On May 17, 2022, the Massachusetts Department of Health announced the first suspected case of monkeypox associated with the global outbreak in a U.S. resident. On May 23, 2022, CDC launched an emergency response (1,2). CDC's emergency response focused on surveillance, laboratory testing, medical countermeasures, and education. Medical countermeasures included rollout of a national JYNNEOS vaccination strategy, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issuance of an emergency use authorization to allow for intradermal administration of JYNNEOS, and use of tecovirimat for patients with, or at risk for, severe monkeypox. During May 17-October 6, 2022, a total of 26,384 probable and confirmed* U.S. monkeypox cases were reported to CDC. Daily case counts peaked during mid-to-late August. Among 25,001 of 25,569 (98%) cases in adults with information on gender identity, † 23,683 (95%) occurred in cisgender men. Among 13,997 cisgender men with information on recent sexual or close intimate contact, § 10,440 (75%) reported male-to-male sexual contact (MMSC) ≤21 days preceding symptom onset. Among 21,211 (80%) cases in persons with information on race and ethnicity, ¶ 6,879 (32%), 6,628 (31%), and 6,330 (30%) occurred in non-Hispanic Black or African American (Black), Hispanic or Latino (Hispanic), and non-Hispanic White (White) persons, respectively. Among 5,017 (20%) cases in adults with information on HIV infection status, 2,876 (57%) had HIV infection. Prevention efforts, including vaccination, should be prioritized among persons at highest risk within groups most affected by the monkeypox outbreak, including gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex * https://www.cdc.gov/poxvirus/monkeypox/clinicians/case-definition.html † Persons whose reported sex differed from their gender or who reported being transgender were classified as transgender. Among cases with reported information on sex but not gender, sex was used to categorize persons as cisgender women or men. Among cases with reported information on gender but not sex, gender was used to categorize persons as cisgender women or men. Among 25,001 adults with information on sex or gender, 3,589 (14%) only had information on sex, and 6,142 (25%) only had information on gender. § Sexual or close intimate contact is defined as engaging in any sex (e.g., vaginal, oral, or anal) or close intimate contact (e.g., cuddling, kissing, touching partner's genitals or anus, or sharing sex toys) during the 21 days before symptom onset. ¶ Persons who indicated Hispanic ethnicity, regardless of race, were categorized as Hispanic or Latino. Persons missing data on ethnicity were assumed to be non-Hispanic.

Introduction Most adolescents reporting e-cigarette use have also used combustible tobacco; however, the extent to which they use other substances is less clear. This study assessed e-cigarette use with tobacco, alcohol, or cannabis and quantified the risk of polysubstance use among adolescents overall and by sociodemographic characteristics. Aims and Methods Using 2017 Youth Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data from adolescents (grades 9–12) with complete substance use information (n = 11 244), we examined e-cigarette poly-use status (none [referent], e-cigarettes only, or e-cigarettes + other substances). We estimated the prevalence of substance use and modeled odds of e-cigarette use, alone or with other substances, by several sociodemographic characteristics. Analyses were completed in Stata version 15.1 using survey procedures to account for the complex survey design. Results Approximately 12% of adolescents reported past 30-day e-cigarette use. Almost all (93%) e-cigarette users also reported other substance use; alcohol appeared most frequently in combinations. Odds of e-cigarette single use and e-cigarette poly-use (vs. no use) were higher for males and adolescents with lower grades (odds ratios [ORs] = 1.44–2.31). Racial/ethnic minorities had lower odds of e-cigarette poly-use than White peers (ORs = 0.18–0.61), and bisexual (vs. straight) adolescents were more likely to be e-cigarette poly-users (OR = 1.62). E-cigarette use increased from 9th grade (7%) to 12th grade (16%). Conclusions Polysubstance use is highly prevalent among adolescents who use e-cigarettes. Therefore, e-cigarette screening should include the assessment of other substances, especially alcohol. Early and comprehensive prevention efforts to reduce e-cigarette and other substance use could have a substantial beneficial impact on population health over time. Implications This study extends knowledge about e-cigarette use among adolescents by exploring its use with alcohol, cannabis, and other tobacco products. We found that e-cigarettes were very rarely used alone, and our analysis identified several sociodemographic factors associated with greater odds of e-cigarette polysubstance use. In response, we recommend that prevention interventions address multiple substances concurrently, screen repeatedly to detect new initiation as age increases, focus on e-cigarette use as a less stigmatized entry point to discussions of substance use, and target priority population subgroups.

BackgroundTo reduce the negative consequences of smoking, workplaces have adopted and implemented anti-smoking initiatives. Compared to large workplaces, less research exists about these initiatives at smaller workplaces, which are more likely to hire low-wage workers with higher rates of smoking. The purpose of this study was to describe and compare the smoking policies and smoking cessation activities at small (20–99 employees) and very small (< 20 employees) workplaces.MethodsThirty-two key informants coming from small and very small workplaces in Iowa completed qualitative telephone interviews. Data collection occurred between October 2016 and February 2017. Participants gave descriptions of the anti-smoking initiatives at their workplace. Additional interview topics included questions on enforcement, reasons for adoption, and barriers and facilitators to adoption and implementation. The data were analyzed using counts and content and thematic analysis.ResultsWorkplace smoking policies were nearly universal (n = 31, 97%), and most workplaces (n = 21, 66%) offered activities to help employees quit smoking. Reasons for adoption included the Iowa Smokefree Air Act, to improve employee health, and organizational benefits (e.g., reduced insurance costs). Few challenges existed to adoption and implementation. Commonly cited facilitators included the Iowa Smokefree Air Act, no issues with compliance, and support from others. Compared to small workplaces, very small workplaces offered cessation activities less often and had fewer tobacco policy restrictions.ConclusionsThis study showed well-established tobacco control efforts in small workplaces, but very small workplaces lagged behind. To reduce potential health disparities in smoking, future research and intervention efforts in tobacco control should focus on very small workplaces.