Age distribution of reported dengue cases and 2019 seroprevalence estimates by age group for each US state and territory assessed.

Age distribution of all locally reported, confirmed and probable dengue cases in Puerto Rico (PR, A), American Samoa (AS, B) and US Virgin Islands (USVI, C) in 2010–2019 (colored bar) and age distribution of the population in these respective territories (grey bars, 2010 census) (left panel) and age distribution of 2019 seroprevalence estimate obtained from the fit of model S (reported cases are secondary infections only), with corresponding 95% credible intervals (shaded area, right panel). Detailed tables on years with reported dengue cases are available in S1 Document. Y-axis scale on the left panels differ for each location. Base layers for Puerto Rico were retrieved from the US Census Bureau TIGER/Line files [56]. American Samoa and US Virgin Islands shapefiles were obtained from GADM (https://gadm.org/). Terms and conditions of use available from https://gadm.org/license.html.</p

Age distribution of reported dengue cases and 2019 seroprevalence estimates by age group for each US state and territory assessed.

Age distribution of all locally reported, confirmed and probable dengue cases in Hawaii (HI, A), Florida (FL, B) and Guam (GU, C) in 2010–2019 (colored bar) and age distribution of the population in these respective territories (grey bars, 2010 census) (left panel) and age distribution of 2019 seroprevalence estimate obtained from the fit of model S (reported cases are secondary infections only), with corresponding 95% credible intervals (shaded area, right panel). Florida contains the additional age distribution of imported cases. Detailed tables on years with reported dengue cases are available in S1 Document. Y-axis scale on the left panels differ for each location. Map shapefiles for Hawaii and Florida were obtained from the urbnmapr [57] and maps [58] R packages, respectively. Base layers for Guam were retrieved from the US Census Bureau TIGER/Line files [59].</p

Yearly estimates of the force of infection (FOI) in Puerto Rico (all cases) and model combining severe cases (PR severe), American Samoa, US Virgin Islands, Hawaii, Florida and Guam in 2010–2019 from our model S (cases as secondary infections).

The numbers in the upper left-hand corner of each panel shows overall average FOI estimates for each location. Dark and light shaded areas represent respectively, 50% and 95% credible intervals. Different y-axis scales were used for each jurisdiction.</p

Adjusted prevalence^a of current ARV treatment by race/ethnicity among MSM—NHBS, 2008 and 2011.

<p>Adjusted prevalences from a model adjusted for year, current age, annual household income, current insurance, venue type where recruitment occurred, and city (random effect) show that the percent of blacks currently on antiretroviral therapy is significantly less than the percent of whites currently on antiretroviral therapy in both years. ^<b>a</b>Adjusted prevalence estimated from the following model: current ARV = α + β1*race + β 2*age + β 3*current insurance + β 4*income + β 5*venue type + β 6*year + β 7*race*year + β 8*age*year + β 9*current insurance*year + β 10*income*year; city is included as a random effect; adjusted prevalence ratio based on combined 2008, 2011 data comparing whites to blacks was 1.09 (CI: 1.02–1.16); ^<b>b</b>Hispanics can be of any race; ^<b>c</b>Includes MSM reporting American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, other race, or multiple races.</p

Estimates of the yearly probability of reporting cases in Puerto Rico (all cases) and model combining all cases and severe cases (PR severe), American Samoa, US Virgin Islands, Hawaii, Florida and Guam in 2010–2019 from our S model (cases are considered secondary infections).

Estimates of the yearly probability of reporting cases in Puerto Rico (all cases) and model combining all cases and severe cases (PR severe), American Samoa, US Virgin Islands, Hawaii, Florida and Guam in 2010–2019 from our S model (cases are considered secondary infections).</p

Leave-one-out cross validation model comparison using the estimated difference in ELPD (expected log pointwise predictive probabilities).

ELPD is a measure of out-of-sample predictive accuracy, as estimated by the Bayesian leave-one-out cross validation (LOO). We compared model P (cases as primary) to models PS and S (primary and secondary cases and secondary cases only). Models under the horizontal bar at 0 fit the data better than model P (reference). Vertical bars represent the corresponding standard error of the difference in ELPD.</p

Confirmed and probable dengue cases reported to ArboNET by state or territory, 2010–2019.

Included cases had no travel history and met laboratory criteria for diagnosis. Different y-axis scales were used for each jurisdiction.</p

Age-specific seropositivity estimates for 2019 in Puerto Rico using all dengue cases and the model fitted to both dengue cases and severe dengue cases.

Derived from model S where reported cases are secondary infections only. Shaded areas represent 95% credible intervals.</p

Table A. Values for the mean and sigma values of reporting and FOI used in each location.

The same reporting priors were used across all locations. Table B. Force of infection estimates in Puerto Rico, American Samoa, US Virgin Islands, Hawaii, Florida and Guam from 2010 to 2019. Median and 95% Bayesian credible intervals. Table C. Long-term average of force of infection estimates in Puerto Rico, American Samoa, US Virgin Islands, Hawaii, Florida and Guam for the 1929–2009 and 2010–2019 time periods. The 2010–2019 period corresponds to the period with data. Fig A. Prior distribution of the reporting hyperprior. Dashed lines represent median prior value, at 10%. Fig B. Age distribution of reported severe and non-severe dengue cases (colored bars) in Puerto Rico from 2010 to 2019. The grey bars represent the age distribution of the population (US census, 2010). Fig C. Yearly age distribution of dengue reported cases in Puerto Rico (A), American Samoa (B), US Virgin Islands (USVI, C), Hawaii (D), Florida (E), and Guam (F). Scales may be adjusted for years with fewer dengue cases reported. Fig D. Yearly age distribution of locally-acquired and imported dengue reported cases in Florida. Scales are adjusted for years with fewer dengue cases reported. Fig E. Violin plots of FOI and reporting probability prior and posterior estimates in Puerto Rico (A), American Samoa (B), the US Virgin Islands (C), Hawaii (D), Florida (E) and Guam (F) from 2010 to 2019. Points represent the median value of each estimate and the dashed lines represent the long term average of FOI and reporting probability estimates. Fig F. Comparison of log likelihood samples by age group and years of models Primary, Primary & Secondary, and Secondary using Puerto Rico data. Models’s log-likelihood values may overlap. The log likelihood value in a model is a measure of goodness of fit. The higher the value (i.e., closer to 0), the better. Fig G. Heatmap comparison between models Primary, Primary and Secondary, and Secondary of log likelihood median samples and cases by age group and years using Puerto Rico data. The log likelihood value in a model is a measure of goodness of fit. Here, models with log likelihood values closest to 0 were plotted. Fig H. Reported cases model fit (all cases and severe cases only) by age group in Puerto Rico from 2010 to 2019. Points represent cases reported to ArboNET while lines represent model fit to Primary, Primary & Secondary, and Secondary models. Shaded areas represent the best model 95% CrI. Fig I. Reported cases model fit to model fitted to all dengue (A) and severe cases (B) by age group in Puerto Rico from 2010 to 2019. Points represent dengue (A) and severe cases (B) reported to ArboNET while lines represent model fit to Primary, Primary & Secondary, and Secondary models. Shaded areas represent the best model 95% CrI. Fig J. Reported cases model fit by age group in American Samoa from 2010 to 2019. Points represent cases reported to ArboNET while lines represent model fit to Primary, Primary & Secondary, and Secondary models. Shaded areas represent the best model 95% CrI. Fig K. Reported cases model fit by age group in US Virgin Islands from 2010 to 2019. Points represent cases reported to ArboNET while lines represent model fit to Primary, Primary & Secondary, and Secondary models. Shaded areas represent the best model 95% CrI. Fig L. Reported cases model fit by age group in Hawaii from 2010 to 2019. Points represent cases reported to ArboNET while lines represent model fit to Primary, Primary & Secondary, and Secondary models. Shaded areas represent the best model 95% CrI. Fig M. Reported cases model fit by age group in Florida from 2010 to 2019. Points represent cases reported to ArboNET while lines represent model fit to Primary, Primary & Secondary, and Secondary models. Shaded areas represent the best model 95% CrI. Fig N. Reported cases model fit by age group in Guam from 2010 to 2019. Points represent cases reported to ArboNET while lines represent model fit to Primary, Primary & Secondary, and Secondary models. Shaded areas represent the best model 95% CrI. Fig O. Alpha parameter posterior estimates with 95% CrI (vertical bars) in Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico severe (using severe cases only), American Samoa, US Virgin Islands, Hawaii, Florida and Guam. (PDF)</p

Syphilis trend studies among MSM conducted in the United States, 2004–2015.

<p>Syphilis trend studies among MSM conducted in the United States, 2004–2015.</p