On July 21, 2020, this report was posted as an MMWR Early Release on the MMWR website (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr).Population prevalence of persons infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), varies by subpopulation and locality. U.S. studies of SARS-CoV-2 infection have examined infections in nonrandom samples (1) or seroprevalence in specific populations* (2), which are limited in their generalizability and cannot be used to accurately calculate infection-fatality rates. During April 25-29, 2020, Indiana conducted statewide random sample testing of persons aged ≥12 years to assess prevalence of active infection and presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2; additional nonrandom sampling was conducted in racial and ethnic minority communities to better understand the impact of the virus in certain racial and ethnic minority populations. Estimates were adjusted for nonresponse to reflect state demographics using an iterative proportional fitting method. Among 3,658 noninstitutionalized participants in the random sample survey, the estimated statewide point prevalence of active SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by reverse transcriptionpolymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing was 1.74% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.10-2.54); 44.2% of these persons reported no symptoms during the 2 weeks before testing. The prevalence of immunoglobulin G (IgG) seropositivity, indicating past infection, was 1.09% (95% CI = 0.76-1.45). The overall prevalence of current and previous infections of SARS-CoV-2 in Indiana was 2.79% (95% CI = 2.02-3.70). In the random sample, higher overall prevalences were observed among Hispanics and those who reported having a household contact who had previously been told by a health care provider that they had COVID-19. By late April, an estimated 187,802 Indiana residents were currently or previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 (9.6 times higher than the number of confirmed cases [17,792]) (3), and 1,099 residents died (infection-fatality ratio = 0.58%). The number of reported cases represents only a fraction of the estimated total number of infections. Given the large number of persons who remain susceptible in Indiana, adherence to evidence-based public health mitigation and containment measures (e.g., social distancing, consistent and correct use of face coverings, and hand hygiene) is needed to * https://www.medrxiv

No abstract

Clinicians who routinely take patient sexual histories have the opportunity to assess patient risk for sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), and make appropriate recommendations for routine HIV/STD screenings. However, less than 40% of providers conduct sexual histories with patients, and many do not receive formal sexual history training in school. After partnering with a national professional organization of physicians, we trained 26 (US and US territory-based) practicing physicians (58% female; median age=48 years) regarding sexual history taking using both in-person and webinar methods. Trainings occurred during either a 6-h onsite or 2-h webinar session. We evaluated their post-training experiences integrating sexual histories during routine medical visits. We assessed use of sexual histories and routine HIV/STD screenings. All participating physicians reported improved sexual history taking and increases in documented sexual histories and routine HIV/STD screenings. Four themes emerged from the qualitative evaluations: (1) the need for more sexual history training; (2) the importance of providing a gender-neutral sexual history tool; (3) the existence of barriers to routine sexual histories/testing; and (4) unintended benefits for providers who were conducting routine sexual histories. These findings were used to develop a brief, gender-neutral sexual history tool for clinical use. This pilot evaluation demonstrates that providers were willing to utilize a sexual history tool in clinical practice in support of HIV/STD prevention efforts.

To examine the hypothesis that cytomegalovirus (CMV) is sexually transmitted, we determined the prevalences of antibody to CMV and viral shedding in 63 male sex partners of women with or without CMV infection, and CMV isolates from infected couples were compared by DNA restriction enzyme analysis. The prevalence of seropositivity by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay was 31 (74%) of 42 men whose female partners were seropositive compared with five (31%) of 16 men whose partners were seronegative (P = .008). CMV was isolated from the semen or urine of four (22%) of 18 men whose female partners shed CMV from the cervix or urine compared with none of 42 whose partners were culture negative (P = .013). DNA restriction enzyme typing of CMV isolates from three pairs of sex partners showed that two of the couples were infected with common strains; epidemiologically unrelated isolates gave distinct patterns. Heterosexual contact is a major mode of transmission of CMV among some young adults.

No abstract