In support of improving patient care, this activity has been planned and implemented by Medscape, LLC and Emerging Infectious Diseases. Medscape, LLC is jointly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team. Medscape, LLC designates this Journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1.00 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Successful completion of this CME activity, which includes participation in the evaluation component, enables the participant to earn up to 1.0 MOC points in the American Board of Internal Medicine's (ABIM) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program. Participants will earn MOC points equivalent to the amount of CME credits claimed for the activity. It is the CME activity provider's responsibility to submit participant completion information to ACCME for the purpose of granting ABIM MOC credit. All other clinicians completing this activity will be issued a certificate of participation. To participate in this journal CME activity: (1) review the learning objectives and author disclosures; (2) study the education content; (3) take the post-test with a 75% minimum passing score and complete the evaluation at http://www.medscape.org/journal/eid; and (4) view/print certificate. For CME questions, see page 1644.

Entomological measures have long served as proxies for human risk of Lyme disease (LD) and other tickborne diseases (TBDs) in endemic areas of the United States, despite conflicting results regarding the correlation between these measures and human disease outcomes. Using data from a previous TBD intervention study in Connecticut, Maryland and New York, we evaluated whether human‐tick encounters can serve as an accurate proxy for risk of TBDs in areas where LD and other Ixodes scapularis‐transmitted infections are common. Among 2,590 households consisting of 4,210 individuals, experiencing a tick encounter was associated with an increased risk of both self‐reported (RR = 3.17, 95% CI: 2.05, 4.91) and verified TBD (RR = 2.60, 95% CI: 1.39, 4.84) at the household level. Household characteristics associated with experiencing any tick encounter were residence in Connecticut (aOR = 1.86, 95% CI: 1.38, 2.51) or New York (aOR = 1.66, 95% CI: 1.25, 2.22), head of household having a graduate level education (aOR = 1.46, 95% CI: 1.04, 2.08), owning a pet (aOR = 1.80, 95% CI: 1.46, 2.23) and a property size of 2 acres or larger (aOR = 2.30, 95% CI: 1.42, 3.70). Results for individual characteristics were similar to those for households. Future prevention studies in LD endemic areas should consider using human‐tick encounters as a robust proxy for TBD risk.

Colorado instituted stay-at-home orders to reduce community transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). To inform public health messaging and measures that could be used after reopening, persons with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 during March 9-26 from nine Colorado counties comprising approximately 80% of the state's population † (Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Denver, Douglas, El Paso, Jefferson, Larimer, and Weld) were asked about possible exposures to SARS-CoV-2 before implementation of stay-at-home orders. Among 1,738 persons meeting the inclusion criteria § in the Colorado Electronic Disease Surveillance System, 600 were randomly selected and interviewed using a standardized questionnaire by telephone. Data collection during April 10-30 included information about demographic characteristics, occupations, and selected activities in the 2 weeks preceding symptom onset. During the period examined, SARS-CoV-2 molecular testing was widely available in Colorado; community transmission was documented before implementation of the stay-at-home order. At least three attempts were made to contact all selected patients or their proxy (for deceased patients, minors, and persons unable to be interviewed [e.g., those with dementia]) on at least 2 separate days, at different times of day. Data were entered into a Research Electronic Data Capture (version 9.5.13; Vanderbilt University) database, and descriptive analyses used R statistical software (version 3.6.3; The R Foundation). Among the 600 randomly selected COVID-19 patients, 133 (22%) were unreachable, 57 (10%) declined to participate, and 46 (8%) were ineligible (e.g., the onset date was too early or the patient was asymptomatic), leaving 364 (61%) participants. The median age of participants was 50 years (interquartile range = 34-64 years), and 187 (51%) were male. Overall, 206 (57%) participants identified as non-Hispanic white and 75 (21%) as Hispanic. Among all participants, 345 (95%) reported having health insurance, 128 (35%) were hospitalized and 18 (5%) died. Occupations reported by the 264 (73%) * These authors contributed equally. † https://demography.dola.colorado.gov/population/population-totals-counties/. § Inclusion criteria consisted of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, presence of ≥1 symptom to establish illness onset date, and known hospitalization status.

Background Nasopharyngeal specimens (NPS) are commonly used for SARS-CoV-2 testing but can be uncomfortable for patients. Self-collected saliva or anterior nasal specimens (ANS) for SARS-CoV-2 detection are less invasive but the sensitivity of these specimen types has not been thoroughly evaluated. Methods During September–November 2020, 730 adults undergoing SARS-CoV-2 testing at community testing events and homeless shelters in Denver provided self-collected saliva and ANS specimens before NPS collection and answered a short survey about symptoms and specimen preference. Specimens were tested for SARS-CoV-2 by rRT-PCR; viral culture was performed on a subset of specimens positive by rRT-PCR. Sensitivity of saliva and ANS for SARS-CoV-2 detection by rRT-PCR was measured against NPS. Subgroup analyses included test outcomes by symptom status and culture results. Results Sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 detection by rRT-PCR appeared higher for saliva than for ANS (85% vs. 80%) and among symptomatic participants than among those without symptoms (94% vs. 29% for saliva; 87% vs. 50% for ANS). Among participants with culture-positive SARS-CoV-2 by any specimen type, sensitivity of saliva and ANS by rRT-PCR was 94% and 100%, respectively. Saliva and ANS were equally preferred by participants; most would undergo NPS again despite being least preferred. Conclusions Saliva was slightly more sensitive than ANS for SARS-CoV-2 detection by rRT-PCR. Both saliva and ANS reliably detected SARS-CoV-2 among participants with symptoms. Self-collected saliva and ANS offer practical advantages, are preferred by patients, and might be most useful for testing people with COVID-19 symptoms.