In the stomach, production of prostaglandins by cyclo‐oxygenase (COX) is believed to be important in mucosal defence. We tested the hypothesis that endogenous COX activity is required for protective gastric surface pH control. Intact stomachs of anaesthetized mice were perfused with a weakly buffered solution (150 mmNaCl+ 4 mm Homopipes) at pH values from 2.5 to 7.0. Gastric effluents were collected to measure pH and estimate amounts of acid or alkali secretion in nanomoles secreted per minute. A switch from net acid to net alkali secretion was seen in response to acidifying luminal pH with an apparent ‘set point’ between pH 4 and 5. At luminal pH 3, the net alkali secretion (12.7 ± 2.8 nmol OH− equivalents min−1) was abolished (2.2 ± 1.7 nmol OH− min−1) by the non‐specific COX inhibitor indomethacin (5 mg kg−1 I.P.). Similar inhibition was observed using a COX‐1 inhibitor (SC‐560; 10 mg kg−1 I.P.), but not a COX‐2 inhibitor (NS‐398; 10 mg kg−1 I.P.). Subsequent treatment with 16,16‐dimethyl prostaglandin E2 (dm‐PGE2; 1 mg kg−1 I.P.) rescued the alkali secretion (21.8 ± 2.7 nmol OH− min−1). In either the absence or presence of the H+,K+‐ATPase inhibitor omeprazole (60 mg kg−1 I.P.), indomethacin blocked similar amounts of net alkali secretion (10.5 ± 2.7 and 16.4 ± 3.4 nmol OH− min−1, respectively). We also used in vivo confocal microscopy to examine pH near the mucosal surface. The gastric mucosal surface of anaesthetized mice was exposed and mucosal surface pH was imaged using the fluorescence intensity ratio of Cl‐NERF as a pH indicator. Results showed a switch from a continuous net acid to net alkali secretion by the stomach in response to changing superfusate pH from 5 to 3. At luminal pH 3, the relatively alkaline surface pH (4.3 ± 0.1) was acidified (3.6 ± 0.2) by indomethacin, and subsequent dm‐PGE2 restored surface pH (4.2 ± 0.2). We conclude that the pre‐epithelial alkaline layer is regulated by endogenous COX activity.

Background: Correctional and detention facilities are disproportionately affected by COVID-19 due to shared space, contact between staff and detained persons, and movement within facilities. On March 18, 2020, Cook County Jail, one of the United States' largest, identified its first suspected case of COVID-19 in a detained person. Methods: This analysis includes SARS-CoV-2 cases confirmed by molecular detection among detained persons and Cook County Sheriff's Office staff. We examined occurrence of symptomatic cases in each building and proportions of asymptomatic detained persons testing positive, and timing of interventions including social distancing, mask use, and expanded testing and show outbreak trajectory in the jail compared to case counts in Chicago. Results: During March 1-April 30, 907 symptomatic and asymptomatic cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection were detected among detained persons (n = 628) and staff (n = 279). Among asymptomatic detained persons in quarantine, 23.6% tested positive. Programmatic activity and visitation stopped March 9, cells were converted into single occupancy beginning March 26, and universal masking was implemented for staff (April 2) and detained persons (April 13). Cases at the jail declined while cases in Chicago increased. Discussion/Conclusions: Aggressive intervention strategies coupled with widespread diagnostic testing of detained and staff populations can limit introduction and mitigate transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection in correctional and detention facilities.Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc.

Correctional and detention facilities have been disproportionately affected by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) because of shared space and movement of staff members and detained persons within facilities (1,2). During March 1-April 30, 2020, at Cook County Jail in Chicago, Illinois, >900 COVID-19 cases were diagnosed across all 10 housing divisions, representing 13 unique buildings. † Movement within the jail was examined through network analyses and visualization, a field that examines elements within a network and the connections between them. This methodology has been used to supplement contact tracing investigations for tuberculosis and to understand how social networks contribute to transmission of sexually transmitted infections (3-5). Movements and connections of 5,884 persons (3,843 [65%] detained persons and 2,041 [35%] staff members) at the jail during March 1-April 30 were analyzed. A total of 472 (12.3%) COVID-19 cases were identified among detained persons and 198 (9.7%) among staff members. Among 103,701 shared-shift connections among staff members, 1.4% occurred between persons with COVID-19, a percentage that is significantly higher than the expected 0.9% by random occurrence alone (p<0.001), suggesting that additional transmission occurred within this group. The observed connections among detained persons with COVID-19 were significantly lower than expected (1.0% versus 1.1%, p<0.001) when considering only the housing units in which initial transmission occurred, suggesting that the systematic isolation of persons with COVID-19 is effective at limiting transmission. A network-informed approach can identify likely points of high transmission, allowing for interventions to reduce transmission targeted at these groups or locations, such as by reducing convening of staff members, closing breakrooms, and cessation of contact sports. All detained persons with data available for at least one bed assignment at Cook County Jail during March 1-April 30, 2020, were identified using records provided by Cook County Sheriff 's Office (CCSO), and Cermak Health Services. CCSO staff members who worked at least one shift at the jail during the same period were also included. A case of COVID-19 was defined as detection of SARS-CoV-2 by real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) in a * These authors contributed equally. †

BackgroundMost public health agencies expect reporting of diseases to be initiated by hospital, laboratory or clinic staff even though so-called passive approaches are known to be burdensome for reporters and produce incomplete as well as delayed reports, which can hinder assessment of disease and delay recognition of outbreaks. In this study, we analyze patterns of reporting as well as data completeness and timeliness for traditional, passive reporting of notifiable disease by two distinct sources of information: hospital and clinic staff versus clinical laboratory staff. Reports were submitted via fax machine as well as electronic health information exchange interfaces.MethodsData were extracted from all submitted notifiable disease reports for seven representative diseases. Reporting rates are the proportion of known cases having a corresponding case report from a provider, a faxed laboratory report or an electronic laboratory report. Reporting rates were stratified by disease and compared using McNemar’s test. For key data fields on the reports, completeness was calculated as the proportion of non-blank fields. Timeliness was measured as the difference between date of laboratory confirmed diagnosis and the date the report was received by the health department. Differences in completeness and timeliness by data source were evaluated using a generalized linear model with Pearson’s goodness of fit statistic.ResultsWe assessed 13,269 reports representing 9034 unique cases. Reporting rates varied by disease with overall rates of 19.1% for providers and 84.4% for laboratories (p < 0.001). All but three of 15 data fields in provider reports were more often complete than those fields within laboratory reports (p <0.001). Laboratory reports, whether faxed or electronically sent, were received, on average, 2.2 days after diagnosis versus a week for provider reports (p <0.001).ConclusionsDespite growth in the use of electronic methods to enhance notifiable disease reporting, there still exists much room for improvement.