, there would be 8357 (95% uncertainty interval 6144–12831) infectious days with 649 (505–950) actively infectious passengers on the day of travel. The pre-travel PCR test reduced the number of infectious days from 8357 to 5401 (3917–8677), a reduction of 36% (29–41) compared with the base case, and identified 569 (88% [76–92]) of 649 actively infectious travellers on the day of flight; the addition of post-travel quarantine and PCR reduced the number of infectious days to 1474 (1087–2342), a reduction of 82% (80–84) compared with the base case. The rapid antigen test on the day of travel reduced the number of infectious days to 5674 (4126–9081), a reduction of 32% (26–38) compared with the base case, and identified 560 (86% [83–89]) actively infectious travellers; the addition of post-travel quarantine and PCR reduced the number of infectious days to 2518 (1935–3821), a reduction of 70% (67–72) compared with the base case. The post-travel PCR alone reduced the number of infectious days to 4851 (3714–7679), a reduction of 42% (35–49) compared with the base case. Routine asymptomatic testing for SARS-CoV-2 before travel can be an effective strategy to reduce passenger risk of infection during travel, although abbreviated quarantine with post-travel testing is probably needed to reduce population-level transmission due to importation of infection when travelling from a high to low incidence setting. University of California, San Francisco.

Epidemics of COVID-19 in student populations at universities were a key concern for the 2020-2021 school year. The University of California (UC) System developed a set of recommendations to reduce campus infection rates. SARS-CoV-2 test results are summarized for the ten UC campuses during the Fall 2020 term. UC mitigation efforts included protocols for the arrival of students living on-campus students, non-pharmaceutical interventions, daily symptom monitoring, symptomatic testing, asymptomatic surveillance testing, isolation and quarantine protocols, student ambassador programs for health education, campus health and safety pledges, and lowered density of on-campus student housing. We used data from UC campuses, the UC Health-California Department of Public Health Data Modeling Consortium, and the U.S. Census to estimate the proportion of each campus' student populations that tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and compared it to the fraction individuals aged 20-29 years who tested positive in their respective counties. SARS-CoV-2 cases in campus populations were generally low in September and October 2020, but increased in November and especially December, and were highest in early to mid-January 2021, mirroring case trajectories in their respective counties. Many students were infected during the Thanksgiving and winter holiday recesses and were detected as cases upon returning to campus. The proportion of students who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during Fall 2020 ranged from 1.2% to 5.2% for students living on campus and was similar to students living off campus. For most UC campuses the proportion of students testing positive was lower than that for the 20-29-year-old population in which campuses were located. The layered mitigation approach used on UC campuses, informed by public health science and augmented perhaps by a more compliant population, likely minimized campus transmission and outbreaks and limited transmission to surrounding communities. University policies that include these mitigation efforts in Fall 2020 along with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, may alleviate some local concerns about college students returning to communities and facilitate resumption of normal campus operations and in-person instruction.

Economic compensation interventions may help support higher voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC) coverage in priority sub-Saharan African countries. To inform World Health Organization guidelines, we conducted a systematic review of economic compensation interventions to increase VMMC uptake. Economic compensation interventions were defined as providing money or in-kind compensation, reimbursement for associated costs (e.g. travel, lost wages), or lottery entry. We searched five electronic databases and four scientific conferences for studies examining the impact of such interventions on VMMC uptake, HIV testing and safer-sex/risk-reduction counseling uptake within VMMC, community expectations about compensation, and potential coercion. We screened citations, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. We conducted random-effects meta-analysis. We also reviewed studies examining acceptability, values/preferences, costs, and feasibility. Of 2484 citations identified, five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and three non-randomized controlled trials met our eligibility criteria. Studies took place in Kenya, Malawi, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. Meta-analysis of four RCTs showed significant impact of any economic compensation on VMMC uptake (relative risk: 5.23, 95% CI: 3.13 to 8.76). RCTs of food/transport vouchers and conditional cash transfers generally showed increases in VMMC uptake, but lotteries, subsidized VMMC, and receiving a gift appeared somewhat less effective. Three non-randomized trials showed mixed impact. Six additional studies suggested economic compensation interventions were generally acceptable, valued for addressing key barriers, and motivating to men. However, some participants felt they were insufficiently motivating or necessary; one study suggested they might raise community suspicions. One study from South Africa found a program cost of US$91 per additional circumcision and US$450-$1350 per HIV infection averted. Economic compensation interventions, particularly transport/food vouchers, positively impacted VMMC uptake among adult men and were generally acceptable to potential clients. Carefully selected economic interventions may be a useful targeted strategy to enhance VMMC coverage.

To determine whether supportive interventions can increase retention in care for patients on antiretroviral therapy (ART) in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). Systematic review and meta-analysis. We used Cochrane Collaboration methods. We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) and observational studies with comparators conducted in LMIC. Our principal outcomes were retention, mortality and the combined outcome of lost-to-follow-up (LTFU) or death. We identified seven studies (published in nine articles); six of the studies were from Sub-Saharan Africa. We found four types of interventions: 1) directly observed therapy plus extra support (\"DOT-plus\"), 2) community-based adherence support, 3) adherence clubs and 4) extra care for patients with low CD4 count. One RCT of a community-based intervention showed significantly improved retention at 12 months (RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.27), and three observational studies found significantly improved retention for paediatric patients followed for 12 to 36 months (RR 1.07, 95 CI 1.03 to 1.11), and for adult patients at 12 (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.70) and 60 months (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.08). One observational study of adherence clubs showed significantly reduced LTFU or mortality (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.33). A cluster RCT of an extra-care intervention for high-risk patients also showed a significant increase in retention (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.10), and an observational study of extra nursing care found a significant decrease in LTFU or mortality (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.87). Supportive interventions are associated with increased ART programme retention, but evidence quality is generally low to moderate. The data from this review suggest that programmes addressing psychosocial needs can significantly help retain patients in care.

Evidence for minimally symptomatic Ebola virus (EBOV) infection is limited. During the 2013-16 outbreak in West Africa, it was not considered epidemiologically relevant to published models or projections of intervention effects. In order to improve our understanding of the transmission dynamics of EBOV in humans, we investigated the occurrence of minimally symptomatic EBOV infection in quarantined contacts of reported Ebola virus disease cases in a recognized 'hotspot.' We conducted a cross-sectional serosurvey in Sukudu, Kono District, Sierra Leone, from October 2015 to January 2016. A blood sample was collected from 187 study participants, 132 negative controls (individuals with a low likelihood of previous exposure to Ebola virus), and 30 positive controls (Ebola virus disease survivors). IgG responses to Ebola glycoprotein and nucleoprotein were measured using Alpha Diagnostic International ELISA kits with plasma diluted at 1:200. Optical density was read at 450 nm (subtracting OD at 630nm to normalize well background) on a ChroMate 4300 microplate reader. A cutoff of 4.7 U/mL for the anti-GP ELISA yielded 96.7% sensitivity and 97.7% specificity in distinguishing positive and negative controls. We identified 14 seropositive individuals not known to have had Ebola virus disease. Two of the 14 seropositive individuals reported only fever during quarantine while the remaining 12 denied any signs or symptoms during quarantine. By using ELISA to measure Zaire Ebola virus antibody concentrations, we identified a significant number of individuals with previously undetected EBOV infection in a 'hotspot' village in Sierra Leone, approximately one year after the village outbreak. The findings provide further evidence that Ebola, like many other viral infections, presents with a spectrum of clinical manifestations, including minimally symptomatic infection. These data also suggest that a significant portion of Ebola transmission events may have gone undetected during the outbreak. Further studies are needed to understand the potential risk of transmission and clinical sequelae in individuals with previously undetected EBOV infection.

A key public health question during any disease outbreak when limited vaccine is available is who should be prioritized for early vaccination. Most vaccine prioritization analyses only consider variation in risk of infection and death by a single risk factor, such as age. We provide a more granular approach with stratification by demographics, risk factors, and location. We use this approach to compare the impact of different COVID-19 vaccine prioritization strategies on COVID-19 cases, deaths and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) over the first 6 months of vaccine rollout, using California as a case example. We estimate the proportion of cases, deaths and DALYs averted relative to no vaccination for strategies prioritizing vaccination by a single risk factor and by multiple risk factors (e.g. age, location). When targeting by a single risk factor, we find that age-based targeting averts the most deaths (62% for 5 million individuals vaccinated) and DALYs (38%) and targeting essential workers averts the least deaths (31%) and DALYs (24%) over the first 6 months of rollout. However, targeting by two or more risk factors simultaneously averts up to 40% more DALYs. Our findings highlight the potential value of multiple-risk-factor targeting of vaccination against COVID-19 and other infectious diseases, but must be balanced with feasibility for policy.