IMPORTANCE: Influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) is commonly assessed against prevention of illness that requires medical attention. Few studies have evaluated VE against secondary influenza infections. OBJECTIVE: To determine the estimated effectiveness of influenza vaccines in preventing secondary infections after influenza was introduced into households. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: During 3 consecutive influenza seasons (2017-2020), primary cases (the first household members with laboratory-confirmed influenza) and their household contacts in Tennessee and Wisconsin were enrolled into a prospective case-ascertained household transmission cohort study. Participants collected daily symptom diaries and nasal swabs for up to 7 days. Data were analyzed from September 2022 to February 2024. EXPOSURES: Vaccination history, self-reported and verified through review of medical and registry records. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Specimens were tested using reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction to determine influenza infection. Longitudinal chain binomial models were used to estimate secondary infection risk and the effectiveness of influenza vaccines in preventing infection among household contacts overall and by virus type and subtype and/or lineage. RESULTS: The analysis included 699 primary cases and 1581 household contacts. The median (IQR) age of the primary cases was 13 (7-38) years, 381 (54.5%) were female, 60 (8.6%) were Hispanic, 46 (6.6%) were non-Hispanic Black, 553 (79.1%) were Non-Hispanic White, and 343 (49.1%) were vaccinated. Among household contacts, the median age was 31 (10-41) years, 833 (52.7%) were female, 116 (7.3%) were Hispanic, 78 (4.9%) were non-Hispanic Black, 1283 (81.2%) were non-Hispanic White, 792 (50.1%) were vaccinated, and 356 (22.5%) had laboratory-confirmed influenza during follow-up. The overall secondary infection risk of influenza among household contacts was 18.8% (95% CI, 15.9% to 22.0%). The risk was highest among children and was 20.3% (95% CI, 16.4% to 24.9%) for influenza A and 15.9% (95% CI, 11.8% to 21.0%) for influenza B. The overall estimated VE for preventing secondary infections among unvaccinated household contacts was 21.0% (95% CI, 1.4% to 36.7%) and varied by type; estimated VE against influenza A was 5.0% (95% CI, -22.3% to 26.3%) and 56.4% (95% CI, 30.1% to 72.8%) against influenza B. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: After influenza was introduced into households, the risk of secondary influenza among unvaccinated household contacts was approximately 15% to 20%, and highest among children. Estimated VE varied by influenza type, with demonstrated protection against influenza B virus infection.

Elevated body mass index (BMI) has been linked to severe influenza illness and impaired vaccine immunogenicity, but the relationship between BMI and clinical vaccine effectiveness (VE) is less well described. This secondary analysis of data from a test-negative study of outpatients with acute respiratory illness assessed BMI and VE against medically attended, PCR-confirmed influenza over seven seasons (2011-12 through 2017-18). Vaccination status was determined from electronic medical records (EMR) and self-report; BMI was estimated from EMR-documented height and weight categorized for adults as obesity (≥ 30 kg/m(2)), overweight (25-29 kg/m(2)), or normal and for children based on standardized z-scales. Current season VE by virus type/subtype was estimated separately for adults and children. Pooled VE for all seasons was calculated as 1-adjusted odds ratios from logistic regression with an interaction term for BMI and vaccination. Among 28,089 adults and 12,380 children, BMI category was not significantly associated with VE against outpatient influenza for any type/subtype. Adjusted VE against A/H3N2, A/H1N1pdm09, and B in adults ranged from 16-31, 46-54, and 44-57%, and in children from 29-34, 57-65, and 50-55%, respectively, across the BMI categories. Elevated BMI was not associated with reduced VE against laboratory confirmed, outpatient influenza illness.

Isolation of symptomatic infectious persons can reduce influenza transmission. However, virus shedding that occurs without symptoms will be unaffected by such measures. Identifying effective isolation strategies for influenza requires understanding the interplay between individual virus shedding and symptom presentation. From 2017 to 2020, we conducted a case-ascertained household transmission study using influenza real-time RT-qPCR testing of nasal swabs and daily symptom diary reporting for up to 7 days after enrolment (≤14 days after index onset). We assumed real-time RT-qPCR cycle threshold (Ct) values were indicators of quantitative virus shedding and used symptom diaries to create a score that tracked influenza-like illness (ILI) symptoms (fever, cough, or sore throat). We fit phenomenological nonlinear mixed-effects models stratified by age and vaccination status and estimated two quantities influencing isolation effectiveness: shedding before symptom onset and shedding that might occur once isolation ends. We considered different isolation end points (including 24 h after fever resolution or 5 days after symptom onset) and assumptions about the infectiousness of Ct shedding trajectories. Of the 116 household contacts with ≥2 positive tests for longitudinal analyses, 105 (91%) experienced ≥1 ILI symptom. On average, children <5 years experienced greater peak shedding, longer durations of shedding, and elevated ILI symptom scores compared with other age groups. Most individuals (63/105) shed <10% of their total shed virus before symptom onset, and shedding after isolation varied substantially across individuals, isolation end points, and infectiousness assumptions. Our results can inform strategies to reduce transmission from symptomatic individuals infected with influenza.

Households are a primary setting for transmission of SARS-CoV-2. We examined the role of prior SARS-CoV-2 immunity on the risk of infection in household close contacts. Households in the United States with an individual who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during September 2021-May 2023 were enrolled if the index case's illness began ≤6 days prior. Household members had daily self-collected nasal swabs tested by RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2. The effects of prior SARS-CoV-2 immunity (vaccination, prior infection, or hybrid immunity) on SARS-CoV-2 infection risk among household contacts were assessed by robust, clustered multivariable Poisson regression. Of 1,532 contacts (905 households), 8% had immunity from prior infection alone, 51% from vaccination alone, 29% hybrid immunity, and 11% had no prior immunity. Sixty percent of contacts tested SARS-CoV-2-positive during follow-up. The adjusted risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection was lowest among contacts with vaccination and prior infection (aRR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.70, 0.93, compared with contacts with no prior immunity) and was lowest when the last immunizing event occurred ≤6 months before COVID-19 affected the household (aRR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.57, 0.83). In high-transmission settings like households, immunity from COVID-19 vaccination and prior infection was synergistic in protecting household contacts from SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Asymptomatic influenza virus infection occurs but may vary by factors such as age, influenza vaccination status, or influenza season. We examined the frequency of influenza virus infection and associated symptoms using data from two case-ascertained household transmission studies (conducted from 2017-2023) with prospective, systematic collection of respiratory specimens and symptoms. From the 426 influenza virus infected household contacts that met our inclusion criteria, 8% were asymptomatic, 6% had non-respiratory symptoms, 23% had acute respiratory symptoms, and 62% had influenza-like illness symptoms. Understanding the prevalence of asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic influenza cases is important for implementing effective influenza prevention strategies and enhancing the effectiveness of symptom-based surveillance systems.

We describe humoral immune responses in 105 ambulatory patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant infection. In dried blood spot (DBS) collected within 5 days of illness onset and during convalescence, we measured binding antibody (bAb) against ancestral spike protein receptor binding domain (RBD) and nucleocapsid (N) protein using a commercial multiplex bead assay. Geometric mean bAb concentrations against RBD increased by a factor of 2.5 from 1258 to 3189 units/mL and by a factor of 47 against N protein from 5.5 to 259 units/mL between acute illness and convalescence; lower concentrations were associated with greater geometric mean ratios. Paired DBS specimens may be used to evaluate humoral response to SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The immune response to inactivated influenza vaccines (IIV) is influenced by multiple factors, including hemagglutinin content and egg-based manufacturing. Only two US-licensed vaccines are manufactured without egg passage: cell culture-based inactivated vaccine (ccIIV) and recombinant vaccine (RIV). We conducted a randomized open-label trial in central Wisconsin during the 2018-19 and 2019-20 seasons to compare immunogenicity of sequential vaccination. Participants 18-64 years old were randomized 1:1:1 to receive RIV, ccIIV or IIV in strata defined by number of influenza vaccine doses in the prior 3 years. They were revaccinated with the same product in year two. Paired serum samples were tested by hemagglutination inhibition against egg-adapted and cell-grown vaccine viruses. Serologic endpoints included geometric mean titer (GMT), mean fold rise, and percent seroconversion. There were 373 participants randomized and vaccinated in 2018-19; 332 were revaccinated in 2019-20. In 2018-19, RIV and ccIIV were not more immunogenic than IIV against A/H1N1. The post-vaccination GMT against the cell-grown 3C.2a A/H3N2 vaccine virus was higher for RIV vs IIV (p = .001) and RIV vs ccIIV (p = .001). The antibody response to influenza B viruses was similar across study arms. In 2019-20, GMT against the cell-grown 3C.3a A/H3N2 vaccine virus was higher for RIV vs IIV (p = .03) and for RIV vs ccIIV (p = .001). RIV revaccination generated significantly greater backboosting to the antigenically distinct 3C.2a A/H3N2 virus (2018-19 vaccine strain) compared to ccIIV or IIV. This study adds to the evidence that RIV elicits a superior immunologic response against A/H3N2 viruses compared to other licensed influenza vaccine products.

Studies of SARS-CoV-2 incidence are important for response to continued transmission and future pandemics. We followed a rural community cohort with broad age representation with active surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 identification from November 2020 through July 2022. Participants provided serum specimens at regular intervals and following SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination. We estimated the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection identified by study RT-PCR, electronic health record documentation or self-report of a positive test, or serology. We also estimated the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 spike and nucleocapsid antibodies measured by ELISA. Overall, 65% of the cohort had ≥1 SARS-CoV-2 infection by July 2022, and 19% of those with primary infection were reinfected. Infection and vaccination contributed to high seroprevalence, 98% (95% CI: 95%, 99%) of participants were spike or nucleocapsid seropositive at the end of follow-up. Among those seropositive, 82% were vaccinated. Participants were more likely to be seropositive to spike than nucleocapsid following infection. Infection among seropositive individuals could be identified by increases in nucleocapsid, but not spike, ELISA optical density values. Nucleocapsid antibodies waned more quickly after infection than spike antibodies. High levels of SARS-CoV-2 population immunity, as found in this study, are leading to changing epidemiology necessitating ongoing surveillance and policy evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (N/R) reduces severe outcomes from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); however, rebound after treatment has been reported. We compared symptom and viral dynamics in individuals with COVID-19 who completed N/R treatment and similar untreated individuals. METHODS: We identified symptomatic participants who tested severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-positive and were N/R eligible from a COVID-19 household transmission study. Index cases from ambulatory settings and their households contacts were enrolled. We collected daily symptoms, medication use, and respiratory specimens for quantitative polymerase chain reaction for 10 days during March 2022-May 2023. Participants who completed N/R treatment (treated) were propensity score matched to untreated participants. We compared symptom rebound, viral load (VL) rebound, average daily symptoms, and average daily VL by treatment status measured after N/R treatment completion or 7 days after symptom onset if untreated. RESULTS: Treated (n = 130) and untreated participants (n = 241) had similar baseline characteristics. After treatment completion, treated participants had greater occurrence of symptom rebound (32% vs 20%; P = .009) and VL rebound (27% vs 7%; P < .001). Average daily symptoms were lower among treated participants without symptom rebound (1.0 vs 1.6; P < .01) but not statistically lower with symptom rebound (3.0 vs 3.4; P = .5). Treated participants had lower average daily VLs without VL rebound (0.9 vs 2.6; P < .01) but not statistically lower with VL rebound (4.8 vs 5.1; P = .7). CONCLUSIONS: Individuals who completed N/R treatment experienced fewer symptoms and lower VL but rebound occured more often compared with untreated individuals. Providers should prescribe N/R, when indicated, and communicate rebound risk to patients.

BACKGROUND: Symptoms of COVID-19 including fatigue and dyspnea, may persist for weeks to months after SARS-CoV-2 infection. This study compared self-reported disability among SARS-CoV-2-positive and negative persons with mild to moderate COVID-19-like illness who presented for outpatient care before widespread COVID-19 vaccination. METHODS: Unvaccinated adults with COVID-19-like illness enrolled within 10 days of illness onset at three US Flu Vaccine Effectiveness Network sites were tested for SARS-CoV-2 by molecular assay. Enrollees completed an enrollment questionnaire and two follow-up surveys (7-24 days and 2-7 months after illness onset) online or by phone to assess illness characteristics and health status. The second follow-up survey included questions measuring global health, physical function, fatigue, and dyspnea. Scores in the four domains were compared by participants' SARS-CoV-2 test results in univariate analysis and multivariable Gamma regression. RESULTS: During September 22, 2020 - February 13, 2021, 2712 eligible adults were enrolled, 1541 completed the first follow-up survey, and 650 completed the second follow-up survey. SARS-CoV-2-positive participants were more likely to report fever at acute illness but were otherwise comparable to SARS-CoV-2-negative participants. At first follow-up, SARS-CoV-2-positive participants were less likely to have reported fully or mostly recovered from their illness compared to SARS-CoV-2-negative participants. At second follow-up, no differences by SARS-CoV-2 test results were detected in the four domains in the multivariable model. CONCLUSION: Self-reported disability was similar among outpatient SARS-CoV-2-positive and -negative adults 2-7 months after illness onset.

We assessed serum neutralization of Omicron BA.5 in children following SARS-CoV-2 infection during the Delta or Omicron BA.1/BA.2 variant period. Convalescent BA.5 titers were higher following infections during the Omicron BA.1/BA.2 vs Delta variant period, and in vaccinated vs unvaccinated children. Titers against BA.5 did not differ by age group.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, annual vaccination against seasonal influenza is recommended for all people ages ≥ 6 months. Vaccination coverage assessments can identify populations less protected from influenza morbidity and mortality and help to tailor vaccination efforts. Within the Vaccine Safety Datalink population ages ≥ 6 months, we report influenza vaccination coverage for the 2017-18 through 2022-23 seasons. METHODS: Across eight health systems, we identified influenza vaccines administered from August 1 through March 31 for each season using electronic health records linked to immunization registries. Crude vaccination coverage was described for each season, overall and by self-reported sex; age group; self-reported race and ethnicity; and number of separate categories of diagnoses associated with increased risk of severe illness and complications from influenza (hereafter referred to as high-risk conditions). High-risk conditions were assessed using ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes assigned in the year preceding each influenza season. RESULTS: Among individual cohorts of more than 12 million individuals each season, overall influenza vaccination coverage increased from 41.9 % in the 2017-18 season to a peak of 46.2 % in 2019-20, prior to declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic. Coverage declined over the next three seasons, coincident with widespread SARS-CoV-2 circulation, to a low of 40.3 % in the 2022-23 season. In each of the six seasons, coverage was lowest among males, 18-49-year-olds, non-Hispanic Black people, and those with no high-risk conditions. While decreases in coverage were present in all age groups, the declines were most substantial among children: 2022-23 season coverage for children ages six months through 8 years and 9-17 years was 24.5 % and 22.4 % (14 and 10 absolute percentage points), respectively, less than peak coverage achieved in the 2019-20 season. CONCLUSIONS: Crude influenza vaccination coverage increased from 2017 to 18 through 2019-20, then decreased to the lowest level in the 2022-23 season. In this insured population, we identified persistent disparities in influenza vaccination coverage by sex, age, and race and ethnicity. The overall low coverage, disparities in coverage, and recent decreases in coverage are significant public health concerns.

There are limited data on influenza vaccination coverage among pregnant people in the United States during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Within the Vaccine Safety Datalink, we conducted a retrospective cohort study to examine influenza vaccination coverage during the 2016-2017 through the 2021-2022 influenza seasons among pregnant people aged 18-49 years. Using influenza vaccines administered through March each season, we assessed crude coverage by demographic and clinical characteristics. Annual influenza vaccination coverage increased from the 2016-2017 season (63.0%) to a high of 71.0% in the 2019-2020 season. After the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, it decreased to a low of 56.4% (2021-2022). In each of the six seasons, coverage was lowest among pregnant people aged 18-24 years and among non-Hispanic Black pregnant people. The 2021-2022 season had the lowest coverage across all age and race and ethnicity groups. The recent decreases highlight the need for continued efforts to improve coverage among pregnant people.

PURPOSE: This study assessed efficacy of one-time COVID-19 booster reminder/recall for booster eligible adolescents in a health-care system in Wisconsin. METHODS: COVID-19 booster eligible patients aged 12-17 years were randomized 1:1 to receive one reminder/recall message from the health-care system using the parent's preferred communication method (intervention) or no reminder/recall (usual care) in May 2022. RESULTS: Reminder/recall was sent to 2,146/4,296 (50%) adolescent patients. During the 90-day evaluation period following randomization, booster dose receipt was 2.0 percentage points (CI: 0.3%-3.7%) higher in the intervention (10.0%) versus usual care groups (8.0%). Among patients with ≥1 preventive visit during the evaluation period, uptake was 7.5 percentage points higher in the intervention (16.4%) versus usual care groups (8.9%). DISCUSSION: A single COVID-19 booster dose reminder/recall resulted in a small but statistically significant increase in booster dose receipt, though uptake overall was low. Additional strategies are needed to increase uptake.

PURPOSE: Vaccine-associated enhanced disease (VAED) is a theoretical concern with new vaccines, although trials of authorized vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 have not identified markers for VAED. The purpose of this study was to detect any signals for VAED among adults vaccinated against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we assessed COVID-19 severity as a proxy for VAED among 400 adults hospitalized for COVID-19 from March through October 2021 at eight US healthcare systems. Primary outcomes were admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) and severe illness (score ≥6 on the World Health Organization [WHO] Clinical Progression Scale). We compared the risk of outcomes among those who had completed a COVID-19 vaccine primary series versus those who were unvaccinated. We incorporated inverse propensity weights for vaccination status in a doubly robust regression model to estimate the causal average treatment effect. RESULTS: The causal risk ratio in vaccinated versus unvaccinated was 0.36 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15-0.94) for ICU admission and 0.46 (95% CI, 0.25-0.76) for severe illness. CONCLUSION: Among hospitalized patients, reduced disease severity in those vaccinated against COVID-19 supports the absence of VAED.

Evaluations of vaccine effectiveness (VE) are important to monitor as COVID-19 vaccines are introduced in the general population. Research staff enrolled symptomatic participants seeking outpatient medical care for COVID-19-like illness or SARS-CoV-2 testing from a multisite network. VE was evaluated using the test-negative design. Among 236 SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification test-positive and 576 test-negative participants aged ≥16 years, VE of mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 was 91% (95% CI: 83-95) for full vaccination and 75% (95% CI: 55-87) for partial vaccination. Vaccination was associated with prevention of most COVID-19 cases among people seeking outpatient medical care.Competing Interest StatementMPN reports grants from Merck &amp; Co. outside the submitted work. RKZ reports grants from Sanofi Pasteur outside the submitted work. GKB reports grants from Merck &amp; Co outside the submitted work and consulting fees from New World Medical, LLC. ETM reports grants from Merck &amp; Co. outside the submitted work and consulting fees from Pfizer. ASM reports consulting fees from Sanofi Pasteur and Seqirus. LEL reports grants from Xcenda, Inc., eMAXHealth, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Evidera outside the submitted work. MLJ reports grants from Sanofi Pasteur. All other authors report nothing to disclose.Funding StatementThis work was supported by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention through cooperative agreements U01IP001034-U01IP001039. At Pittsburgh, the project was also supported by the National Institutes of Health through grant ULTR001857.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Centers for Disease Control and Prevention IRB project determination numbers for included projects: 0900f3eb81c2e791, 0900f3eb81c52dc5; 0900f3eb81c52420, 0900f3eb81bc746b, 6238All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesDe-identified dataset can be made available upon request

Individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus experience high rates of influenza virus infection and complications. We compared the magnitude and duration of serologic response to trivalent influenza vaccine in adults aged 50-80 with and without type 2 diabetes mellitus. Serologic response to influenza vaccination was similar in both groups: greater fold-increases in antibody titer occurred among individuals with lower pre-vaccination antibody titers. Waning of antibody titers was not influenced by diabetes status.Competing Interest StatementKKM, MPN and RZ have received research funds from Merck &amp; Co., Inc and Pfizer, Inc. KKM and RZ have received research funds from Sanofi Pasteur, Inc. LC is currently employed by Novartis. The remaining authors report no conflicts of interest.Funding StatementThis study was supported by cooperative agreements U01 IP000471 and U01 IP000467 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The findings and conclusions in this report are those of those authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Institutional Review Boards at the University of Pittsburgh and Marshfield Clinic approved this study.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesData are not publicly available at this time.

We compared symptoms and characteristics of 4961 ambulatory patients with and without laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Findings indicate that clinical symptoms alone would be insufficient to distinguish between COVID-19 and other respiratory infections (e.g., influenza) and/or to evaluate the effects of preventive interventions (e.g., vaccinations).Competing Interest StatementAll authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: AM reports personal fees from Sanofi Pasteur and from Seqirus outside the submitted work; EB reports grants from CDC during the conduct of the study. EM reports grants from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Pfizer outside the submitted work; LJ reports grants from CDC during the conduct of the study and grants from Novavax outside the submitted work; MG reports grants from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention during the conduct of the study and grants from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - Abt Associates outside the submitted work; MJ reports grants from Centers for Disease Control during the conduct of the study and grants from Sanofi Pasteur outside the submitted work; MN reports grants from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study and grants from Merck &amp; Co outside the submitted work; RZ reports grants from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study and grants from Sanofi Pasteur outside the submitted work. All other authors have nothing to disclose.Funding StatementThis work was supported through cooperative agreements funded by US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and, at the University of Pittsburgh, by infrastructure funding by UL1 TR001857 from National Institutes of Health.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Approved or waived by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) IRB with reliance on: 1.University of Michigan IRB (Approved) a. CDC protocol 6238 b. University of Michigan protocol HUM00119183 2. University of Pittsburgh IRB (Approved) a. CDC protocol 6219 b. University of Pittsburgh protocol STUDY19070407 3. Baylor Scott and White Health IRB (Approved) a. CDC protocols 7125 and 7277 b. Baylor Scott and White protocols 160145 and 20-153 4. Kaiser Permanente Washington Research Institute (Waived) 5. Marshfield Clinic Research Institute (Approved) a. CDC protocol 6197 b. Marshfield Clinic Research Institute protocol BEL10511 All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesData may be made available in accordance with CDC data availability policy.

Background: The natural history of SARS-CoV-2 infection and transmission dynamics may have changed as SARS-CoV-2 has evolved and population immunity has shifted. Method(s): Household contacts, enrolled from two multi-site case-ascertained household transmission studies (April 2020-April 2021 and September 2021-September 2022), were followed for 10-14 days after enrollment with daily collection of nasal swabs and/or saliva for SARS-CoV-2 testing and symptom diaries. SARS-CoV-2 virus lineage was determined by whole genome sequencing, with multiple imputation where sequences could not be recovered. Adjusted infection risks were estimated using modified Poisson regression. Finding(s): 858 primary cases with 1473 household contacts were examined. Among unvaccinated household contacts, the infection risk adjusted for presence of prior infection and age was 58% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 49-68%) in households currently exposed to pre-Delta lineages and 90% (95% CI: 74-100%) among those exposed to Omicron BA.5 (detected May - September 2022). The fraction of infected household contacts reporting any symptom was similarly high between pre-Delta (86%, 95% CI: 81-91%) and Omicron lineages (77%, 70-85%). Among Omicron BA.5-infected contacts, 48% (41-56%) reported fever, 63% (56-71%) cough, 22% (17-28%) shortness of breath, and 20% (15-27%) loss of/change in taste/smell. Interpretation(s): The risk of infection among household contacts exposed to SARS-CoV-2 is high and increasing with more recent SARS-CoV-2 lineages. This high infection risk highlights the importance of vaccination to prevent severe disease. Funding(s): Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration. Copyright The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. This article is a US Government work. It is not subject to copyright under 17 USC 105 and is also made available for use under a CC0 license.

Individuals in contact with persons with COVID-19 are at high risk of developing COVID-19, but protection offered by COVID-19 vaccines in the context of known exposure is unknown. Symptomatic outpatients reporting acute onset of COVID-19-like illness and tested for SARSCoV-2 infection were enrolled. Among 2,229 participants, 283/451 (63%) of those reporting contact and 331/1778 (19%) without known contact tested SARS-CoV-2 positive. Using the test-negative design, adjusted vaccine effectiveness was 71% (95% confidence interval, 49%-83%) among fully vaccinated participants reporting contact versus 80% (95% CI, 72%-86%) among those without. This study supports COVID-19 vaccination and highlights the importance of efforts to increase vaccination coverage. Copyright The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. This article is a US Government work. It is not subject to copyright under 17 USC 105 and is also made available for use under a CC0 license.

Background: We estimated SARS-CoV-2 Delta and Omicron-specific effectiveness of 2 and 3 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses in adults against symptomatic illness in US outpatient settings. Method(s): Between October 1, 2021, and February 12, 2022, research staff consented and enrolled eligible participants who had fever, cough, or loss of taste or smell and sought outpatient medical care or clinical SARS-CoV-2 testing within 10 days of illness onset. Using the test-negative design, we compared the odds of receiving 2 or 3 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses among SARS-CoV-2 cases versus controls using logistic regression. Regression models were adjusted for study site, age, onset week, and prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. Vaccine effectiveness (VE) was calculated as (1 - adjusted odds ratio) x 100%. Result(s): Among 3847 participants included for analysis, 574 (32%) of 1775 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during the Delta predominant period and 1006 (56%) of 1794 participants tested positive during the Omicron predominant period. When Delta predominated, VE against symptomatic illness in outpatient settings was 63% (95% CI: 51% to 72%) among mRNA 2-dose recipients and 96% (95% CI: 93% to 98%) for 3-dose recipients. When Omicron predominated, VE was 21% (95% CI: -6% to 41%) among 2-dose recipients and 62% (95% CI: 48% to 72%) among 3-dose recipients. Conclusion(s): In this adult population, 3 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses provided substantial protection against symptomatic illness in outpatient settings when the Omicron variant became the predominant cause of COVID-19 in the U.S. These findings support the recommendation for a 3rd mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose. Copyright The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. This article is a US Government work. It is not subject to copyright under 17 USC 105 and is also made available for use under a CC0 license.

During a period of Omicron variant circulation, we estimated relative VE of COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccination versus primary two-dose series in an ongoing community cohort. Relative VE was 66% (95% CI: 46%, 79%) favoring the booster dose compared to primary series vaccination. Our results support current booster recommendations. Copyright The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY 4.0 International license.

Background. In the United States, influenza activity during the 2021-2022 season was modest and sufficient enough to estimate influenza vaccine effectiveness for the first time since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. We estimated influenza vaccine effectiveness against lab-confirmed outpatient acute illness caused by predominant A(H3N2) viruses. Methods. Between October 2021 and April 2022, research staff across 7 sites enrolled patients aged >=6 months seeking outpatient care for acute respiratory illness with cough. Using a test-negative design, we assessed VE against influenza A(H3N2). Due to strong correlation between influenza and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, participants who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 were excluded from vaccine effectiveness estimations. Estimates were adjusted for site, age, month of illness, race/ethnicity and general health status. Results. Among 6,260 participants, 468 (7%) tested positive for influenza only, including 440 (94%) for A(H3N2). All 206 sequenced A(H3N2) viruses were characterized as belonging to genetic group 3C.2a1b subclade 2a.2, which has antigenic differences from the 2021-2022 season A(H3N2) vaccine component that belongs to clade 3C.2a1b subclade 2a.1. After excluding 1,948 SARS-CoV-2 positive patients, 4,312 patients were included in analyses of influenza VE; 2,463 (57%) were vaccinated against influenza. Effectiveness against A(H3N2) for all ages was 36% (95%CI, 20-49%) overall; 40% (95%CI, 24-53%) for those aged 6 months-49 years; and 10% (95%CI, -60-49%) for those aged >=50 years. Conclusion. Influenza vaccination in 2021-2022 provided protection against influenza A(H3N2)-related outpatient visits among young persons, with no measurable protection among older adults. Copyright The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. This article is a US Government work. It is not subject to copyright under 17 USC 105 and is also made available for use under a CC0 license.

Reduced COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) has been observed with increasing predominance of the Delta variant. In a prospective rural community cohort of 1265 participants, VE against symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection was 56% for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. Copyright The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.

Background: We estimated combined protection conferred by prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination against COVID-19-associated acute respiratory illness (ARI). Method(s): During SARS-CoV-2 Delta (B.1.617.2) and Omicron (B.1.1.529) variant circulation between October 2021 and April 2022, prospectively enrolled adult patients with outpatient ARI had respiratory and filter paper blood specimens collected for SARS-CoV-2 molecular testing and serology. Dried blood spots were tested for immunoglobulin-G antibodies against SARSCoV-2 nucleocapsid (NP) and spike protein receptor binding domain antigen using a validated multiplex bead assay. Evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection also included documented or self-reported laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. We used documented COVID-19 vaccination status to estimate vaccine effectiveness (VE) by multivariable logistic regression by prior infection status. Result(s): 455 (29%) of 1577 participants tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection at enrollment; 209 (46%) case-patients and 637 (57%) test-negative patients were NP seropositive, had documented previous laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, or self-reported prior infection. Among previously uninfected patients, three-dose VE was 97% (95% confidence interval [CI], 60%-99%) against Delta, but not statistically significant against Omicron. Among previously infected patients, three-dose VE was 57% (CI, 20%-76%) against Omicron; VE against Delta could not be estimated. Conclusion(s): Three mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses provided additional protection against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant-associated illness among previously infected participants. Copyright The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. This article is a US Government work. It is not subject to copyright under 17 USC 105 and is also made available for use under a CC0 license.

Background. Studies have reported that prior-season influenza vaccination is associated with higher risk of clinical influenza infection among vaccinees in a given season. Understanding the underlying causes requires consideration of within-season waning and recent infection. Methods. Using the US Flu Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) Network data over 8 influenza seasons (2011-2012 to 2018-2019), we estimated the effect of prior-season vaccination on the odds of clinical infection in a given season, after accounting for waning vaccine protection using regression methods. We adjusted for potential confounding by recent clinical infection using inverse-probability weighting. We investigated theoretically whether unmeasured subclinical infection in the prior season, which is more likely in the non-repeat vaccinees, could explain the repeat vaccination effect. Results. Repeat vaccinees vaccinated earlier in a season by one week. After accounting for waning VE, repeat vaccinees were still more likely to test positive for influenza A(H3N2) (OR=1.11, 95% CI:1.02-1.21) but not for influenza B (OR=1.03, 95% CI:0.89-1.18) or A(H1N1) (OR=1.03, 95% CI:0.90-1.19) compared to those vaccinated in the given season only. Recent clinical infection with the homologous (sub)type protected against clinical infection with A(H3N2) or B. Individuals with clinical infection in one season had 1.11 (95% CI:1.03-1.19) times the odds of switching vaccination status in the following season. Adjusting for recent clinical infections did not strongly influence the estimated effect of prior-season vaccination. Adjusting for subclinical infection could theoretically attenuate this effect. Conclusion. Waning protection and recent clinical infection were insufficient to explain observed reduced VE in repeat vaccinees with a test-negative design. Copyright The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.

OBJECTIVES: Examine age differences in SARS-CoV-2 transmission risk from primary cases and infection risk among household contacts, and symptoms among those with SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: People with SARS-CoV-2 infection in Nashville, Tennessee and central and western Wisconsin and their household contacts were followed daily for 14 days to ascertain symptoms and secondary transmission events. Households were enrolled between April 2020 and April 2021. Secondary infection risks (SIR) by age of the primary case and contacts were estimated using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: The 226 primary cases were followed by 198 (49%) secondary SARS-CoV-2 infections among 404 household contacts. Age group-specific SIR among contacts ranged from 36% to 53%, with no differences by age. SIR was lower from primary cases aged 12-17 years than from primary cases 18-49 years (risk ratio [RR] 0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.19-0.91). SIR was 55% and 45%, respectively, among primary case-contact pairs in the same versus different age group (RR 1.47; 95% CI 0.98-2.22). SIR was highest among primary case-contacts pairs aged ≥65 years (76%) and 5-11 years (69%). Among secondary SARS-CoV-2 infections, 19% were asymptomatic; there was no difference in the frequency of asymptomatic infections by age group. CONCLUSIONS: Both children and adults can transmit and are susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection. SIR did not vary by age, but further research is needed to understand age-related differences in probability of transmission from primary cases by age.

BACKGROUND: We estimated combined protection conferred by prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination against COVID-19-associated acute respiratory illness (ARI). METHODS: During SARS-CoV-2 Delta (B.1.617.2) and Omicron (B.1.1.529) variant circulation between October 2021 and April 2022, prospectively enrolled adult patients with outpatient ARI had respiratory and filter paper blood specimens collected for SARS-CoV-2 molecular testing and serology. Dried blood spots were tested for immunoglobulin-G antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (NP) and spike protein receptor binding domain antigen using a validated multiplex bead assay. Evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection also included documented or self-reported laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. We used documented COVID-19 vaccination status to estimate vaccine effectiveness (VE) by multivariable logistic regression by prior infection status. RESULTS: Four hundred fifty-five (29%) of 1577 participants tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection at enrollment; 209 (46%) case-patients and 637 (57%) test-negative patients were NP seropositive, had documented previous laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, or self-reported prior infection. Among previously uninfected patients, three-dose VE was 97% (95% confidence interval [CI], 60%-99%) against Delta, but not statistically significant against Omicron. Among previously infected patients, three-dose VE was 57% (CI, 20%-76%) against Omicron; VE against Delta could not be estimated. CONCLUSIONS: Three mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses provided additional protection against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant-associated illness among previously infected participants.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Infants and children are at increased risk of severe influenza virus infection and its complications. Influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) varies by age, influenza season, and influenza virus type/subtype. This study's objective was to examine the effectiveness of inactivated influenza vaccine against outpatient influenza illness in the pediatric population over 9 influenza seasons after the 2009 A(H1N1) pandemic. METHODS: During the 2011-2012 through the 2019-2020 influenza seasons at outpatient clinics at 5 sites of the US Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network, children aged 6 months to 17 years with an acute respiratory illness were tested for influenza using real-time, reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Vaccine effectiveness was estimated using a test-negative design. RESULTS: Among 24 148 enrolled children, 28% overall tested positive for influenza, 3017 tested positive for influenza A(H3N2), 1459 for influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, and 2178 for influenza B. Among all enrollees, 39% overall were vaccinated, with 29% of influenza cases and 43% of influenza-negative controls vaccinated. Across all influenza seasons, the pooled VE for any influenza was 46% (95% confidence interval, 43-50). Overall and by type/subtype, VE against influenza illness was highest among children in the 6- to 59-month age group compared with older pediatric age groups. VE was lowest for influenza A(H3N2) virus infection. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of multiple seasons suggested substantial benefit against outpatient illness. Investigation of host-specific or virus-related mechanisms that may result in differences by age and virus type/subtype may help further efforts to promote increased vaccination coverage and other influenza-related preventative measures.

BACKGROUND: US recommendations for COVID-19 vaccine boosters have expanded in terms of age groups covered and numbers of doses recommended, whereas evolution of Omicron sublineages raises questions about ongoing vaccine effectiveness. METHODS: We estimated effectiveness of monovalent COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccination versus two-dose primary series during a period of Omicron variant virus circulation in a community cohort with active illness surveillance. Hazard ratios comparing SARS-CoV-2 infection between booster versus primary series vaccinated individuals were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models with time-varying booster status. Models were adjusted for age and prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. The effectiveness of a second booster among adults ≥50 years of age was similarly estimated. RESULTS: The analysis included 883 participants ranging in age, from 5 to >90 years. Relative effectiveness was 51% (95% CI: 34%, 64%) favoring the booster compared with primary series vaccination and did not vary by prior infection status. Relative effectiveness was 74% (95% CI: 57%, 84%) at 15 to 90 days after booster receipt, but declined to 42% (95% CI: 16%, 61%) after 91 to 180 days, and to 36% (95% CI: 3%, 58%) after 180 days. The relative effectiveness of a second booster compared to a single booster was 24% (95% CI: -40% to 61%). CONCLUSIONS: An mRNA vaccine booster dose added significant protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection, but protection decreased over time. A second booster did not add significant protection for adults ≥50 years of age. Uptake of recommended bivalent boosters should be encouraged to increase protection against Omicron BA.4/BA.5 sublineages.