George W. Rutherford’s research while affiliated with University of California, San Francisco and other places

Background Safer conception services are needed to minimize HIV transmission among HIV sero-discordant couples desiring pregnancy. Few studies have evaluated the choices couples make when they are offered multiple safer conception methods or real-world method acceptability. This paper addresses an important knowledge gap regarding factors that influence the choice of safer conception methods, couples' actual experiences using safer conception methods, and why some couples switch safer conception methods. Methods Between February and June 2019, we conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews among 14 men and 17 women, representing 17 couples who exited the SAFER study—a pilot safer conception study for HIV sero-discordant couples in Zimbabwe that offered couples a choice of ART with monthly viral load monitoring (ART/VL), oral PrEP, vaginal insemination, and semen washing. All couples in SAFER had used at least two safer conception methods. Results We found that safer conception method choice often centered around a desire for intimacy, condomless sex, and certainty in the conception process, particularly for men. Method-related attributes such as familiarity, perceived ease of use, side effects, and perceived level of effectiveness in preventing HIV and achieving pregnancy influenced method choice, switching, and satisfaction. Concerns were expressed about each safer conception method and couples were willing to try different methods until they found method(s) that worked for them. The majority of participants reported having positive experiences using safer conception, especially those using ART/VL + PrEP, citing that they were able to attempt pregnancy for the first time with peace of mind and experienced joy and satisfaction from being able to achieve pregnancy safely. Conclusions The differences in method preferences and experiences voiced by participants in this study and in other studies from the region point to the importance of having a variety of safer conception options in the service delivery package and addressing concerns about paternity, intimacy, and method-related attributes to enable HIV sero-discordant couples to safely achieve their reproductive goals.

Decision-making on childbearing and safer conception use in HIV sero-different couples involves an intricate balance of individual desires and perceived HIV acquisition risk. This paper addresses an important knowledge gap regarding HIV sero-different couples' considerations and the relationship and power dynamics involved when deciding to use a safer conception method. Between February and June 2019, we conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews among 14 men and 17 women, representing 17 couples, who exited the SAFER study - a pilot study assessing the feasibility, acceptability and cost-effectiveness of a safer conception programme for HIV sero-different couples in Zimbabwe. All couples in SAFER were provided with a choice of safer conception methods and were followed for up to 12 months of pregnancy attempts and 3 months following pregnancy. While couples generally perceived their safer conception discussions to be easy and consensus-driven, the decision-making process also involved complex gender dynamics and trade-offs in relationship power, which resulted in differing interpretations of what constituted a joint or shared couple decision. Participants regarded effective couple communication as an essential component of and precursor to good safer conception conversations and requested additional training in couple communication. Couples relied on information from healthcare providers to kickstart their safer conception discussions. Safer conception programmes should address relationship power imbalances, promote effective couple communication and offer healthcare provider support to enable HIV sero-different couples to make informed choices about conception in a manner that upholds their safety and reproductive autonomy.

Objective To analyze the factors associated with the individual use of insect repellent by women of childbearing age living in area endemic for arboviruses in Fortaleza, Brazil. Methods This is a cohort study carried out between 2018 and 2019 with women aged between 15 and 39 years in Fortaleza, state of Ceará, Brazil. A total of 1,173 women users of one of the four selected primary health care units participated in the study. The outcome was divided into: continued use, discontinued use, and nonuse of insect repellent. Crude and adjusted multinominal logistic regression analysis was carried out guided by a hierarchical model, with presentation of the respective odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). The independent variables include: socioeconomic and demographic data, environmental and sanitary characteristics, knowledge of the insect repellent, and behavioral and pregnancy-related aspects. Results Only 28% of the participants reported using insect repellent during the two waves of the cohort. Women with higher education (OR=2.55; 95%CI 1.44–4.51); who are employed (OR=1.51; 95%CI 1.12–2.03); who received guidance from healthcare professionals (OR=1.74; 95%CI 1.28–2.36) and the media (OR=1.43; 95%CI 1.01–2.02); who intensified precautions against mosquitoes during the epidemic (OR=3.64; 95%CI 2.29–5.78); and who were pregnant between 2016 and 2019 (OR=2.80; 95%CI 1.83–4.30) had increased odds for continued use of insect repellent. Conclusion The use of insect repellent among women of childbearing age was associated with a higher level of education, employment, guidance on insect repellent provided by healthcare professionals and the media, behavioral changes to protect against mosquitoes during the Zika virus epidemic, and pregnancy when occurring as of the beginning of the epidemic period. Keywords: Public health; Arboviruses; Zika virus; Women’s health; Insect repellents; Vulnerable populations

Objective To review evidence pertaining to methods for preventing healthcare-associated filovirus infections (including the survivability of filoviruses in clinical environments and the chlorine concentration required for effective disinfection), and to assess protocols for determining the risk of health worker (HW) exposures to filoviruses. Design Integrative review. Data sources PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, internet-based sources of international health organisations (eg, WHO, CDC), references of the included literature and grey literature. Study selection Laboratory science, clinical research and real-world observational studies identified through comprehensive search strings that pertained to Ebola disease and Marburg disease and the three research objectives. Methods Using the framework of population, intervention or exposure, outcomes, study types and report characteristics, reviewers extracted data and critically appraised the evidence using predefined data extraction forms and summary tables. The extraction forms, summary tables and critical appraisals varied based on the included literature; we used both the QUIPS Risk-of-Bias tool when possible and an internally developed instrument to systematically extract and review the evidence from observational and experimental studies. Evidence was then synthesised and summarised to create summary recommendations. Results Thirty-six studies (including duplicates across research questions) were included in our reviews. All studies that related to the review questions were either (1) descriptive, real-world studies (ie, environmental audits of various surfaces in operational Ebola Treatment Units) or (2) controlled, laboratory studies (ie, experimental studies on the survivability of ebolaviruses in controlled conditions), presenting a range of concerns pertaining to bias and external validity. Our reviews of viral survivability evidence revealed significant disconnections between laboratory-based and real-world findings. However, there is greater viral persistence in liquid than dried body fluids, with the possible exception of blood, and ebolaviruses can survive for significant periods of time in dried substrate. Evidence suggests that 0.5% hypochlorite solution should be used for disinfection activity. Spills should be cleaned with covering and soaking for 15 min. Existing literature suggests that within a well-resourced clinical environment with trained, foreign HWs and established protocols, transmission of ebolaviruses as an occupational risk is a rare event. Despite the high rates of HW infections within public African healthcare settings, no evidence with low risk of bias exists to assess the risk of various occupational exposures given that all high-quality studies were conducted on foreign Ebola clinicians who had low overall rates of infection. This review underscores the critical need for better-quality evidence to inform best practices to ensure HW safety during filovirus disease epidemics.

Understanding the incidence of disease is often crucial for public policy decision-making, as observed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Estimating incidence is challenging, however, when the definition of incidence relies on tests that imperfectly measure disease, as in the case when assays with variable performance are used to detect the SARS-CoV-2 virus. To our knowledge there are no pragmatic methods to address the bias introduced by performance of labs in testing for the virus. In the setting of a longitudinal study, we developed a maximum likelihood estimation (MLE)-based approach to estimate laboratory performance-adjusted incidence using the expectation-maximization algorithm. We constructed confidence intervals (CIs) using both bootstrapped-based and large-sample interval estimator approaches. We evaluated our methods through extensive simulation and applied them to a real-world study (TrackCOVID), where the primary goal was to determine the incidence of and risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection in the San Francisco Bay Area during July 2020 to March 2021. Our simulations demonstrated that our method converged rapidly with accurate estimates under a variety of scenarios. Bootstrapped-based confidence intervals (CIs) were comparable to the large-sample estimator CIs with a reasonable number of incident cases, shown via a simulation scenario based on the real TrackCOVID study. In more extreme simulated scenarios, the coverage of large-sample interval estimation outperformed the bootstrapped-based approach. Results from application to the TrackCOVID Study suggested that assuming perfect laboratory test performance can lead to inaccurate inference of the incidence. Our flexible, pragmatic method can be extended to a variety of disease and study settings.

There is a public health need to understand how different frequencies of COVID-19 booster vaccines may mitigate the risk of severe COVID-19, while accounting for waning of protection and differential risk by age and immune status. By analyzing United States COVID-19 surveillance and seroprevalence data in a microsimulation model, here we show that more frequent COVID-19 booster vaccination (every 6–12 months) in older age groups and the immunocompromised population would effectively reduce the burden of severe COVID-19, while frequent boosters in the younger population may only provide modest benefit against severe disease. In persons 75+ years, the model estimated that annual boosters would reduce absolute annual risk of severe COVID-19 by 199 (uncertainty interval: 183–232) cases per 100,000 persons, compared to a one-time booster vaccination. In contrast, for persons 18–49 years, the model estimated that annual boosters would reduce this risk by 14 (10–19) cases per 100,000 persons. Those with prior infection had lower benefit of more frequent boosting, and immunocompromised persons had larger benefit. Scenarios with emerging variants with immune evasion increased the benefit of more frequent variant-targeted boosters. This study underscores the benefit of considering key risk factors to inform frequency of COVID-19 booster vaccines in public health guidance and ensuring at least annual boosters in high-risk populations.

Background Whether or not individuals with pauci-symptomatic or asymptomatic Ebola virus infection and unrecognised Ebola virus disease develop clinical sequelae is unknown. We assessed current symptoms and physical examination findings among individuals with pauci-symptomatic or asymptomatic infection and unrecognised Ebola virus disease compared with Ebola virus disease survivors and uninfected contacts.

Mayaro Virus (MAYV) is an emerging health threat in the Americas that can cause febrile illness as well as debilitating arthralgia or arthritis. To better understand the geographic distribution of MAYV risk, we developed a georeferenced database of MAYV occurrence based on peer-reviewed literature and unpublished reports. Here we present this compendium, which includes both point and polygon locations linked to occurrence data documented from its discovery in 1954 until 2022. We describe all methods used to develop the database including data collection, georeferencing, management and quality-control. We also describe a customized grading system used to assess the quality of each study included in our review. The result is a comprehensive, evidence-graded database of confirmed MAYV occurrence in humans, non-human animals, and arthropods to-date, containing 262 geo-positioned occurrences in total. This database - which can be updated over time - may be useful for local spill-over risk assessment, epidemiological modelling to understand key transmission dynamics and drivers of MAYV spread, as well as identification of major surveillance gaps.

While waning protection from vaccination and natural infection against SARS-CoV-2 infection is well-documented, recent analyses have also found waning of protection against severe COVID-19. This highlights a broader need to understand the optimal timing of COVID-19 booster vaccines specific to an individual to mitigate the risk of severe COVID-19, while accounting for waning of protection and differential risk by age group and immune status. Here we show that more frequent COVID-19 booster vaccination (every 6-12 months) in older age groups and the immunocompromised population would effectively mitigate the burden of severe COVID-19, while frequent boosters in the younger population may only provide modest benefit. Analyzing United States COVID-19 surveillance and seroprevalence data in a microsimulation model, we estimated that in persons 75+ years, annual and semiannual bivalent boosters would reduce annual absolute risk of severe COVID-19 by 311 (277-369) and 578 (494-671) cases, respectively, compared to a one-time bivalent booster dose. In contrast, for persons 18-49 years, the model estimated that annual and semiannual bivalent boosters would reduce annual absolute risk of severe COVID-19 by 20 (13-26) and 37 (24-50) cases per 100,000 persons, respectively, compared to a one-time bivalent booster dose. Persons with prior infection had a much lower benefit of more frequent boosting, while immunocompromised persons had larger benefit. This study underscores the benefit of customizing timing of COVID-19 booster vaccines based on individual risk.

Purpose: In an effort to decrease transmission during the first years of the COVID-19 pandemic, public health officials encouraged masking, social distancing, and working from home, and restricted travel. However, many studies of the effectiveness of these measures had significant methodologic limitations. In this analysis, we used data from the TrackCOVID study, a longitudinal cohort study of a population-based sample of 3846 adults in the San Francisco Bay Area, to evaluate the association between self-reported protective behaviors and incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: Participants without SARS-CoV2 infection were enrolled from August to December 2020 and followed monthly with testing and surveys (median of four visits). Results: A total of 118 incident infections occurred (3.0% of participants). At baseline, 80.0% reported always wearing a mask; 56.0% avoided contact with nonhousehold members some/most of the time; 9.6% traveled outside the state; and 16.0% worked 20 or more hours per week outside the home. Factors associated with incident infection included being Black or Latinx, having less than a college education, and having more household residents. The only behavioral factor associated with incident infection was working outside the home (adjusted hazard ratio 1.62, 95% confidence interval 1.02-2.59). Conclusions: Focusing on protecting people who cannot work from home could help prevent infections during future waves of COVID-19, or future pandemics from respiratory viruses. This focus must be balanced with the known importance of directing resources toward those at risk of severe infections.