Search

As of April 16, 2021, U.S. correctional and detention facilities reported 399,631 cases of COVID-19 in incarcerated persons, resulting in 2,574 deaths (1). During July 14-November 30, 2020, COVID-19 was diagnosed in 382 persons incarcerated in Idaho correctional facilities with work-release programs. Work-release programs (which place incarcerated persons in community businesses) have social and economic benefits, but might put participants at increased risk for bidirectional transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. The Idaho Department of Correction (IDOC) operates 13 state-run correctional facilities, including six low-security facilities dedicated to work-release programs. This report describes COVID-19 outbreaks in five IDOC facilities with work-release programs,* provides the mitigation strategies that IDOC implemented, and describes the collaborative public health response. As of November 30, 2020, 382 outbreak-related COVID-19 cases were identified among incarcerated persons in five Idaho correctional facilities with work-release programs; two outbreaks were linked to food processing plants. Mitigation strategies that helped to control outbreaks in IDOC facilities with work-release programs included isolation of persons with COVID-19, identification and quarantine of close contacts, mass testing of incarcerated persons and staff members, and temporary suspension of work-release programs. Implementation of public health recommendations for correctional and detention facilities with work-release programs, including mass testing and identification of high-risk work sites, can help mitigate SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks. Incarcerated persons participating in work-release should be included in COVID-19 vaccination plans.

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.

Objective. To develop a measure of renal activity in systemic lupus erythematosus and use it to develop a renal response index. Methods. Abstracted data from the medical records of 215 patients with lupus nephritis were sent to 8 nephrologists and 29 rheumatologists for rating. Seven nephrologists and 22 rheumatologists completed the ratings. Each physician rated each patient visit with respect to renal disease activity (none, mild, moderate, or severe). Using the most commonly selected rating for each patient as the gold standard, stepwise regression modeling was performed to identify the variables most related to renal disease activity, and these variables were then used to create an activity score. This activity score could then be applied to 2 consecutive visits to define a renal response index. Results. The renal activity score was computed as follows: proteinuria 0.5-1 gm/day (3 points), proteinuria >1-3 gm/day (5 points), proteinuria >3 gm/day (11 points), urine red blood cell count > 10/high-power field (3 points), and urine white blood cell count >10/high-power field (I point). The chance-adjusted agreement between the renal response index derived from the activity score applied to the paired visits and the plurality physician response rating was 0.69 (95% confidence interval 0.59-0.79). Conclusion. Ratings derived from this index for rating of renal response showed reasonable agreement with physician ratings in a pilot study. The index will require further refinement, testing, and validation. A data-driven approach to create renal activity and renal response indices will be useful in both clinical care and research settings. (Less)

Objective To assess the degree to which physicians agree with each other and with ratings obtained with 3 existing responder indices, in rating the response to treatment of lupus nephritis. Methods Lupus nephritis patient medical records from 125 pairs of visits (6 months apart) were used to create renal response scenarios. Seven nephrologists and 22 rheumatologists rated each scenario as demonstrating complete response, partial response, same, or worsening. The plurality (most frequent) rating of renal response by the physicians was compared with the calculated score from the renal component of the British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG) index (original and updated [2004] version) and of the Responder Index for Lupus Erythematosus (RIFLE). The degree of agreement among the physicians was assessed by calculating intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). The degree of agreement between the plurality physician rating and ratings obtained with the established response indices was assessed using the kappa statistic. Results The ICC among all physicians was 0.64 (0.62 for nephrologists and 0.67 for rheumatologists). The chance-adjusted measure of agreement (kappa coefficient) between the plurality physician rating and the calculated score obtained using established indexes was 0.50 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.38–0.61) for the RIFLE, 0.14 (95% CI 0.03–0.25) for the original BILAG, and 0.23 (95% CI 0.21–0.44) for the BILAG 2004. Conclusion These findings indicate that rheumatologists as a group and nephrologists as a group have equal agreement in their rating of renal response. There was moderate agreement between plurality physician ratings and ratings obtained using the renal component of the RIFLE. Ratings of response using an index based on the original BILAG did not have good agreement with the plurality physician rating.

Objective C-reactive protein (CRP) may play an anti-inflammatory role during the acute phase of inflammation and is also used as a marker of inflammation associated with cardiovascular disease. In the present study, we investigated the association between high-sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) manifestations, autoantibodies, and organ damage. Methods In this cross-sectional study, 610 SLE patients from a prospective cohort had more than 1 hsCRP measurement. Organ damage was assessed using the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC)/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index. Multiple linear regression models were used to adjust for age, gender, ethnicity, disease duration, body mass index, education, disease activity, current prednisone dose, statin use, and estrogen use. Results After adjusting for confounders, hsCRP was associated with myocarditis, cardiac murmur, interstitial pulmonary fibrosis, pulmonary hypertension, gastrointestinal lupus manifestations, and anemia. Anti-dsDNA antibodies and lupus anticoagulant were associated with hsCRP in unadjusted models, and these associations remained significant after adjustment for confounders. hsCRP levels were significantly higher in patients with pulmonary, musculoskeletal, and endocrine damage, and a total SLICC Damage Index score ≥1. After adjustment, hsCRP was associated with pulmonary, musculoskeletal, and total damage, but no longer with endocrine damage. Conclusions hsCRP is associated with a broad range of clinical features and organ damage in SLE, particularly in the pulmonary and musculoskeletal systems. This association holds true independent of sociodemographic, disease activity, and treatment factors and may be useful to identify high-risk SLE patients who would benefit from additional screening and surveillance studies.