BACKGROUND: Influenza vaccines are available to help protect persons aged ≥65 years, who experience thousands of influenza hospitalizations annually. Because some influenza vaccines may work better than others, we sought to assess benefit of high-dose (HD), adjuvanted (ADJ), and recombinant (RIV) influenza vaccines ("enhanced influenza vaccines") compared with standard-dose unadjuvanted influenza vaccines (SD) and with one another for prevention of influenza-associated hospitalizations among persons aged ≥65 years. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, and Cochrane Library to identify randomized or observational studies published between January 1990 and October 2023 and reporting relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of HD, ADJ, or RIV for prevention of influenza-associated hospitalizations among adults aged ≥65 years. We extracted study data, assessed risk of bias, and conducted random-effects network meta-analysis and meta-regression. RESULTS: We identified 32 studies with 90 rVE estimates from five randomized and 27 observational studies (71,459,918 vaccinated participants). rVE estimates varied across studies and influenza seasons. Pooled rVE from randomized studies was 20% (95% CI -54 to 59) and 25% (95% CI -19 to 53) for ADJ and HD compared with SD, respectively; rVE was 6% (95% CI -109 to 58) for HD compared with ADJ; these differences were not statistically significant. In observational studies, ADJ, HD, and RIV conferred modestly increased protection compared with SD (rVE ranging from 10% to 19%), with no significant differences between HD, ADJ, and RIV. With enhanced vaccines combined, rVE versus SD was 18% (95% CI 3 to 32) from randomized and 11% (95% CI 8 to 14) from observational evidence. Meta-regression of observational studies suggested that those requiring laboratory confirmation of influenza reported greater benefit of enhanced vaccines. CONCLUSIONS: HD, ADJ, and RIV provided stronger protection than SD against influenza hospitalizations among older adults. No differences in benefit were observed in comparisons of enhanced influenza vaccines with one another.

This report updates the 2023-24 recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) concerning the use of seasonal influenza vaccines in the United States (MMWR Recomm Rep 2022;72[No. RR-2]:1-24). Routine annual influenza vaccination is recommended for all persons aged ≥6 months who do not have contraindications. Trivalent inactivated influenza vaccines (IIV3s), trivalent recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV3), and trivalent live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV3) are expected to be available. All persons should receive an age-appropriate influenza vaccine (i.e., one approved for their age), with the exception that solid organ transplant recipients aged 18 through 64 years who are receiving immunosuppressive medication regimens may receive either high-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (HD-IIV3) or adjuvanted inactivated influenza vaccine (aIIV3) as acceptable options (without a preference over other age-appropriate IIV3s or RIV3). Except for vaccination for adults aged ≥65 years, ACIP makes no preferential recommendation for a specific vaccine when more than one licensed and recommended vaccine is available. ACIP recommends that adults aged ≥65 years preferentially receive any one of the following higher dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccines: trivalent high-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (HD-IIV3), trivalent recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV3), or trivalent adjuvanted inactivated influenza vaccine (aIIV3). If none of these three vaccines is available at an opportunity for vaccine administration, then any other age-appropriate influenza vaccine should be used.Primary updates to this report include the following two topics: the composition of 2024-25 U.S. seasonal influenza vaccines and updated recommendations for vaccination of adult solid organ transplant recipients. First, following a period of no confirmed detections of wild-type influenza B/Yamagata lineage viruses in global surveillance since March 2020, 2024-25 U.S. influenza vaccines will not include an influenza B/Yamagata component. All influenza vaccines available in the United States during the 2024-25 season will be trivalent vaccines containing hemagglutinin derived from 1) an influenza A/Victoria/4897/2022 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus (for egg-based vaccines) or an influenza A/Wisconsin/67/2022 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus (for cell culture-based and recombinant vaccines); 2) an influenza A/Thailand/8/2022 (H3N2)-like virus (for egg-based vaccines) or an influenza A/Massachusetts/18/2022 (H3N2)-like virus (for cell culture-based and recombinant vaccines); and 3) an influenza B/Austria/1359417/2021 (Victoria lineage)-like virus. Second, recommendations for vaccination of adult solid organ transplant recipients have been updated to include HD-IIV3 and aIIV3 as acceptable options for solid organ transplant recipients aged 18 through 64 years who are receiving immunosuppressive medication regimens (without a preference over other age-appropriate IIV3s or RIV3).This report focuses on recommendations for the use of vaccines for the prevention and control of seasonal influenza during the 2024-25 influenza season in the United States. A brief summary of the recommendations and a link to the most recent Background Document containing additional information are available at https://www.cdc.gov/acip-recs/hcp/vaccine-specific/flu.html?CDC_AAref_Val=https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/vacc-specific/flu.html. These recommendations apply to U.S.-licensed influenza vaccines. Updates and other information are available from CDC's influenza website (https://www.cdc.gov/flu). Vaccination and health care providers should check this site periodically for additional information.

SUMMARY-During 2012, 49 states and Puerto Rico reported 6,162 rabid animals and 1 human rabies case to the CDC, representing a 2.1% increase from the 6,031 rabid animals and 6 human cases reported in 2011. Approximately 92% of reported rabid animals were wildlife. Relative contributions by the major animal groups were as follows: 1,953 raccoons (31.7%), 1,680 bats (27.3%), 1,539 skunks (25.0%), 340 foxes (5.5%), 257 cats (4.2%), 115 cattle (1.9%), and 84 dogs (1.4%). Compared with 2011, there was a substantial increase in the number of rabid cattle reported. One case of rabies involving a human was reported from California after the patient died abroad. The infection was determined to be a result of a rabies virus variant associated with Tadarida brasiliensis, with exposure occurring in California.

The present report provides a detailed update on rabies epidemiology and events in the United States during 2014 as well as a brief summary of rabies events in 2015. Updates are also provided for Canada and Mexico. | | Rabies is caused by neurotrophic viruses of the genus Lyssavirus. It is almost always fatal once clinical signs develop, but is preventable if appropriate postexposure prophylaxis is administered in a timely manner. The primary route of transmission is through the bite of an infected mammal, but rabies may also be transmitted when fresh saliva from an infected animal comes into contact with a wound or mucous membranes. | | For human patients who have never been vaccinated against rabies, postexposure prophylaxis consists of immediate cleansing of any bite wounds with soap and water, infiltration of the wounds with human rabies immune globulin, and administration of 4 doses of rabies vaccine over the next 14 days.1,2

This report updates the 2022–23 recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) concerning the use of seasonal influenza vaccines in the United States (MMWR Recomm Rep 2022;71[No. RR-1]:1–28). Routine annual influenza vaccination is recommended for all persons aged ≥6 months who do not have contraindications. All seasonal influenza vaccines expected to be available in the United States for the 2023–24 season are quadrivalent, containing hemagglutinin (HA) derived from one influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 virus, one influenza A(H3N2) virus, one influenza B/Victoria lineage virus, and one influenza B/Yamagata lineage virus. Inactivated influenza vaccines (IIV4s), recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV4), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV4) are expected to be available. For most persons who need only 1 dose of influenza vaccine for the season, vaccination should ideally be offered during September or October. However, vaccination should continue after October and throughout the season as long as influenza viruses are circulating and unexpired vaccine is available. Influenza vaccines might be available as early as July or August, but for most adults (particularly adults aged ≥65 years) and for pregnant persons in the first or second trimester, vaccination during July and August should be avoided unless there is concern that vaccination later in the season might not be possible. Certain children aged 6 months through 8 years need 2 doses; these children should receive the first dose as soon as possible after vaccine is available, including during July and August. Vaccination during July and August can be considered for children of any age who need only 1 dose for the season and for pregnant persons who are in the third trimester during these months if vaccine is available. ACIP recommends that all persons aged ≥6 months who do not have contraindications receive a licensed and age-appropriate seasonal influenza vaccine. With the exception of vaccination for adults aged ≥65 years, ACIP makes no preferential recommendation for a specific vaccine when more than one licensed, recommended, and age-appropriate vaccine is available. ACIP recommends that adults aged ≥65 years preferentially receive any one of the following higher dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccines: quadrivalent high-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (HD-IIV4), quadrivalent recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV4), or quadrivalent adjuvanted inactivated influenza vaccine (aIIV4). If none of these three vaccines is available at an opportunity for vaccine administration, then any other age-appropriate influenza vaccine should be used. Primary updates to this report include the following two topics: 1) the composition of 2023–24 U.S. seasonal influenza vaccines and 2) updated recommendations regarding influenza vaccination of persons with egg allergy. First, the composition of 2023–24 U.S. influenza vaccines includes an update to the influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 component. U.S.-licensed influenza vaccines will contain HA derived from 1) an influenza A/Victoria/4897/2022 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus (for egg-based vaccines) or an influenza A/Wisconsin/67/2022 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus (for cell culture-based and recombinant vaccines); 2) an influenza A/Darwin/9/2021 (H3N2)-like virus (for egg-based vaccines) or an influenza A/Darwin/6/2021 (H3N2)-like virus (for cell culture-based and recombinant vaccines); 3) an influenza B/Austria/1359417/2021 (Victoria lineage)-like virus; and 4) an influenza B/Phuket/3073/2013 (Yamagata lineage)-like virus. Second, ACIP recommends that all persons aged ≥6 months with egg allergy should receive influenza vaccine. Any influenza vaccine (egg based or nonegg based) that is otherwise appropriate for the recipient’s age and health status can be used. It is no longer recommended that persons who have had an allergic reaction to egg involving symptoms other than urticaria should be vaccinated in an inpatient or outpatient medical setting supervised by a health care provider who is able to recognize and man ge severe allergic reactions if an egg-based vaccine is used. Egg allergy alone necessitates no additional safety measures for influenza vaccination beyond those recommended for any recipient of any vaccine, regardless of severity of previous reaction to egg. All vaccines should be administered in settings in which personnel and equipment needed for rapid recognition and treatment of acute hypersensitivity reactions are available. © (2023). All Rights Reserved.

Background Data on the development of neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 after SARS-CoV-2 infection and after vaccination with messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccines are limited.Methods From a prospective cohort of 3,975 adult essential and frontline workers tested weekly from August, 2020 to March, 2021 for SARS-CoV-2 infection by Reverse Transcription- Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) assay irrespective of symptoms, 497 participants had sera drawn after infection (170), vaccination (327), and after both infection and vaccination (50 from the infection population). Serum was collected after infection and each vaccine dose. Serum- neutralizing antibody titers against USA-WA1/2020-spike pseudotype virus were determined by the 50% inhibitory dilution. Geometric mean titers (GMTs) and corresponding fold increases were calculated using t-tests and linear mixed effects models.Results Among 170 unvaccinated participants with SARS-CoV-2 infection, 158 (93%) developed neutralizing antibodies (nAb) with a GMT of 1,003 (95% CI=766-1,315). Among 139 previously uninfected participants, 138 (99%) developed nAb after mRNA vaccine dose-2 with a GMT of 3,257 (95% CI = 2,596-4,052). GMT was higher among those receiving mRNA-1273 vaccine (GMT =4,698, 95%CI= 3,186-6,926) compared to BNT162b2 vaccine (GMT=2,309, 95%CI=1,825-2,919). Among 32 participants with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, GMT was 21,655 (95%CI=14,766-31,756) after mRNA vaccine dose-1, without further increase after dose- 2.Conclusions A single dose of mRNA vaccine after SARS-CoV-2 infection resulted in the highest observed nAb response. Two doses of mRNA vaccine in previously uninfected participants resulted in higher nAb to SARS-CoV-2 than after one dose of vaccine or SARS- CoV-2 infection alone. Neutralizing antibody response also differed by mRNA vaccine product.Main Point Summary One dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine after previous SARS-CoV-2 infection produced the highest neutralizing antibody titers; among those without history of infection, two doses of mRNA vaccine produced the most robust response.Competing Interest StatementAllison Naleway receives research funding from Pfizer and Vir Biotechnology and Jennifer Kuntz receives research funding from Pfizer, Novartis, and Vir Biotechnology for unrelated studies. All other authors: No conflicts. Funding StatementThis work was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases [contracts 75D30120R68013 to Marshfield Clinic Research Institute, 75D30120C08379 to the University of Arizona, and 75D30120C08150 to Abt Associates].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:This study is governed by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention IRB review board and gave ethical approval for this work.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.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.YesAll data produced in the pres nt work are contained in the manuscript

Background: Those responding to humanitarian crises have an ethical imperative to respond most where the need is greatest. Metrics are used to estimate the severity of a given crisis. The INFORM Severity Index, one such metric, has become widely used to guide policy makers in humanitarian response decision making. The index, however, has not undergone critical statistical review. If imprecise or incorrect, the quality of decision making for humanitarian response will be affected. This analysis asks, how precise and how well does this index reflect the severity of conditions for people affected by disaster or war? Results: The INFORM Severity Index is calculated from 35 publicly available indicators, which conceptually reflect the severity of each crisis. We used 172 unique global crises from the INFORM Severity Index database that occurred January 1 to November 30, 2019 or were ongoing by this date. We applied exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to determine common factors within the dataset. We then applied a second-order confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to predict crisis severity as a latent construct. Model fit was assessed via chi-square goodness-of-fit statistic, Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). The EFA models suggested a 3- or 4- factor solution, with 46% and 53% variance explained in each model, respectively. The final CFA was parsimonious, containing three factors comprised of 11 indicators, with reasonable model fit (Chi-squared=107, with 40 degrees of freedom, CFI=0.94, TLI=0.92, RMSEA=0.10). In the second-order CFA, the magnitude of standardized factor-loading on the 'societal governance' latent construct had the strongest association with the latent construct of 'crisis severity' (0.73), followed by the 'humanitarian access/safety' construct (0.56). Conclusion(s): A metric of crisis-severity is a critical step towards improving humanitarian response, but only when it reflects real life conditions. Our work is a first step in refining an existing framework to better quantify crisis severity. 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 As of 26 March 2021, the Africa CDC had reported 4,159,055 cases of COVID-19 and 111,357 deaths among the 55 African Union Member States; however, no country has published a nationally representative serosurvey as of May 2021. Such data are vital for understanding the pandemic's progression on the continent, evaluating containment measures, and policy planning. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional, nationally representative, age-stratified serosurvey in Sierra Leone in March 2021 by randomly selecting 120 Enumeration Areas throughout the country and 10 randomly selected households in each of these. One to two persons per selected household were interviewed to collect information on socio-demographics, symptoms suggestive of COVID-19, exposure history to laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases, and history of COVID-19 illness. Capillary blood was collected by fingerstick, and blood samples were tested using the Hangzhou Biotest Biotech RightSign COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test Cassette. Total seroprevalence was was estimated after applying sampling weights. Findings The overall weighted seroprevalence was 2.6% (95% CI 1.9-3.4). This is 43 times higher than the reported number of cases. Rural seropositivity was 1.8% (95% CI 1.0-2.5), and urban seropositivity was 4.2% (95% CI 2.6-5.7). Interpretation Although overall seroprevalence was low compared to countries in Europe and the Americas (suggesting relatively successful containment in Sierra Leone), our findings indicate enormous underreporting of active cases. This has ramifications for the country's third wave (which started in June 2021), where the average number of daily reported cases was 87 by the end of the month: this could potentially be on the order of 3,700 actual infections, calling for stronger containment measures in a country with only 0.2% of people fully vaccinated. It may also reflect significant underreporting of incidence and mortality across the continent.

BACKGROUND: Those responding to humanitarian crises have an ethical imperative to respond most where the need is greatest. Metrics are used to estimate the severity of a given crisis. The INFORM Severity Index, one such metric, has become widely used to guide policy makers in humanitarian response decision making. The index, however, has not undergone critical statistical review. If imprecise or incorrect, the quality of decision making for humanitarian response will be affected. This analysis asks, how precise and how well does this index reflect the severity of conditions for people affected by disaster or war? RESULTS: The INFORM Severity Index is calculated from 35 publicly available indicators, which conceptually reflect the severity of each crisis. We used 172 unique global crises from the INFORM Severity Index database that occurred January 1 to November 30, 2019 or were ongoing by this date. We applied exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to determine common factors within the dataset. We then applied a second-order confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to predict crisis severity as a latent construct. Model fit was assessed via chi-square goodness-of-fit statistic, Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). The EFA models suggested a 3- or 4- factor solution, with 46 and 53% variance explained in each model, respectively. The final CFA was parsimonious, containing three factors comprised of 11 indicators, with reasonable model fit (Chi-squared = 107, with 40 degrees of freedom, CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.92, RMSEA = 0.10). In the second-order CFA, the magnitude of standardized factor-loading on the 'societal governance' latent construct had the strongest association with the latent construct of 'crisis severity' (0.73), followed by the 'humanitarian access/safety' construct (0.56). CONCLUSIONS: A metric of crisis-severity is a critical step towards improving humanitarian response, but only when it reflects real life conditions. Our work is a first step in refining an existing framework to better quantify crisis severity.

Childhood lead exposure remains a key health concern for officials worldwide, contributing some 600,000 new cases of intellectually disabled children annually. Most children affected by high exposure to lead live in low- and middle-income countries. The leaded gasoline phase out in India was completed in 2000. Yet, in 2020, an estimated 275 million children aged 0 to 9 years had blood lead levels (BLLs) 5 g/dL known to adversely affect intelligence and behavior. Lead sources reported in India include spices, cookware, paint, traditional medicines and cosmetics, and lead-acid battery recycling and repair. However, their relative contribution has not been characterized. More than 200 lead pollution sites related to battery recycling and repair activities were identified in Bihar and Jharkhand, India. Ninety percent of the recycling sites had soil lead concentrations exceeding the US Environmental Protection Agency's standards. We compared blood and environmental lead levels in two groups of children in Patna, Bihar. Households in proximity to battery recycling operations (Proximal n = 67) versus households distal to these operations (Distal n = 68). The average age of children was 40 months; 46% were female. Overall, the geometric mean (GM) BLL was 11.6 g/dL. GM BLLs of children in Proximal and Distal households were not significantly different (10.2 g/dL vs. 13.1 g/dL respectively; p0.07). About 87% children, 56 Proximal and 62 Distal had BLLs 5 g/dl. Lead concentrations in environmental samples were significantly higher in Proximal households (soil mean 9.8 vs. 1.6 g/ft2; dust mean 52.9 vs. 29.9 g/ft2 p<0.001; Proximal vs. Distal respectively) whereas concentrations in all spices were higher in Distal households (mean 46.8 vs 134.5 ppm p<0.001; Proximal vs. Distal respectively), and turmeric (mean 59.4 vs. 216.9 ppm Proximal vs. Distal respectively). In multivariate analyses for all children lead in spices and turmeric and number of rooms in the house were significant while for the Proximal group only lead in spices remained in the model. The predictive value of these models was poor. For the Distal group, a model with lead concentration in spices, turmeric and soil and number of rooms in the house was a much better fit. Of the 34 water samples collected, 7 were above the Indian standard of 10 ppb for lead in drinking water (2 in the Proximal area, 5 in the Distal area). Children in Patna, Bihar, India are exposed to multiple sources of lead, with lead levels in house dust and loose, locally sourced spices the most likely to increase blood lead levels. A holistic approach to blood lead testing and source identification and remediation are necessary to prevent lead exposure.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effectiveness of mRNA vaccines against moderate and severe covid-19 in adults by time since second, third, or fourth doses, and by age and immunocompromised status. DESIGN: Test negative case-control study. SETTING: Hospitals, emergency departments, and urgent care clinics in 10 US states, 17 January 2021 to 12 July 2022. PARTICIPANTS: 893 461 adults (≥18 years) admitted to one of 261 hospitals or to one of 272 emergency department or 119 urgent care centers for covid-like illness tested for SARS-CoV-2. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome was waning of vaccine effectiveness with BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccine during the omicron and delta periods, and the period before delta was dominant using logistic regression conditioned on calendar week and geographic area while adjusting for age, race, ethnicity, local virus circulation, immunocompromised status, and likelihood of being vaccinated. RESULTS: 45 903 people admitted to hospital with covid-19 (cases) were compared with 213 103 people with covid-like illness who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 (controls), and 103 287 people admitted to emergency department or urgent care with covid-19 (cases) were compared with 531 168 people with covid-like illness who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2. In the omicron period, vaccine effectiveness against covid-19 requiring admission to hospital was 89% (95% confidence interval 88% to 90%) within two months after dose 3 but waned to 66% (63% to 68%) by four to five months. Vaccine effectiveness of three doses against emergency department or urgent care visits was 83% (82% to 84%) initially but waned to 46% (44% to 49%) by four to five months. Waning was evident in all subgroups, including young adults and individuals who were not immunocompromised; although waning was morein people who were immunocompromised. Vaccine effectiveness increased among most groups after a fourth dose in whom this booster was recommended. CONCLUSIONS: Effectiveness of mRNA vaccines against moderate and severe covid-19 waned with time after vaccination. The findings support recommendations for a booster dose after a primary series and consideration of additional booster doses.

THIS REPORT UPDATES THE 2021-22 RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON IMMUNIZATION PRACTICES (ACIP) CONCERNING THE USE OF SEASONAL INFLUENZA VACCINES IN THE UNITED STATES: (MMWR Recomm Rep 2021;70[No. RR-5]:1-24). Routine annual influenza vaccination is recommended for all persons aged ≥6 months who do not have contraindications. For each recipient, a licensed and age-appropriate vaccine should be used. With the exception of vaccination for adults aged ≥65 years, ACIP makes no preferential recommendation for a specific vaccine when more than one licensed, recommended, and age-appropriate vaccine is available. All seasonal influenza vaccines expected to be available in the United States for the 2022-23 season are quadrivalent, containing hemagglutinin (HA) derived from one influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 virus, one influenza A(H3N2) virus, one influenza B/Victoria lineage virus, and one influenza B/Yamagata lineage virus. Inactivated influenza vaccines (IIV4s), recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV4), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV4) are expected to be available. Trivalent influenza vaccines are no longer available, but data that involve these vaccines are included for reference. INFLUENZA VACCINES MIGHT BE AVAILABLE AS EARLY AS JULY OR AUGUST, BUT FOR MOST PERSONS WHO NEED ONLY 1 DOSE OF INFLUENZA VACCINE FOR THE SEASON, VACCINATION SHOULD IDEALLY BE OFFERED DURING SEPTEMBER OR OCTOBER. HOWEVER, VACCINATION SHOULD CONTINUE AFTER OCTOBER AND THROUGHOUT THE SEASON AS LONG AS INFLUENZA VIRUSES ARE CIRCULATING AND UNEXPIRED VACCINE IS AVAILABLE. FOR MOST ADULTS (PARTICULARLY ADULTS AGED ≥65 YEARS) AND FOR PREGNANT PERSONS IN THE FIRST OR SECOND TRIMESTER, VACCINATION DURING JULY AND AUGUST SHOULD BE AVOIDED UNLESS THERE IS CONCERN THAT VACCINATION LATER IN THE SEASON MIGHT NOT BE POSSIBLE. CERTAIN CHILDREN AGED 6 MONTHS THROUGH 8 YEARS NEED 2 DOSES; THESE CHILDREN SHOULD RECEIVE THE FIRST DOSE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AFTER VACCINE IS AVAILABLE, INCLUDING DURING JULY AND AUGUST. VACCINATION DURING JULY AND AUGUST CAN BE CONSIDERED FOR CHILDREN OF ANY AGE WHO NEED ONLY 1 DOSE FOR THE SEASON AND FOR PREGNANT PERSONS WHO ARE IN THE THIRD TRIMESTER IF VACCINE IS AVAILABLE DURING THOSE MONTHS: UPDATES DESCRIBED IN THIS REPORT REFLECT DISCUSSIONS DURING PUBLIC MEETINGS OF ACIP THAT WERE HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 2021; JANUARY 12, 2022; FEBRUARY 23, 2022; AND JUNE 22, 2022. PRIMARY UPDATES TO THIS REPORT INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING THREE TOPICS: 1) THE COMPOSITION OF 2022-23 U.S. SEASONAL INFLUENZA VACCINES; 2) UPDATES TO THE DESCRIPTION OF INFLUENZA VACCINES EXPECTED TO BE AVAILABLE FOR THE 2022-23 SEASON, INCLUDING ONE INFLUENZA VACCINE LABELING CHANGE THAT OCCURRED AFTER THE PUBLICATION OF THE 2021-22 ACIP INFLUENZA RECOMMENDATIONS; AND 3) UPDATES TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING VACCINATION OF ADULTS AGED ≥65 YEARS. FIRST, THE COMPOSITION OF 2022-23 U.S. INFLUENZA VACCINES INCLUDES UPDATES TO THE INFLUENZA A(H3N2) AND INFLUENZA B/VICTORIA LINEAGE COMPONENTS. U.S.-LICENSED INFLUENZA VACCINES WILL CONTAIN HA DERIVED FROM AN INFLUENZA A/VICTORIA/2570/2019 (H1N1)PDM09-LIKE VIRUS (FOR EGG-BASED VACCINES) OR AN INFLUENZA A/WISCONSIN/588/2019 (H1N1)PDM09-LIKE VIRUS (FOR CELL CULTURE-BASED OR RECOMBINANT VACCINES); AN INFLUENZA A/DARWIN/9/2021 (H3N2)-LIKE VIRUS (FOR EGG-BASED VACCINES) OR AN INFLUENZA A/DARWIN/6/2021 (H3N2)-LIKE VIRUS (FOR CELL CULTURE-BASED OR RECOMBINANT VACCINES); AN INFLUENZA B/AUSTRIA/1359417/2021 (VICTORIA LINEAGE)-LIKE VIRUS; AND AN INFLUENZA B/PHUKET/3073/2013 (YAMAGATA LINEAGE)-LIKE VIRUS. SECOND, THE APPROVED AGE INDICATION FOR THE CELL CULTURE-BASED INACTIVATED INFLUENZA VACCINE, FLUCELVAX QUADRIVALENT (CCIIV4), WAS CHANGED IN OCTOBER 2021 FROM ≥2 YEARS TO ≥6 MONTHS. THIRD, RECOMMENDATIONS FOR VACCINATION OF ADULTS AGED ≥65 YEARS HAVE BEEN MODIFIED. ACIP RECOMMENDS THAT ADULTS AGED ≥65 YEARS PREFERENTIALLY RECEIVE ANY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING HIGHER DOSE OR ADJUVANTED INFLUENZA VACCINES: QUADRIVALENT HIGH-DOSE INACTIVATED INFLUENZA VACCINE (HD-IIV4), QUADRIVALENT RECOMBINANT INFLUENZA VACCINE (RIV4), OR QUADRIVALENT ADJUVANTED INACTIVATED INFLUENZA VACCINE (AIIV4). IF NONE OF THESE THREE VACCINES IS AVAILABLE AT AN OPPORTUNITY FOR VACCINE ADMINISTRATION, THEN ANY OTHER AGE-APPROPRIATE INFLUENZA VACCINE SHOULD BE USED: THIS REPORT FOCUSES ON RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE USE OF VACCINES FOR THE PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF SEASONAL INFLUENZA DURING THE 2022-23 INFLUENZA SEASON IN THE UNITED STATES. A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND A LINK TO THE MOST RECENT BACKGROUND DOCUMENT CONTAINING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ARE AVAILABLE AT: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/vacc-specific/flu.html. These recommendations apply to U.S.-licensed influenza vaccines used according to Food and Drug Administration-licensed indications. Updates and other information are available from CDC's influenza website (https://www.cdc.gov/flu). Vaccination and health care providers should check this site periodically for additional information.

Rabies is one of the most lethal infectious diseases, with those living in Asia and Africa having the highest risk of dying from rabies. We conducted a knowledge, attitudes and practices survey in urban and peri-urban areas of Bangladesh to describe canine bite rates, rabies knowledge, and healthcare seeking behaviors and barriers to human and dog vaccination. A bite risk assessment score (BRAS) and healthcare-seeking behavior score (HSBS) was calculated for each bite victim. Respondents were given two hypothetical situations to assess potential behaviors after a bite and willingness to pay for rabies vaccine and immunoglobulin. In total, 2,447 households participated in the survey and 85 bite victims were identified. The BRAS identified that 31% of bites posed no risk of rabies transmission. Multivariate analyses showed that living in Chittagong (β = 1.4; 95% CI: 0.1, 2.7) was associated with a higher HSBS. Findings presented here provide useful information regarding bite occurrences, healthcare-seeking behaviors, and a need for strategies to increase rabies awareness.

INTRODUCTION: Prevalence surveys conducted in geographically small areas such as towns, zip codes, neighborhoods or census tracts are a valuable tool for estimating the extent to which environmental risks contribute to children's blood lead levels (BLLs). Population-based, cross-sectional small area prevalence surveys assessing BLLs can be used to establish a baseline lead exposure prevalence for a specific geographic region. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The required statistical methods, biological and environmental sampling, supportive data, and fieldwork considerations necessary for public health organizations to rapidly conduct child blood lead prevalence surveys at low cost using small area, cluster sampling methodology are described. RESULTS: Comprehensive small area prevalence surveys include partner identification, background data collection, review of the assessment area, resource availability determinations, sample size calculations, obtaining the consent of survey participants, survey administration, blood lead analysis, environmental sampling, educational outreach, follow-up and referral, data entry/analysis, and report production. DISCUSSION: Survey results can be used to estimate the geographic distribution of elevated BLLs and to investigate inequitable lead exposures and risk factors of interest. CONCLUSIONS: Public health officials who wish to assess child and household-level blood lead data can quickly apply the data collection methodologies using this standardized protocol here to target resources and obtain assistance with these complex procedures. The standardized methods allow for comparisons across geographic areas and over time.

Human rabies is an acute, progressive encephalomyelitis that is nearly always fatal once symptoms begin. Several measures have been implemented to prevent human rabies in the United States, including vaccination of targeted domesticated and wild animals, avoidance of behaviors that might precipitate an exposure (e.g., provoking high-risk animals), awareness of the types of animal contact that require postexposure prophylaxis (PEP), and use of proper personal protective equipment when handling animals or laboratory specimens. PEP is widely available in the United States and highly effective if administered after an exposure occurs. A small subset of persons has a higher level of risk for being exposed to rabies virus than does the general U.S. population; these persons are recommended to receive preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP), a series of human rabies vaccine doses administered before an exposure occurs, in addition to PEP after an exposure. PrEP does not eliminate the need for PEP; however, it does simplify the rabies PEP schedule (i.e., eliminates the need for rabies immunoglobulin and decreases the number of vaccine doses required for PEP). As rabies epidemiology has evolved and vaccine safety and efficacy have improved, Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommendations to prevent human rabies have changed. During September 2019-November 2021, the ACIP Rabies Work Group considered updates to the 2008 ACIP recommendations by evaluating newly published data, reviewing frequently asked questions, and identifying barriers to adherence to previous ACIP rabies vaccination recommendations. Topics were presented and discussed during six ACIP meetings. The following modifications to PrEP are summarized in this report: 1) redefined risk categories; 2) fewer vaccine doses in the primary vaccination schedule; 3) flexible options for ensuring long-term protection, or immunogenicity; 4) less frequent or no antibody titer checks for some risk groups; 5) a new minimum rabies antibody titer (0.5 international units [IUs]) per mL); and 6) clinical guidance, including for ensuring effective vaccination of certain special populations.

Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever (CCHF) is a highly fatal zoonotic disease endemic to Kazakhstan. Previous work estimated the seroprevalence of CCHF virus (CCHFV) among livestock owners in the Zhambyl region of southern Kazakhstan at 1.2%. To estimate CCHFV seroprevalence among cattle and sheep, we selected 15 villages with known history of CCHFV circulation (endemic) and 15 villages without known circulation (nonendemic) by cluster sampling with probability proportional to livestock population size. We collected whole blood samples from 521 sheep and 454 cattle from randomly selected households within each village and collected ticks found on the animals. We tested livestock blood for CCHFV-specific IgG antibodies by ELISA; ticks were screened for CCHFV RNA by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction and CCHFV antigen by antigen-capture ELISA. We administered questionnaires covering animal demographics and livestock herd characteristics to an adult in each selected household. Overall weighted seroprevalence was 5.7% (95% CI: 3.1, 10.3) among sheep and 22.5% (95% CI: 15.8, 31.2) among cattle. CCHFV-positive tick pools were found on two sheep (2.4%, 95% CI: 0.6, 9.5) and three cattle (3.8%, 95% CI: 1.2, 11.5); three CCHFV-positive tick pools were found in nonendemic villages. Endemic villages reported higher seroprevalence among sheep (15.5% versus 2.8%, P < 0.001) but not cattle (25.9% versus 20.1%, P = 0.42). Findings suggest that the current village classification scheme may not reflect the geographic distribution of CCHFV in Zhambyl and underscore that public health measures must address the risk of CCHF even in areas without a known history of circulation.

BACKGROUND: Assessing the global risk of rabies exposure is a complicated task requiring individual risk assessments, knowledge of rabies epidemiology, surveillance capacity, and accessibility of rabies biologics on a national and regional scale. In many parts of the world, availability of this information is limited and when available is often dispersed across multiple sources. This hinders the process of making evidence-based health and policy recommendations to prevent the introduction and spread of rabies. METHODS: CDC conducted a country-by-country qualitative assessment of risk and protective factors for rabies to develop an open-access database of core metrics consisting of the presence of Lyssaviruses (specifically canine or wildlife rabies virus variants or other bat Lyssaviruses), access to rabies immunoglobulins and vaccines, rabies surveillance capacity, and canine rabies control capacity. Using these metrics, we developed separate risk scoring systems to inform rabies prevention guidance for travelers and regulations for the importation of dogs. Both scoring systems assigned higher risk to countries with enzootic rabies (particularly canine rabies), and the risk scoring system for travelers also considered protective factors such as the accessibility of rabies biologics for postexposure prophylaxis. Cumulative scores were calculated across the assessed metrics to assign a risk value of low, moderate, or high. RESULTS: A total of 240 countries, territories, and dependencies were assessed, for travelers, 116 were identified as moderate to high risk and 124 were low or no risk; for canine rabies virus variant importation, 111 were identified as high-risk and 129 were low or no risk. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a comprehensive and easily accessible source of information for assessing the rabies risk for individual countries that included a database of rabies risk and protective factors based on enzootic status and availability of biologics, provided a resource that categorizes risk by country, and provided guidance based on these risk categories for travelers and importers of dogs into the United States.

CDC recommends that all persons aged ≥12 years receive a booster dose of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine ≥5 months after completion of a primary mRNA vaccination series and that immunocompromised persons receive a third primary dose.* Waning of vaccine protection after 2 doses of mRNA vaccine has been observed during the period of the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant predominance(†) (1-5), but little is known about durability of protection after 3 doses during periods of Delta or SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 (Omicron) variant predominance. A test-negative case-control study design using data from eight VISION Network sites(§) examined vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19 emergency department/urgent care (ED/UC) visits and hospitalizations among U.S. adults aged ≥18 years at various time points after receipt of a second or third vaccine dose during two periods: Delta variant predominance and Omicron variant predominance (i.e., periods when each variant accounted for ≥50% of sequenced isolates).(¶) Persons categorized as having received 3 doses included those who received a third dose in a primary series or a booster dose after a 2 dose primary series (including the reduced-dosage Moderna booster). The VISION Network analyzed 241,204 ED/UC encounters** and 93,408 hospitalizations across 10 states during August 26, 2021-January 22, 2022. VE after receipt of both 2 and 3 doses was lower during the Omicron-predominant than during the Delta-predominant period at all time points evaluated. During both periods, VE after receipt of a third dose was higher than that after a second dose; however, VE waned with increasing time since vaccination. During the Omicron period, VE against ED/UC visits was 87% during the first 2 months after a third dose and decreased to 66% among those vaccinated 4-5 months earlier; VE against hospitalizations was 91% during the first 2 months following a third dose and decreased to 78% ≥4 months after a third dose. For both Delta- and Omicron-predominant periods, VE was generally higher for protection against hospitalizations than against ED/UC visits. All eligible persons should remain up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccinations to best protect against COVID-19-associated hospitalizations and ED/UC visits.

BACKGROUND: From April to June 2019, a total of 909 new HIV infections were identified in Larkana, Pakistan; 86% was children younger than 15 years. To identify the possible transmission links in this outbreak, a case-control study was conducted in June 2019. METHODS: For cases, we selected a systematic random sample of 100 HIV-positive children from the screening list. We chose 2 age-matched and sex-matched controls from the neighborhood of each HIV-positive case. All selected children were tested using the World Health Organization-approved rapid diagnosis test algorithm. We interviewed the parents of each selected child about previous exposures to parenteral treatment and compared exposures of case and control children using conditional logistic regression. RESULTS: The ages of the selected children ranged from 1 month to 10 years. More than 90% of both HIV+ and HIV- children had received outpatient health care from MBBS-qualified private physicians. Eighty-three percent of HIV+ children versus 46% of HIV- children had received health care from one private physician [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 29, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 10 to 79]. Intravenous infusions during the last outpatient visit were reported by 29% of case versus 7% of controls (aOR 57, 95% CI: 2.9 to >1000), whereas no case children and 17% of control children had received only intramuscular injections (aOR 0, 95% CI: 0 to 41). Among cases, 94% had been given infusions through a drip set compared with 85% of control children (aOR = 7.7, 95% CI: 2.3 to 26). Infusions had been administered with reused IV drip sets in 70% of cases compared with 8% of controls (aOR = 197, 95% CI: 16 to 2400). DISCUSSION: Private physicians reusing intravenous drip sets to treat outpatients seen in private practice were responsible for this HIV epidemic. Mapping and regulation of private practitioners were suggested.

In preparation for the National Hepatitis C Elimination Program in the country of Georgia, a nationwide household-based hepatitis C virus (HCV) seroprevalence survey was conducted in 2015. Data were used to estimate HCV genotype distribution and better understand potential sex-specific risk factors that contribute to HCV transmission. HCV genotype distribution by sex and reported risk factors were calculated. We used explanatory logistic regression models stratified by sex to identify behavioral and healthcare-related risk factors for HCV seropositivity, and predictive logistic regression models to identify additional variables that could help predict the presence of infection. Factors associated with HCV seropositivity in explanatory models included, among males, history of injection drug use (IDU) (aOR = 22.4, 95% CI = 12.7, 39.8) and receiving a blood transfusion (aOR = 3.6, 95% CI = 1.4, 8.8), and among females, history of receiving a blood transfusion (aOR = 4.0, 95% CI 2.1, 7.7), kidney dialysis (aOR = 7.3 95% CI 1.5, 35.3) and surgery (aOR = 1.9, 95% CI 1.1, 3.2). The male-specific predictive model additionally identified age, urban residence, and history of incarceration as factors predictive of seropositivity and were used to create a male-specific exposure index (Area under the curve [AUC] = 0.84). The female-specific predictive model had insufficient discriminatory performance to support creating an exposure index (AUC = 0.61). The most prevalent HCV genotype (GT) nationally was GT1b (40.5%), followed by GT3 (34.7%) and GT2 (23.6%). Risk factors for HCV seropositivity and distribution of HCV genotypes in Georgia vary substantially by sex. The HCV exposure index developed for males could be used to inform targeted testing programs.

Immunocompromised persons, defined as those with suppressed humoral or cellular immunity resulting from health conditions or medications, account for approximately 3% of the US adult population.1 Immunocompromised adults are at increased risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes2 and might not acquire the same level of protection from COVID-19 mRNA vaccines as do immunocompetent adults.3 , 4 To evaluate vaccine effectiveness (VE) among immunocompromised adults, data from the VISION Network1 on hospitalizations among persons aged ≥18 years with COVID-19–like illness from 187 hospitals in nine states during January 17–September 5, 2021 were analyzed. Using selected discharge diagnoses,2 VE against COVID-19–associated hospitalization conferred by completing a two-dose series of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine ≥14 days before the index hospitalization date3 (i.e., being fully vaccinated) was evaluated using a test-negative design comparing 20,101 immunocompromised adults (10,564 [53%] of whom were fully vaccinated) and 69,116 immunocompetent adults (29,456 [43%] of whom were fully vaccinated). VE of two doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine against COVID-19–associated hospitalization was lower among immunocompromised patients (77%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 74%–80%) than among immunocompetent patients (90%; 95% CI = 89%–91%). This difference persisted irrespective of mRNA vaccine product, age group, and timing of hospitalization relative to SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant predominance in the state of hospitalization. VE varied across immunocompromising condition subgroups, ranging from 59% (organ or stem cell transplant recipients) to 81% (persons with a rheumatologic or inflammatory disorder). Immunocompromised persons benefit from mRNA COVID-19 vaccination but are less protected from severe COVID-19 outcomes than are immunocompetent persons, and VE varies among immunocompromised subgroups. Immunocompromised persons receiving mRNA COVID-19 vaccines should receive three doses and a booster, consistent with CDC recommendations,5 practice nonpharmaceutical interventions, and, if infected, be monitored closely and considered early for proven therapies that can prevent severe outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Data on the development of neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 after SARS-CoV-2 infection and after vaccination with messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccines are limited. METHODS: From a prospective cohort of 3,975 adult essential and frontline workers tested weekly from August 2020 to March 2021 for SARS-CoV-2 infection by Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) assay irrespective of symptoms, 497 participants had sera drawn after infection (170), vaccination (327), and after both infection and vaccination (50 from the infection population). Serum was collected after infection and each vaccine dose. Serum-neutralizing antibody titers against USA-WA1/2020-spike pseudotype virus were determined by the 50% inhibitory dilution. Geometric mean titers (GMTs) and corresponding fold increases were calculated using t-tests and linear mixed effects models. RESULTS: Among 170 unvaccinated participants with SARS-CoV-2 infection, 158 (93%) developed neutralizing antibodies (nAb) with a GMT of 1,003 (95% CI=766-1,315). Among 139 previously uninfected participants, 138 (99%) developed nAb after mRNA vaccine dose-2 with a GMT of 3,257 (95% CI = 2,596-4,052). GMT was higher among those receiving mRNA-1273 vaccine (GMT =4,698, 95%CI= 3,186-6,926) compared to BNT162b2 vaccine (GMT=2,309, 95%CI=1,825-2,919). Among 32 participants with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, GMT was 21,655 (95%CI=14,766-31,756) after mRNA vaccine dose-1, without further increase after dose-2. CONCLUSIONS: A single dose of mRNA vaccine after SARS-CoV-2 infection resulted in the highest observed nAb response. Two doses of mRNA vaccine in previously uninfected participants resulted in higher nAb to SARS-CoV-2 than after one dose of vaccine or SARS-CoV-2 infection alone. Neutralizing antibody response also differed by mRNA vaccine product.

Population-based rates of infection with SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) and related health care utilization help determine estimates of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness and averted illnesses, especially since the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant began circulating in June 2021. Among members aged ≥12 years of a large integrated health care delivery system in Oregon and Washington, incidence of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, emergency department (ED) visits, and hospitalizations were calculated by COVID-19 vaccination status, vaccine product, age, race, and ethnicity. Infection after full vaccination was defined as a positive SARS-CoV-2 molecular test result ≥14 days after completion of an authorized COVID-19 vaccination series.* During the July-September 2021 surveillance period, SARS-CoV-2 infection occurred among 4,146 of 137,616 unvaccinated persons (30.1 per 1,000 persons) and 3,009 of 344,848 fully vaccinated persons (8.7 per 1,000). Incidence was higher among unvaccinated persons than among vaccinated persons across all demographic strata. Unvaccinated persons with SARS-CoV-2 infection were more than twice as likely to receive ED care (18.5%) or to be hospitalized (9.0%) than were vaccinated persons with COVID-19 (8.1% and 3.9%, respectively). The crude mortality rate was also higher among unvaccinated patients (0.43 per 1,000) than in fully vaccinated patients (0.06 per 1,000). These data support CDC recommendations for COVID-19 vaccination, including additional and booster doses, to protect individual persons and communities against COVID-19, including illness and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant (1).

INTRODUCTION: As of 26 March 2021, the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention had reported 4 159 055 cases of COVID-19 and 111 357 deaths among the 55 African Union member states; however, no country has published a nationally representative serosurvey as of October 2021. Such data are vital for understanding the pandemic's progression on the continent, evaluating containment measures, and policy planning. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional, nationally representative, age-stratified serosurvey in Sierra Leone in March 2021 by randomly selecting 120 Enumeration Areas throughout the country and 10 randomly selected households in each of these. One to two persons per selected household were interviewed to collect information on sociodemographics, symptoms suggestive of COVID-19, exposure history to laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases, and history of COVID-19 illness. Capillary blood was collected by fingerstick, and blood samples were tested using the Hangzhou Biotest Biotech RightSign COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test Cassette. Total seroprevalence was estimated after applying sampling weights. RESULTS: The overall weighted seroprevalence was 2.6% (95% CI 1.9% to 3.4%). This was 43 times higher than the reported number of cases. Rural seropositivity was 1.8% (95% CI 1.0% to 2.5%), and urban seropositivity was 4.2% (95% CI 2.6% to 5.7%). DISCUSSION: Overall seroprevalence was low compared with countries in Europe and the Americas (suggesting relatively successful containment in Sierra Leone). This has ramifications for the country's third wave (which started in June 2021), during which the average number of daily reported cases was 87 by the end of the month:this could potentially be on the order of 3700 actual infections per day, calling for stronger containment measures in a country with only 0.2% of people fully vaccinated. It may also reflect significant under-reporting of incidence and mortality across the continent.

Background: Robust dog vaccination coverage is the primary way to eliminate canine rabies. Haiti conducts annual canine mass vaccination campaigns, but still has the most human deaths in the Latin American and Caribbean region. We conducted an evaluation of dog vaccination methods in Haiti to determine if more intensive, data-driven vaccination methods, using smartphones for data reporting and geo-communication, could increase vaccination coverage to a level capable of disrupting rabies virus transmission. Methods: Two cities were designated into "Traditional" and "Technology-aided" vaccination areas. Traditional areas utilized historical methods of vaccination staff management, whereas Technology-aided areas used smartphone-supported spatial coordination and management of vaccination teams. Smartphones enabled real time two-way geo-communication between campaign managers and vaccinators. Campaign managers provided geographic instruction to vaccinators by assigning mapped daily vaccination boundaries displayed on phone handsets, whilst vaccinators uploaded spatial data of dogs vaccinated for review by the campaign manager to inform assignment of subsequent vaccination zones. The methods were evaluated for vaccination effort, coverage, and cost. Results: A total of 11,420 dogs were vaccinated during the 14-day campaign. The technology-aided approach achieved 80% estimated vaccination coverage as compared to 44% in traditional areas. Daily vaccination rate was higher in Traditional areas (41.7 vaccinations per team-day) compared to in technology-aided areas (26.8) but resulted in significantly lower vaccination coverages. The cost per dog vaccinated increased exponentially with the associated vaccination coverage, with a cost of $1.86 to achieve 25%, $2.51 for 50% coverage, and $3.19 for 70% coverage. Conclusions: Traditional vaccination methods failed to achieve sufficiently high vaccination coverages needed to interrupt sustained rabies virus transmission, whilst the technology-aided approach increased coverage above this critical threshold. Over successive campaigns, this difference is likely to represent the success or failure of the intervention in eliminating the rabies virus. Technology-aided vaccination should be considered in resource limited settings where rabies has not been controlled by Traditional vaccination methods. The use of technology to direct health care workers based on near-real-time spatial data from the field has myriad potential applications in other vaccination and public health initiatives.

Immunocompromised persons, defined as those with suppressed humoral or cellular immunity resulting from health conditions or medications, account for approximately 3% of the U.S. adult population (1). Immunocompromised adults are at increased risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes (2) and might not acquire the same level of protection from COVID-19 mRNA vaccines as do immunocompetent adults (3,4). To evaluate vaccine effectiveness (VE) among immunocompromised adults, data from the VISION Network* on hospitalizations among persons aged ≥18 years with COVID-19-like illness from 187 hospitals in nine states during January 17-September 5, 2021 were analyzed. Using selected discharge diagnoses,(†) VE against COVID-19-associated hospitalization conferred by completing a 2-dose series of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine ≥14 days before the index hospitalization date(§) (i.e., being fully vaccinated) was evaluated using a test-negative design comparing 20,101 immunocompromised adults (10,564 [53%] of whom were fully vaccinated) and 69,116 immunocompetent adults (29,456 [43%] of whom were fully vaccinated). VE of 2 doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was lower among immunocompromised patients (77%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 74%-80%) than among immunocompetent patients (90%; 95% CI = 89%-91%). This difference persisted irrespective of mRNA vaccine product, age group, and timing of hospitalization relative to SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant predominance in the state of hospitalization. VE varied across immunocompromising condition subgroups, ranging from 59% (organ or stem cell transplant recipients) to 81% (persons with a rheumatologic or inflammatory disorder). Immunocompromised persons benefit from mRNA COVID-19 vaccination but are less protected from severe COVID-19 outcomes than are immunocompetent persons, and VE varies among immunocompromised subgroups. Immunocompromised persons receiving mRNA COVID-19 vaccines should receive 3 doses and a booster, consistent with CDC recommendations (5), practice nonpharmaceutical interventions, and, if infected, be monitored closely and considered early for proven therapies that can prevent severe outcomes.

Previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) or COVID-19 vaccination can provide immunity and protection from subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection and illness. CDC used data from the VISION Network* to examine hospitalizations in adults with COVID-19-like illness and compared the odds of receiving a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result, and thus having laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, between unvaccinated patients with a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection occurring 90-179 days before COVID-19-like illness hospitalization, and patients who were fully vaccinated with an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine 90-179 days before hospitalization with no previous documented SARS-CoV-2 infection. Hospitalized adults aged ≥18 years with COVID-19-like illness were included if they had received testing at least twice: once associated with a COVID-19-like illness hospitalization during January-September 2021 and at least once earlier (since February 1, 2020, and ≥14 days before that hospitalization). Among COVID-19-like illness hospitalizations in persons whose previous infection or vaccination occurred 90-179 days earlier, the odds of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 (adjusted for sociodemographic and health characteristics) among unvaccinated, previously infected adults were higher than the odds among fully vaccinated recipients of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine with no previous documented infection (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 5.49; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.75-10.99). These findings suggest that among hospitalized adults with COVID-19-like illness whose previous infection or vaccination occurred 90-179 days earlier, vaccine-induced immunity was more protective than infection-induced immunity against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. All eligible persons should be vaccinated against COVID-19 as soon as possible, including unvaccinated persons previously infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Tick-borne rickettsial infections are serious, common, and difficult to diagnose. Among the most important factors leading to failure to diagnose and treat tick-borne rickettsioses effectively is a lack of consideration of the potential diagnosis by primary caregivers and emergency department physicians in patients presenting with undifferentiated acute febrile illness during tick season. This situation exists because of insufficient primary and continuing medical education of medical students, primary care and emergency medicine residents, and practicing physicians regarding tick-borne rickettsioses specific to the region where they practice. Delayed initiation of treatment with an appropriate antibiotic is associated with adverse outcomes including increased rates of hospitalization, admission to an intensive care unit, and mortality. The earliest symptoms are nonspecific, consisting of fever, headache, myalgias, and nausea and/or vomiting. Laboratory abnormalities are typically absent at this time when the therapeutic response to an appropriate antibiotic would be optimal. There is a mistaken idea among a substantial portion of physicians that the best antibiotic available, doxycycline, should not be administered to children 8 years of age or younger or during pregnancy. For all of the above reasons, there is unnecessary morbidity and mortality caused by tick-borne rickettsioses. This report proposes measures to address these critical issues regarding tick-borne rickettsioses.

BACKGROUND: An evaluation of postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) surveillance has not been conducted in over 10 years in the United States. An accurate assessment would be important to understand current rabies trends and inform public health preparedness and response to human rabies. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPLE FINDINGS: To understand PEP surveillance, we sent a survey to public health leads for rabies in 50 U.S. states, Puerto Rico, Washington DC, Philadelphia, and New York City. Of leads from 54 jurisdictions, 39 (72%) responded to the survey; 12 reported having PEP-specific surveillance, five had animal bite surveillance that included data about PEP, four had animal bite surveillance without data about PEP, and 18 (46%) had neither. Although 12 jurisdictions provided data about PEP use, poor data quality and lack of national representativeness prevented use of this data to derive a national-level PEP estimate. We used national-level and state specific data from the Healthcare Cost & Utilization Project (HCUP) to estimate the number of people who received PEP based on emergency department (ED) visits. The estimated annual average of initial ED visits for PEP administration during 2012-2017 in the United States was 46,814 (SE: 1,697), costing upwards of 165 million USD. State-level ED data for initial visits for administration of PEP for rabies exposure using HCUP data was compared to state-level surveillance data from Maryland, Vermont, and Georgia between 2012-2017. In all states, state-level surveillance data was consistently lower than estimates of initial ED visits, suggesting even states with robust PEP surveillance may not adequately capture individuals who receive PEP. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that making PEP a nationally reportable condition may not be feasible. Other methods of tracking administration of PEP such as syndromic surveillance or identification of sentinel states should be considered to obtain an accurate assessment.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data on the effectiveness of the vaccines against symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) currently authorized in the United States with respect to hospitalization, admission to an intensive care unit (ICU), or ambulatory care in an emergency department or urgent care clinic. METHODS: We conducted a study involving adults (≥50 years of age) with Covid-19-like illness who underwent molecular testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We assessed 41,552 admissions to 187 hospitals and 21,522 visits to 221 emergency departments or urgent care clinics during the period from January 1 through June 22, 2021, in multiple states. The patients' vaccination status was documented in electronic health records and immunization registries. We used a test-negative design to estimate vaccine effectiveness by comparing the odds of a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 infection among vaccinated patients with those among unvaccinated patients. Vaccine effectiveness was adjusted with weights based on propensity-for-vaccination scores and according to age, geographic region, calendar time (days from January 1, 2021, to the index date for each medical visit), and local virus circulation. RESULTS: The effectiveness of full messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccination (≥14 days after the second dose) was 89% (95% confidence interval [CI], 87 to 91) against laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection leading to hospitalization, 90% (95% CI, 85 to 93) against infection leading to an ICU admission, and 91% (95% CI, 89 to 93) against infection leading to an emergency department or urgent care clinic visit. The effectiveness of full vaccination with respect to a Covid-19-associated hospitalization or emergency department or urgent care clinic visit was similar with the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines and ranged from 81% to 95% among adults 85 years of age or older, persons with chronic medical conditions, and Black or Hispanic adults. The effectiveness of the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine was 68% (95% CI, 50 to 79) against laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection leading to hospitalization and 73% (95% CI, 59 to 82) against infection leading to an emergency department or urgent care clinic visit. CONCLUSIONS: Covid-19 vaccines in the United States were highly effective against SARS-CoV-2 infection requiring hospitalization, ICU admission, or an emergency department or urgent care clinic visit. This vaccine effectiveness extended to populations that are disproportionately affected by SARS-CoV-2 infection. (Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.).