On October 2, 2020, this report was posted as an MMWR Early Release on the MMWR website (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr). During the course of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, reports of a new multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) have been increasing in Europe and the United States (1-3). Clinical features in children have varied but predominantly include shock, cardiac dysfunction, abdominal pain, and elevated inflammatory markers, including C-reactive protein (CRP), ferritin, D-dimer, and interleukin-6 (1). Since June 2020, several case reports have described a similar syndrome in adults; this review describes in detail nine patients reported to CDC, seven from published case reports, and summarizes the findings in 11 patients described in three case series in peer-reviewed journals (4-6). These 27 patients had cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, dermatologic, and neurologic symptoms without severe respiratory illness and concurrently received positive test results for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) or antibody assays indicating recent infection. Reports of these patients highlight the recognition of an illness referred to here as multisystem inflammatory syndrome in adults (MIS-A), the heterogeneity of clinical signs and symptoms, and the role for antibody testing in identifying similar cases among adults. Clinicians and health departments should consider MIS-A in adults with compatible signs and symptoms. These patients might not have positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR or antigen test results, and antibody testing might be needed to confirm previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. Because of the temporal association between MIS-A and SARS-CoV-2 infections interventions that prevent COVID-19 might prevent MIS-A. Further research is needed to understand the pathogenesis and long-term effects of this newly described condition. Potential MIS-A patients were identified from several sources: reports from clinicians and health departments, published case reports, and published case series. Clinicians and health departments in the United States voluntarily reported adult patients with suspected MIS-A to CDC using the case report form* developed for MIS-C after a Health Advisory was published on May 14, 2020, calling for reporting of MIS-C

IntroductionDespite the efficacy of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in preventing HIV transmission, few studies have evaluated PrEP use and retention in care outcomes in real-world settings outside of clinical trials.MethodsData were collected from PrEP clinical care programmes in three mid-size US cities: Providence, Rhode Island (RI); Jackson, Mississippi (MS); and St. Louis, Missouri (MO). We assessed the demographic and social characteristics of patients prescribed PrEP and documented their insurance and copayment experiences. We assessed retention in PrEP care at three and six months. Multivariate analyses were used to predict retention in care among men who have sex with men (MSM). HIV acquisition among the cohort was also assessed.ResultsA total of 267 (RI: 117; MS: 88; MO: 62) patients were prescribed PrEP; 81% filled prescriptions (RI: 73%; MS: 82%; MO: 94%; p<0.001). Patients in MS and MO were more commonly African American than in RI (72% and 26% vs. 7%, respectively), but less frequently Latino (2% and 3% vs. 24%, respectively). More patients reported living below the federal poverty line in MS (52%) compared to MO (23%) and RI (26%). Most patients were MSM (RI: 92%; MS: 88%; MO: 84%). The majority of MSM reported recent condomless anal sex (RI: 70%; MS: 65%; MO: 75%). Among 171 patients prescribed PrEP at least six months beforehand, 72% were retained in care at three months (RI: 68%; MS: 70%; MO: 87%; p=0.12) and 57% were retained in PrEP care at six months (RI: 53%: MS: 61%; MO: 63%; p=0.51). Insurance status and medication costs were not found to be significant barriers for obtaining PrEP. Three patients became infected with HIV during the six-month period after being prescribed PrEP (1.1%; 3/267), including one in RI (suspected acute HIV infection), one in MO (confirmed poor adherence) and one in MS (seroconverted just prior to initiation).ConclusionsPrEP initiation and retention in care differed across these distinct settings. In contrast, retention in PrEP care was consistently suboptimal across sites. Further research is needed to identify the individual, social and structural factors that may impede or enhance retention in PrEP care

Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is a biomedical intervention that can reduce rates of HIV transmission when taken once daily by HIV-negative individuals. Little is understood about PrEP uptake and retention in care among the populations most heavily impacted by the HIV epidemic, particularly among young men who have sex with men (YMSM) in the Deep South. Therefore, this study explored the structural, social, behavioral, and clinical factors that affect PrEP use and retention in care among YMSM in Jackson, Mississippi. Thirty MSM who were prescribed PrEP at an outpatient primary care clinic were interviewed and included 23 men who had been retained in PrEP care and seven who had not been retained. The mean age of participants was 26.6 years. Most (23) participants were African American. Major factors affecting PrEP use and retention in PrEP care included 1) structural factors such as cost and access to financial assistance for medications and clinical services; 2) social factors such as stigma and relationship status; 3) behavioral factors including sexual risk behaviors; and 4) clinical factors such as perceived and actual side effects. Many participants also discussed the positive spillover effects of PrEP use and reported that PrEP had a positive impact on their health. Four of the seven individuals who had not been retained re-enrolled in PrEP care after completing their interviews, suggesting that case management and ongoing outreach can enhance retention in PrEP care. Interventions to enhance retention in PrEP care among MSM in the Deep South will be most effective if they address the complex structural, social, clinical, and behavioral factors that influence PrEP uptake and retention in PrEP care.

Background: Trichomonias is the most common non-viral STI among women worldwide and is associated with serious reproductive morbidity, poor birth outcomes and amplified HIV transmission. Single-dose metronidazole therapy has been the treatment of choice for over three decades. There is mounting evidence, however, of high rates of repeat positives following single-dose metronidazole, and among HIVinfected women, bacterial vaginosis (BV) was found to alter treatment efficacy. The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of single-dose metronidazole compared to 7 day-dose metronidazole for the treatment of trichomoniasis among HIV-uninfected, non-pregnant women and to determine if this effect was modified by BV. Methods: This was a randomized, parallel, multi-site, open-label trial of single-dose (2 g one-time) versus 7 day-dose (500 mg twice daily) for the treatment of trichomoniasis. The primary outcome was T. vaginalis infection by arm, per nucleic acid amplification test or culture, four weeks post-completion of treatment, in intentto-treat analyses. This analysis was also stratified by BV status. Findings: Of 623 women randomized, those in the 7 day-dose arm were less likely to be T. vaginalis positive at test-of-cure compared to those in the single-dose arm [34/312 (10.9%) vs. 58/311 (18.6%), p=0·001] [R.R. 0.55 (95% C.I. 0.34–0.70)]. Risk was similar by BV status (p=0·17). Self-reported adherence in both arms was > 95%. Side effects were similar by arm. Interpretation: In this sample of HIV-uninfected, non-pregnant women with trichomoniasis, compared to single-dose, 7 day-dose metronidazole treatment resulted in 45% fewer treatment failures. The 7 day-dose metronidazole should be the preferred treatment for trichomoniasis among women.