New York City (NYC) was an epicenter of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in the United States during spring 2020 (1). During March-May 2020, approximately 203,000 laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases were reported to the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH). To obtain more complete data, DOHMH used supplementary information sources and relied on direct data importation and matching of patient identifiers for data on hospitalization status, the occurrence of death, race/ethnicity, and presence of underlying medical conditions. The highest rates of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths were concentrated in communities of color, high-poverty areas, and among persons aged ≥75 years or with underlying conditions. The crude fatality rate was 9.2% overall and 32.1% among hospitalized patients. Using these data to prevent additional infections among NYC residents during subsequent waves of the pandemic, particularly among those at highest risk for hospitalization and death, is critical. Mitigating COVID-19 transmission among vulnerable groups at high risk for hospitalization and death is an urgent priority. Similar to NYC, other jurisdictions might find the use of supplementary information sources valuable in their efforts to prevent COVID-19 infections. This report describes cases of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 among NYC residents diagnosed during February 29-June 1, 2020, that were reported to DOHMH. DOHMH began COVID-19 surveillance in January 2020 when testing capacity for SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) using real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) was limited by strict testing criteria because of limited test availability only through CDC. The NYC and New York State public health laboratories began testing hospitalized patients at the end of February and early March. DOHMH encouraged patients with mild symptoms to remain at home rather than seek health care because of shortages of personal protective equipment and laboratory tests at hospitals and clinics. Commercial laboratories began testing for SARS-CoV-2 in mid-to late March. During February 29-March 15, patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 were interviewed by DOHMH, and close contacts were identified for monitoring. The rapid rise in laboratory-confirmed cases (cases) quickly made interviewing all patients, as well as contact tracing, unsustainable. Subsequent case investigations

No abstract

No abstract

Early in the COVID-19 crisis, a statewide executive order (“PAUSE”) severely restricted the movement of New Yorkers from March 23-June 7, 2020. We used NYC surveillance data for HIV, chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis to describe trends in diagnosis and reporting surrounding PAUSE. During PAUSE, the volume of positive HIV/STI tests, and diagnoses of HIV, chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis declined substantially, reaching a nadir in April before rebounding. Some shifts in characteristics of reported cases were identified.

Background Expedited partner therapy (EPT) is commonly provided by prescription; however, the efficacy of this modality is unknown. We examined whether EPT prescriptions are filled when the cost barrier is removed. Methods To track EPT prescription fill rates, we used single-use pharmacy vouchers that covered the cost of azithromycin, 1 g (chlamydia treatment). We recruited clinical sites to distribute vouchers to patients with chlamydia who would receive an EPT prescription under clinic policies. When distributing vouchers, sites recorded and retained: voucher unique identifier, sex and age of index patient, distribution date, and whether partner name was written on the EPT prescription. Pharmacists receiving vouchers entered the identifier, sex and age of presenting person, and redemption date into a standard pharmacy claim transmission system. Data for redeemed vouchers were retrieved from an industry portal and linked with data retained at clinical sites. Results Thirty-two clinical sites distributed 931 vouchers during September 2017 to January 2019; 382 (41%) were redeemed. Vouchers distributed to patients 18 years or younger (49 [30%] of 163) were less likely to be redeemed compared with those distributed to patients older than 18 years (322 [44%] of 736; P = 0.001). Just over half of vouchers were redeemed the same day (196 [56%] of 352) and 1 mile or less from the clinical site (188 [54%] of 349). After excluding an outlier site, vouchers accompanied by EPT prescriptions including a partner name (15 [56%] of 27) were more likely to be redeemed than those lacking a name (83 [34%] of 244; P = 0.03). Conclusions Less than half of EPT prescriptions were filled, even when medication was free. Whenever possible, EPT should be provided as drug-in-hand.