this report was posted as an MMWR Early Release on the MMWR website (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr).The National Football League (NFL) and the NFL Players Association (NFLPA) began the 2020 football season in July, implementing extensive mitigation and surveillance measures in facilities and during travel and gameplay. Mitigation protocols* were evaluated and modified based on data from routine reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19); proximity tracking devices; and detailed interviews. Midseason, transmission was observed in persons who had cumulative interactions of <15 minutes' duration, leading to a revised definition of highrisk contacts that required consideration of mask use, setting and room ventilation in addition to proximity and duration of interaction. The NFL also developed an intensive protocol that imposed stricter infection prevention precautions when a case was identified at an NFL club. The intensive protocol effectively prevented the occurrence of high-risk interactions, with no high-risk contacts identified for 71% of traced cases at clubs under the intensive protocol. The incorporation of the nature and location of the interaction, including mask use, indoor versus outdoor setting, and ventilation, in addition to proximity and duration, likely improved identification of exposed persons at higher risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Quarantine of these persons, along with testing and intensive protocols, can reduce spread of infection.The NFL consists of 32 member clubs based in 24 states. The NFL-NFLPA implemented a standard COVID-19 mitigation protocol in July that included mandatory masking; physical distancing; frequent handwashing; facility disinfection; restricted facility access; and regular, frequent testing of players and staff members (1). Contact tracing was performed by trained staff members and supported by KINEXON wearable proximity devices (https://kinexon.com) that were required to be worn by players and personnel when in club environments (2). Device recordings captured consecutive and cumulative minutes/seconds of interactions among persons within 1.8 meters (6 feet) of one another. When testing identified a new COVID-19 case, trained staff members conducted interviews to identify contacts *

No abstract

Background The Core Elements of Outpatient Antibiotic Stewardship provide a framework to improve antibiotic use, but evidence supporting safety are limited. We report the impact of Core Elements implementation within Veterans Health Administration sites. Methods A quasi-experimental controlled study assessed the effects of an intervention targeting antibiotic prescription for uncomplicated acute respiratory tract infections (ARI). Outcomes included per-visit antibiotic prescribing, treatment appropriateness, potential benefits and complications of reduced antibiotic treatment, and change in ARI diagnoses over a 3-year pre-implementation and 1-year post implementation period. Logistic regression adjusted for covariates [OR (95% CI)] and a difference-in-differences analysis compared outcomes between intervention and control sites. Results From 2014-2019, there were 16,712 and 51,275 patient-visits in 10 intervention and 40 control sites, respectively. Antibiotic prescribing rates pre-post implementation in intervention sites were 59.7% and 41.5%, respectively; in control sites they were 73.5% and 67.2%, respectively [difference-in-differences p&lt;0.001]. The intervention site pre-post implementation odds ratio to receive appropriate therapy increased [1.67 (1.31, 2.14)] which remained unchanged within control sites [1.04 (0.91, 1.19)]. There was no difference in ARI-related return visits post-implementation [(-1.3% vs. -2.0%; difference-in-differences p=0.76] but all-cause hospitalization was lower within intervention sites [(-0.5% vs. -0.2%); difference-in-differences p=0.02]. The odds ratio to diagnose upper respiratory tract infection not otherwise specified compared to other non-ARI diagnosis increased post-implementation for intervention [1.27(1.21,1.34)] but not control [0.97(0.94,1.01)] sites. Conclusions Implementation of the Core Elements was associated with reduced antibiotic prescribing for uncomplicated ARIs and a reduction in hospitalizations. ARI diagnostic coding changes were observed.

Due to HAART and consequent decline in mortality from infectious complications, HIV patients have an increasing burden of non-AIDS defining cancers. Data on their safety and efficacy is unknown as these patients were excluded from clinical trials due to concern of unforeseen side effects. Objectives. The main objective of our study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety profile of PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors in HIV patients being treated for advanced cancers and to assess the impact of these drugs on HIV status of the patients specifically CD4 count and HIV viral load. Materials and Methods. This was a retrospective analysis of data of 17 patients HIV treated with one of the PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors (Nivolumab, Pembrolizumab, Atezolizumab, Durvalumab, or Avelumab) for advanced cancer. Results. 10 out of 17 patients responded to therapy. 7 patients, all of whom had shown response to therapy, were alive and 4 were still on checkpoint inhibitor. 10 patients including all 7 nonresponders had died. Responders had minimum of 15 weeks of response while one had ongoing continued response at 34 weeks. Side effects were seen in 7 patients and only one patient needed cessation of therapy. CD4 counts were stable on treatment while HIV RNA remained undetectable. Conclusion. PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors appear to have comparable efficacy and tolerable side effect profile and have no effect on HIV markers when used in HIV patients with advanced cancers.