In compliance with requirements from the United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee (USOPC), USA Hockey has implemented a national level background screening policy, which can be found in full below.
For example, if a letter is lighter at the top than it is a the bottom, it may be difficult to maintain the contrast ratio between the letter and the background over the full letter. In this case, the designer might darken the background behind the letter, or add a thin black outline (at least one pixel wide) around the letter in order to keep the contrast ratio between the letter and the background above 4.5:1.
G19 LCD Backgrounds full version
If this is a sufficient technique for a success criterion, failing this test procedure does not necessarily mean that the success criterion has not been satisfied in some other way, only that this technique has not been successfully implemented and can not be used to claim conformance.
After surviving Afghanistan, Tony Stark returns with an ambitious goal in mind. He commits himself to building an improved version of the armor he created, in the words of Obadiah Stane (Jeff Bridges), "with a box of scraps." Tony first develops advanced repulsor technology and then devises the now-famous Iron Man armor design. Sleek and aerodynamic, the Mark II is the first Iron Man suit to integrate JARVIS (Paul Bettany) and a fully-functioning HUD, apart from the hundreds of carefully arranged moving parts that grant Tony maneuverability while flying. Its major weakness is its inability to reach high altitudes without freezing, a flaw that Tony later uses to defeat Stane. This armor is the first one used by James Rhodes (Don Cheadle) preceding the official debut of War Machine, who is slated to star in the MCU Phase 6 movie Armor Wars.
Tony Stark's Mark III armor symbolizes the consolidation of Iron Man as a full-fledged superhero, a key turning point in the designs for Iron Man's armors. The most evident change he implements in this model is the iconic red-and-gold scheme, inspired by one of his many luxury cars. This is also the first armor fully designed to hold up in battle, incorporating a whole arsenal of anti-tank missiles, flares, and shoulder-mounted miniguns, besides the intensified repulsors and a stronger uni-beam that comes from Stark's arc reactor. Its gold titanium alloy fixes the icing problem and enhances its strength and durability.
Tony Stark's suit-up after Loki (Tom Hiddleston) threw him off Stark Tower during The Avengers engraved the Iron Man Mark VII armor in viewers' minds. Emerging from a rocket-like pod that attaches to a pair of bracelets and assembles around Tony, the suit-up process is quicker. The circular arc reactor returns, and so does Tony's whole arsenal, now including rechargeable lasers capable of decimating the Chitauri, although not with the same efficiency as Captain Marvel during Avengers: Endgame's final battle. The Mark VII possesses a powerful thruster in its back, which frees up Tony Stark's hands and allows him to blast his opponents while flying at full speed. The suit can withstand heavy battle damage and take down a Leviathan, but it can't fight a trip to space without shutting down.
After experimenting with the Iron Legion's 35 Iron Man suits, Tony Stark developed the infamous Mark 42 Iron Man suit, which he can manipulate remotely with subcutaneous chips implanted on his arms that control the individual parts that assemble, one by one, around his body. This feature also allows him to lock the suit onto another person. "Prodigal Son" can also be controlled with a headset that allows Tony to take full command of the suit from a very distant location. Inspired by Marvel's "Extremis" storyline, the Mark 42 sports a lighter shade of gold and, apart from regular weaponry, relies on its high-powered repulsor technology to fight.
The following sections have been updated based on newly available literature and approvals. These updates will be fully integrated into this webpage at a later time; they are provided here for immediate use.
SPECIAL UPDATE ALERT (1/20/2023): This section has been updated based on newly available literature and approvals. This section will be fully integrated into this document and the IDSA website at a later time; it is provided here for immediate use.
Recommendation 21 has been replaced with a statement mentioning in vitro resistance to circulating strains in the United States. The full updated section featuring the revised recommendation can be viewed on the IDSA website.
Recommendation 22 has been replaced with a statement regarding the use of neutralizing antibodies for the treatment of COVID-19, as it relates to in vitro resistance to circulating strains in the United States. The full updated section can be viewed on the IDSA website.
Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, as well as eligible full-text studies. Eligible studies reported on persons with confirmed COVID-19 and compared the active intervention against no active intervention (e.g., standard of care or other treatment equally distributed across both the intervention and comparison arm). For questions on pre- or post-exposure prophylaxis, persons at baseline could not have reported COVID-19 infection. When acceptable RCTs of effectiveness were found, no additional non-randomized studies or non-comparative evidence (i.e., single-arm case series) were sought. Evidence from single arm studies reporting on non-comparative rates of outcomes of interest were included if a historical control event rate could be estimated from the literature. Conflicts were resolved through discussion or with a third reviewer.
Azithromycin has a low risk for cytochrome P450 interactions [58]; however, additional pharmacologic adverse events including gastrointestinal effects and QT prolongation need to be carefully considered, particularly in the outpatient setting where frequent ECG monitoring is not feasible.
Treatment of COVID-19 in ambulatory persons with lopinavir/ritonavir rather than placebo may increase the risk of serious adverse events (RR: 1.58; 95% CI: 0.79, 3.16; moderate CoE). RECOVERY reported 1/1588 serious adverse event due to treatment with lopinavir/ritonavir [72]; however, nearly 14% of lopinavir/ritonavir recipients in Cao 2020 were unable to complete the full 14-day course of administration. This was due primarily to gastrointestinal adverse events, including anorexia, nausea, abdominal discomfort, or diarrhea, as well as two serious adverse events, both acute gastritis. Two recipients had self-limited skin eruptions. Such side effects, including the risks of hepatic injury, pancreatitis, more severe cutaneous eruptions, and QT prolongation, and the potential for multiple drug interactions due to CYP3A inhibition, are well documented with this drug combination. The side effect profile observed in these trials raise concerns about the use of higher or more prolonged lopinavir/ritonavir dose regimens in efforts to improve outcomes.
Serious adverse events may be less frequent among patients with mild-to-moderate disease receiving treatment with inhaled corticosteroids rather than no inhaled corticosteroids; however, this may not be meaningfully different from those not receiving inhaled corticosteroids (RR: 1.14; 95% CI: 0.32, 3.99; moderate CoE).
Patients who received tofacitinib experienced more serious adverse events; however, this may not be meaningfully different from those that received placebo (RR: 1.18; 95%CI: 0.64, 2.15; low CoE). Use of tofacitinib for other indications has shown an increase in thrombotic events which prompted a black box warning by the FDA [203, 204]. As COVID-19 infection itself increases the risk for VTE events; it is important to note that the patients studied were either on prophylactic or full dose anticoagulation during treatment with tofacitinib.
One study reported on serious adverse events among persons treated with colchicine rather than no colchicine for COVID-19. Serious adverse events may be less frequent among ambulatory persons receiving treatment with colchicine rather than no colchicine; however, this may not be meaningfully different from those not receiving colchicine (RR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.61, 1.00; moderate CoE).
Use of bamlanivimab/etesevimab for prevention of progression to severe disease in ambulatory individuals with mild-to-moderate disease (recommendation 22) was supported based on a study that included children over age 12 years [175]. Among a total of 517 participants randomized to placebo and 518 to bamlanivimab-etesevimab, 7 and 4 participants respectively were between 12 and 18 years old. Data on outcomes or adverse events were not separately reported for children in this study but were generally well tolerated. An ongoing study of bamlanivimab/etesevimab, including in a pediatric expansion of the BLAZE-1 trial, allowed evaluation of pharmacokinetics and safety of bamlanivimab/etesevimab in 125 total pediatric participants. This led to an expanded FDA authorization [326] for this antibody combination in treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in children who are at high risk of progression to severe disease, including neonates, and in post-exposure prophylaxis of COVID-19 in children who are at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19 and not fully vaccinated or not expected to mount an adequate immune response to complete SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. 2ff7e9595c
Comments