and Utah. Portions of the population in Colorado (49%), Minnesota (55%), New Mexico (61%), and Utah (35%) and the whole population of Maryland are included as part of the COVID-19-Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network (COVID-NET). https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/ covid-net/purpose-methods.html † A COVID-19 case (confirmed or probable) was defined as the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA or antigen in a respiratory specimen collected from a person aged ≥18 years per the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists' update to the standardized surveillance case definition and national notification for 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) (21-ID-01

BackgroundMany acute respiratory illness surveillance systems collect and test nasopharyngeal (NP) and/or oropharyngeal (OP) swab specimens, yet there are few studies assessing the relative measures of performance for NP versus OP specimens.MethodsWe collected paired NP and OP swabs separately from pediatric and adult patients with influenza-like illness or severe acute respiratory illness at two respiratory surveillance sites in Kenya. The specimens were tested for eight respiratory viruses by real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR). Positivity for a specific virus was defined as detection of viral nucleic acid in either swab.ResultsOf 2,331 paired NP/OP specimens, 1,402 (60.1%) were positive for at least one virus, and 393 (16.9%) were positive for more than one virus. Overall, OP swabs were significantly more sensitive than NP swabs for adenovirus (72.4% vs. 57.6%, p<0.01) and 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) virus (91.2% vs. 70.4%, p<0.01). NP specimens were more sensitive for influenza B virus (83.3% vs. 61.5%, p = 0.02), parainfluenza virus 2 (85.7%, vs. 39.3%, p<0.01), and parainfluenza virus 3 (83.9% vs. 67.4%, p<0.01). The two methods did not differ significantly for human metapneumovirus, influenza A (H3N2) virus, parainfluenza virus 1, or respiratory syncytial virus.ConclusionsThe sensitivities were variable among the eight viruses tested; neither specimen was consistently more effective than the other. For respiratory disease surveillance programs using qRT-PCR that aim to maximize sensitivity for a large number of viruses, collecting combined NP and OP specimens would be the most effective approach.

Fluoxetine, orlistat, and sibutramine can achieve statistically significant weight loss over 26 to 52 weeks. However, the magnitude of weight loss was modest, and the long-term health benefits and safety remain unclear. Interventions that combine pharmacologic therapy with intensive behavioral interventions may be more effective but need additional research.

This outbreak underscores important challenges in ensuring the safety of compounded pharmaceuticals and demonstrates the potential for substantially delayed infections after exposures to contaminated infusates. Exposures to compounded products should be considered when investigating outbreaks. Patients exposed to contaminated infusates require careful follow-up, because infections can occur long after exposure.

Objective Little is known about COVID-19 vaccination intentions among refugee communities in the United States. The objective of this study was to measure COVID-19 vaccination intentions among a sample of refugees in the United States and the reasons for their vaccine acceptance or hesitancy. Methods From December 2020 through January 2021, we emailed or text messaged anonymous online surveys to 12 bilingual leaders in the Afghan, Bhutanese, Somali, South Sudanese, and Burmese refugee communities in the United States. We asked community leaders to complete the survey and share the link with community members who met the inclusion criteria (arrived in the United States as refugees, were aged ≥18, and currently lived in the United States). We compared the characteristics of respondents who intended to receive the COVID-19 vaccine with those of respondents who did not intend to receive the vaccine or were unsure. We then conducted crude and adjusted logistic regression analysis to measure the association between employment as an essential worker and COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. Results Of 435 respondents, 306 (70.3%) indicated that they planned to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Being an essential worker (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.37; 95% CI, 1.44-3.90) and male sex (aOR = 1.87; 95% CI, 1.12-3.12) were significantly associated with higher odds of intending to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Among respondents who intended to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, wanting to protect themselves (68.6%), family members (65.0%), and other people (54.3%) were the main reasons. Conclusion Many refugees who responded to the survey, especially those who worked in essential industries, intended to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Community organizations, health care providers, and public health agencies should work together to ensure that vaccine registration and vaccination sites are accessible to refugees.