Copper is an essential micronutrient that also exerts toxic effects at high concentrations. This review summarizes the current state of knowledge on copper handling and homeostasis systems in Escherichia coli and Salmonella enterica. We describe the mechanisms by which transcriptional regulators, efflux pumps, detoxification enzymes, metallochaperones, and ancillary copper response systems orchestrate cellular response to copper stress. E. coli and S. enterica are important pathogens of humans and animals. We discuss the critical role of copper during killing of these pathogens by macrophages and in nutritional immunity at the bacterial-pathogen-host interface. In closing, we identify opportunities to advance our understanding of the biological roles of copper in these model enteric bacterial pathogens. The benefit of routine pre-emptive screening for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infections in patients with cancer before cancer-directed therapies is unclear. Herein, we characterize the outcomes of a cohort of patients with cancer who were diagnosed with COVID-19 by routine screening (RS) in comparison with those diagnosed on the basis of clinical suspicion or exposure history (nonroutine screening [NRS]). A multisite prospective observational study was conducted at three major and five satellite campuses of the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center between March 18 and July 31, 2020. The primary outcome was COVID-19-related hospital admission. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit admissions and all-cause mortality. Five thousand four hundred fifty-two patients underwent RS in the outpatient setting only, and 44 (0.81%) were diagnosed with COVID-19. RS detected 19 additional patients from the scheduled inpatient admissions for surgical or interventional procedures or inpatient chemothening of asymptomatic patients with cancer for COVID-19 remains low.The development of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines began in March 2020 in response to a request from the White House Coronavirus Task Force. Within 4 days of the request, the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel was established and the first meeting took place (virtually-as did subsequent meetings). The Panel comprises 57 individuals representing 6 governmental agencies, 11 professional societies, and 33 medical centers, plus 2 community members, who have worked together to create and frequently update the guidelines on the basis of evidence from the most recent clinical studies available. The initial version of the guidelines was completed within 2 weeks and posted online on 21 April 2020. Initially, sparse evidence was available to guide COVID-19 treatment recommendations. However, treatment data rapidly accrued based on results from clinical studies that used various study designs and evaluated different therapeutic agents and approaches. Data have continued to evolve at a rapid pace, leading to 24 revisions and updates of the guidelines in the first year. This process has provided important lessons for responding to an unprecedented public health emergency Providers and stakeholders are eager to access credible, current treatment guidelines; governmental agencies, professional societies, and health care leaders can work together effectively and expeditiously; panelists from various disciplines, including biostatistics, are important for quickly developing well-informed recommendations; well-powered randomized clinical trials continue to provide the most compelling evidence to guide treatment recommendations; treatment recommendations need to be developed in a confidential setting free from external pressures; development of a user-friendly, web-based format for communicating with health care providers requires substantial administrative support; and frequent updates are necessary as clinical evidence rapidly emerges. Evidence to understand effective strategies for surveillance and early detection of SARS-CoV-2 is limited. To describe the results of a rigorous, large-scale COVID-19 testing and monitoring program. The U.S. National Football League (NFL) and the NFL Players Association (NFLPA) instituted a large-scale COVID-19 monitoring program involving daily testing using 2 reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) platforms (Roche cobas and Thermo Fisher QuantStudio), a transcription-mediated amplification platform (Hologic Panther), and an antigen point-of-care (aPOC) test (Quidel Sofia). 32 NFL clubs in 24 states during the 2020 NFL season. NFL players and staff. SARS-CoV-2 test results were described in the context of medically adjudicated status. Cycle threshold (Ct) values are reported when available. A total of 632370 tests administered across 11668 persons identified 270 (2.4%) COVID-19 cases from 1 August to 14 November 2020. Positive predictive values ranged from 73.0% to 82.0% across the RT-PCR platforms. High Ct values (33 to 37) often indicated early infection. For the first positive result, the median Ct value was 32.77 (interquartile range, 30.02 to 34.72) and 22% of Ct values were above 35. Among adjudicated COVID-19 cases tested with aPOC, 42.3% had a negative result. Positive concordance between aPOC test result and adjudicated case status increased as viral load increased. Platforms varied by laboratory, and test variability may reflect procedural differences. Routine RT-PCR testing allowed early detection of infection. Cycle threshold values provided a useful guidepost for understanding results, with high values often indicating early infection. Antigen POC testing was unable to reliably rule out COVID-19 early in infection. The NFL and the NFLPA.The NFL and the NFLPA.In the United States, race-based disparities in cardiovascular disease care have proven to be pervasive, deadly, and expensive. African American/Black, Hispanic/Latinx, and Native/Indigenous American individuals are at an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and are less likely to receive high-quality, evidence-based medical care as compared with their White American counterparts. read more Although the United States population is diverse, the cardiovascular workforce that provides its much-needed care lacks diversity. The available data show that care provided by physicians from racially diverse backgrounds is associated with better quality, both for minoritized patients and for majority patients. Not only is cardiovascular workforce diversity associated with improvements in health care quality, but racial diversity among academic teams and research scientists is linked with research quality. We outline documented barriers to achieving workforce diversity and suggest evidence-based strategies to overcome these barriers.