BACKGROUND: Although healthcare personnel (HCP) are targeted for influenza vaccination they typically underutilize vaccines especially in low- and middle-income countries. We explored knowledge, attitudes, and practices of HCP about seasonal influenza vaccines (SIV) to identify factors associated with and modifiable barriers to SIV uptake. METHODS: We pooled individual-level data from cross-sectional surveys about SIV conducted among health workers in 12 low- and middle- income countries during 2018-2020 (i.e., Albania, Armenia, Cote d'Ivoire, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lao PDR, Lebanon, Morocco, North Macedonia, Tunisia, Tajikistan, and Uganda). Eleven countries used a standard protocol and questionnaire based on the Health Belief Model to measure perceptions of susceptibility and severity of influenza disease, benefits of, barriers to, and motivators for vaccination. We analyzed attitudes and perceptions among HCP, including acceptance of vaccine for themselves and willingness to recommend vaccines to patients, grouped by the presence/absence of a national influenza vaccination program. Models were adjusted for geographic region. RESULTS: Our analysis included 10,281 HCP from 12 countries representing four of the six World Health Organization regions: African, Eastern Mediterranean, European, and Western Pacific. The sample was distributed across low income (LIC) (3,183, 31 %), lower-middle (LMIC) (4,744, 46 %), and upper-middle income (UMIC) (2,354, 23 %) countries. Half (50 %) of the countries included in the analysis reported SIV use among HCP in both the year of and the year preceding data collection while the remainder had no influenza vaccination program for HCP. Seventy-four percent (6,341) of HCP reported that they would be willing to be vaccinated if the vaccine was provided free of charge. HCP in LICs were willing to pay prices for SIV representing a higher percentage of their country's annual health expenditure per capita (6.26 % [interquartile range, IQR: 3.13-12.52]) compared to HCP in LMICs and UMICs. HCP in countries with no SIV program were also willing to pay a higher percentage for SIV (5.01 % [IQR: 2.24-8.34]) compared to HCP in countries with SIV programs.. Most (85 %) HCP in our analysis would recommend vaccines to their patients, and those who would accept vaccines for themselves were 3 times more likely to recommend vaccines to their patients (OR 3.1 [95 % CI 1·8, 5·2]). CONCLUSION: Increasing uptake of SIV among HCP can amplify positive impacts of vaccination by increasing the likelihood that HCP recommend vaccines to their patients. Successful strategies to achieve increased uptake of vaccines include clear guidance from health authorities, interventions based on behavior change models, and access to vaccine free-of-charge.

INTRODUCTION: Despite a longstanding Israel Ministry of Health recommendation that all healthcare personnel (HCP) receive a seasonal influenza vaccine, vaccine uptake among HCP remains below the country's target of 60% coverage. To understand factors related to vaccine hesitancy, we used data from a prospective three-year (2016-2019) influenza vaccine effectiveness study among Israeli HCP to examine knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) about influenza vaccination and their association with vaccine uptake. METHODS: At the start of each influenza season, all participating HCP completed a questionnaire that included questions about socio-demographic and occupational characteristics, health status, and KAP related to seasonal influenza vaccination. We extracted vaccination history from electronic medical records and employee vaccination registries. We used logistic regression models to identify demographic and occupational factors, and KAP about influenza vaccination, associated with receipt of vaccination. RESULT: A total of 2,126 HCP were enrolled and had available data on vaccination history. Their median age was 42 years [IQR 35-52], and 73 % self-identified as female. Influenza vaccine uptake in 2016, 2017 and 2018 was 46 %, 48 % and 47 %, respectively. Overall, 36 % of HCP had received an influenza vaccine in ≥ 4 of the eight years prior. HCP aged 35-49 years were less likely to receive influenza vaccine compared to HCP aged ≥ 50 years (OR: 0.81 [95 % CI: 0.67-0.98]). Nurses and allied personnel were less likely to receive influenza vaccine compared to physicians (OR: 0.63 [95 % CI: 0.50-0.78] and OR: 0.53 [95 % CI: 0.40-0.70], respectively). The emotional benefit of vaccination (e.g., anticipating regret if not vaccinated) and the perception of vaccine safety were factors associated with vaccine uptake (OR: 7.60 [95 % CI: 6.27-9.22] and OR: 3.43 [95 % CI:2.91-4.03], respectively). CONCLUSION: Among HCP at two hospitals in Israel, less than half received an annual influenza vaccine. Older HCP, physicians, and those who reported the emotional benefit of vaccination or agreed that influenza vaccines are safe were more likely to be vaccinated. Future influenza vaccination campaigns could focus on these demographic groups and tailor messages emphasizing the emotional benefits of vaccination and vaccine safety to increase seasonal influenza vaccine uptake among HCP in Israel.

What is already known about this topic? | | Effectiveness of seasonal influenza vaccine varies by season and circulating virus type. | | What is added by this report? | | The 2023 Southern Hemisphere seasonal influenza vaccine reduced the risk for influenza-associated hospitalizations by 52%. Circulating influenza viruses were genetically similar to those targeted by the 2023–24 Northern Hemisphere influenza vaccine formulation. This vaccine might offer similar protection if these viruses predominate during the coming Northern Hemisphere influenza season. | | What are the implications for public health practice? | | Vaccination remains one of the most effective ways to protect against influenza-associated complications. In anticipation of Northern Hemisphere influenza virus circulation, CDC recommends that health authorities encourage U.S. health care providers to administer seasonal influenza vaccine to all eligible persons aged ≥6 months.

BACKGROUND: Avian influenza (AI) virus detections occurred frequently in 2022 and continue to pose a health, economic, and food security risk. The most recent global analysis of official reports of animal outbreaks and human infections with all reportable AI viruses was published almost a decade ago. Increased or renewed reports of AI viruses, especially high pathogenicity H5N8 and H5N1 in birds and H5N1, H5N8, and H5N6 in humans globally, have established the need for a comprehensive review of current global AI virus surveillance data to assess the pandemic risk of AI viruses. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to provide an analysis of global AI animal outbreak and human case surveillance information from the last decade by describing the circulating virus subtypes, regions and temporal trends in reporting, and country characteristics associated with AI virus outbreak reporting in animals; surveillance and reporting gaps for animals and humans are identified. METHODS: We analyzed AI virus infection reports among animals and humans submitted to animal and public health authorities from January 2013 to June 2022 and compared them with reports from January 2005 to December 2012. A multivariable regression analysis was used to evaluate associations between variables of interest and reported AI virus animal outbreaks. RESULTS: From 2013 to 2022, 52.2% (95/182) of World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) Member Countries identified 34 AI virus subtypes during 21,249 outbreaks. The most frequently reported subtypes were high pathogenicity AI H5N1 (10,079/21,249, 47.43%) and H5N8 (6722/21,249, 31.63%). A total of 10 high pathogenicity AI and 6 low pathogenicity AI virus subtypes were reported to the WOAH for the first time during 2013-2022. AI outbreaks in animals occurred in 26 more Member Countries than reported in the previous 8 years. Decreasing World Bank income classification was significantly associated with decreases in reported AI outbreaks (P<.001-.02). Between January 2013 and June 2022, 17/194 (8.8%) World Health Organization (WHO) Member States reported 2000 human AI virus infections of 10 virus subtypes. H7N9 (1568/2000, 78.40%) and H5N1 (254/2000, 12.70%) viruses accounted for the most human infections. As many as 8 of these 17 Member States did not report a human case prior to 2013. Of 1953 human cases with available information, 74.81% (n=1461) had a known animal exposure before onset of illness. The median time from illness onset to the notification posted on the WHO event information site was 15 days (IQR 9-30 days; mean 24 days). Seasonality patterns of animal outbreaks and human infections with AI viruses were very similar, occurred year-round, and peaked during November through May. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests that AI outbreaks are more frequently reported and geographically widespread than in the past. Global surveillance gaps include inconsistent reporting from all regions and human infection reporting delays. Continued monitoring for AI virus outbreaks in animals and human infections with AI viruses is crucial for pandemic preparedness.

Background SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks in nursing homes can be large with high case fatality. Identifying asymptomatic individuals early through serial testing is recommended to control COVID-19 in nursing homes, both in response to an outbreak (“outbreak testing” of residents and healthcare personnel) and in facilities without outbreaks (“non-outbreak testing” of healthcare personnel). The effectiveness of outbreak testing and isolation with or without non-outbreak testing was evaluated.Methods Using published SARS-CoV-2 transmission parameters, the fraction of SARS-CoV-2 transmissions prevented through serial testing (weekly, every three days, or daily) and isolation of asymptomatic persons compared to symptom-based testing and isolation was evaluated through mathematical modeling using a Reed-Frost model to estimate the percentage of cases prevented (i.e., “effectiveness”) through either outbreak testing alone or outbreak plus non-outbreak testing. The potential effect of simultaneous decreases (by 10%) in the effectiveness of isolating infected individuals when instituting testing strategies was also evaluated.Results Modeling suggests that outbreak testing could prevent 54% (weekly testing with 48-hour test turnaround) to 92% (daily testing with immediate results and 50% relative sensitivity) of SARS-CoV-2 infections. Adding non-outbreak testing could prevent up to an additional 8% of SARS-CoV-2 infections (depending on test frequency and turnaround time). However, added benefits of non-outbreak testing were mostly negated if accompanied by decreases in infection control practice.Conclusions When combined with high-quality infection control practices, outbreak testing could be an effective approach to preventing COVID-19 in nursing homes, particularly if optimized through increased test frequency and use of tests with rapid turnaround.Summary Mathematical modeling evaluated the effectiveness of serially testing asymptomatic persons in a nursing home in response to a SARS-CoV-2 outbreak with or without serial testing of asymptomatic staff in the absence of known SARS-CoV-2 infections.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNo external funding was received. All work was conducted as part of government duties.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 activity was reviewed by CDC and was conducted consistent with applicable federal law and CDC policy (see e.g., 45 C.F.R. part 46, 21 C.F.R. part 56; 42 U.S.C. 241(d); 5 U.S.C 552a; 44 U.S.C. 351 et seq.).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 provided in supplemental materials or publicly available through links in the manuscript. https://github.com/cdcepi/Nursing-home-SARS-CoV-2-testing-model/

Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the respiratory disease caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), was first identified in Wuhan, China and has since become pandemic. As part of initial response activities in the United States, enhanced contact investigations were conducted to enable early identification and isolation of additional cases and to learn more about risk factors for transmission.Methods Close contacts of nine early travel-related cases in the United States were identified. Close contacts meeting criteria for active monitoring were followed, and selected individuals were targeted for collection of additional exposure details and respiratory samples. Respiratory samples were tested for SARS-CoV-2 by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Results There were 404 close contacts who underwent active monitoring in the response jurisdictions; 338 had at least basic exposure data, of whom 159 had ≥1 set of respiratory samples collected and tested. Across all known close contacts under monitoring, two additional cases were identified; both secondary cases were in spouses of travel-associated case patients. The secondary attack rate among household members, all of whom had ≥1 respiratory sample tested, was 13% (95% CI: 4 – 38%).Conclusions The enhanced contact tracing investigations undertaken around nine early travel-related cases of COVID-19 in the United States identified two cases of secondary transmission, both spouses. Rapid detection and isolation of the travel-associated case patients, enabled by public awareness of COVID-19 among travelers from China, may have mitigated transmission risk among close contacts of these cases.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNo external funding was sought or received.Author DeclarationsAll relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.YesAll 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 may be available upon reasonable request.

Despite offering free-of-charge COVID-19 vaccines starting July 2021, Guatemala has one of the lowest vaccination rates in Latin America. From 28 September 2021 to 11 April 2022, we conducted a cross-sectional survey of community members, adapting a CDC questionnaire to evaluate COVID-19 vaccine access and hesitancy. Of 233 participants ≥ 12 years, 127 (55%) received ≥1 dose of COVID-19 and 4 (2%) reported prior COVID-19 illness. Persons ≥ 12 years old who were unvaccinated (n = 106) were more likely to be female (73% vs. 41%, p < 0.001) and homemakers (69% vs. 24%, p < 0.01) compared with vaccinated participants (n = 127). Among those ≥18 years, the main reported motivation for vaccination among vaccinated participants was to protect the health of family/friends (101/117, 86%); on the other hand, 40 (55%) unvaccinated persons reported little/no confidence in public health institutions recommending COVID-19 vaccination. Community- and/or home-based vaccination programs, including vaccination of families through the workplace, may better reach female homemakers and reduce inequities and hesitancy.

Introduction: Despite a government-subsidized vaccination program, healthcare personnel (HCP) influenza vaccination uptake remains low in Peru. Using three years of cross-sectional surveys and an additional five years of prior vaccination history of HCP in Peru, we explored HCP knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) of influenza illness and its impact on vaccination frequency. Methods: In 2016, the Estudio Vacuna de Influenza Peru (VIP) cohort was initiated in Lima, Peru, which collected information about HCP KAP and influenza vaccination history from 20112018. HCP were classified by their 8-year influenza vaccination history as never (0 years), infrequently (14 years), or frequently (58 years) vaccinated. Logistic regression models were used to describe KAP associated with frequent compared to infrequent influenza vaccination, adjusted for each HCP's healthcare workplace, age, sex, preexisting medical conditions, occupation, and length of time providing direct patient care. Results: From 20162018, 5131 HCP were recruited and 3120 fully enrolled in VIP; 2782 consistently reported influenza vaccination status and became our analytic sample. From 20112018, 14.3% of HCP never, 61.4% infrequently, and 24.4% frequently received influenza vaccines. Compared to HCP who were infrequently vaccinated, frequently vaccinated HCP were more likely to believe they were susceptible to influenza (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]:1.49, 95% confidence interval [CI]:1.221.82), perceived vaccination to be effective (aOR:1.92, 95%CI:1.592.32), were knowledgeable about influenza and vaccination (aOR:1.37, 95%CI:1.061.77), and believed vaccination had emotional benefits like reduced regret or anger if they became ill with influenza (aOR:1.96, 95%CI:1.602.42). HCP who reported vaccination barriers like not having time or a convenient place to receive vaccines had reduced odds of frequent vaccination (aOR:0.74, 95%CI:0.610.89) compared to those without reported barriers. Conclusion: Few HCP frequently received influenza vaccines during an eight-year period. To increase HCP influenza vaccination in middle-income settings like Peru, campaigns could strengthen influenza risk perception, vaccine knowledge, and accessibility. 2023

Introduction: Despite a government-subsidized vaccination program, healthcare personnel (HCP) influenza vaccination uptake remains low in Peru. Using three years of cross-sectional surveys and an additional five years of prior vaccination history of HCP in Peru, we explored HCP knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) of influenza illness and its impact on vaccination frequency. Methods: In 2016, the Estudio Vacuna de Influenza Peru (VIP) cohort was initiated in Lima, Peru, which collected information about HCP KAP and influenza vaccination history from 2011─2018. HCP were classified by their 8-year influenza vaccination history as never (0 years), infrequently (1─4 years), or frequently (5─8 years) vaccinated. Logistic regression models were used to describe KAP associated with frequent compared to infrequent influenza vaccination, adjusted for each HCP's healthcare workplace, age, sex, preexisting medical conditions, occupation, and length of time providing direct patient care. Results: From 2016─2018, 5131 HCP were recruited and 3120 fully enrolled in VIP; 2782 consistently reported influenza vaccination status and became our analytic sample. From 2011─2018, 14.3% of HCP never, 61.4% infrequently, and 24.4% frequently received influenza vaccines. Compared to HCP who were infrequently vaccinated, frequently vaccinated HCP were more likely to believe they were susceptible to influenza (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]:1.49, 95% confidence interval [CI]:1.22─1.82), perceived vaccination to be effective (aOR:1.92, 95%CI:1.59─2.32), were knowledgeable about influenza and vaccination (aOR:1.37, 95%CI:1.06─1.77), and believed vaccination had emotional benefits like reduced regret or anger if they became ill with influenza (aOR:1.96, 95%CI:1.60─2.42). HCP who reported vaccination barriers like not having time or a convenient place to receive vaccines had reduced odds of frequent vaccination (aOR:0.74, 95%CI:0.61─0.89) compared to those without reported barriers. Conclusion: Few HCP frequently received influenza vaccines during an eight-year period. To increase HCP influenza vaccination in middle-income settings like Peru, campaigns could strengthen influenza risk perception, vaccine knowledge, and accessibility. © 2023

During late March–late May, COVID-19 incidence was highest among adults aged ≥80 years, with a peak in incidence in the week beginning April 12. In June, incidence increased in all age groups, with the most rapid rate of increase and highest overall incidence among young adults aged 18–24 years; the rate in this group continues to be the highest among all age groups. Incidence steadily increased among children and adolescents (aged 0–17 years). The incidence in high school–aged persons (aged 14–17 years) was markedly higher than that in younger children by early July, then decreased before increasing in September. During late September–early October, weekly incidence decreased among young adults aged 18–24 years only, then continued to steadily increase among all age groups through November 14.

Early in the pandemic, from mid-March to mid-May, COVID-19 incidence was highest among residents of large central and large fringe metropolitan areas. Beginning in mid-April, incidence in large metropolitan (central and fringe) areas declined and then increased similarly among all urban-rural areas. In September 2020, COVID-19 incidence sharply increased, and it remains highest among residents of medium/small metropolitan areas and micropolitan/noncore areas, indicating increased spread into rural communities. In October, weekly incidence was increasing steadily among all urban-rural areas.

OBJECTIVES: Seasonal influenza vaccines protect against 3 (trivalent influenza vaccine [IIV3]) or 4 (quadrivalent influenza vaccine [IIV4]) viruses. IIV4 costs more than IIV3, and there is a trade-off between incremental cost and protection. This is especially the case in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) with limited budgets; previous reviews have not identified studies of IIV4-IIV3 comparisons in LMICs. We summarized the literature that compared health and economic outcomes of IIV4 and IIV3, focused on LMICs. METHODS: We systematically searched 5 databases for articles published before October 6, 2021, that modeled health or economic effects of IIV4 versus IIV3. We abstracted data and compared findings among countries and models. RESULTS: Thirty-eight studies fit our selection criteria; 10 included LMICs. Most studies (N = 31) reported that IIV4 was cost-saving or cost-effective compared with IIV3; we observed no difference in health or economic outcomes between LMICs and other countries. Based on cost differences of influenza vaccines, only one study compared coverage of IIV3 with IIV4 and reported that the maximum IIV4 price that would still yield greater public health impact than IIV3 was 13% to 22% higher than IIV3. CONCLUSIONS: When vaccination coverage with IIV4 and IIV3 is the same, IIV4 tends to be not only more effective but more cost-effective than IIV3, even with relatively high price differences between vaccine types. Alternatively, where funding is limited as in most LMICs, higher vaccine coverage can be achieved with IIV3 than IIV4, which could result in more favorable health and economic outcomes.

We evaluated clinical and socioeconomic burdens of respiratory disease in banana farm workers in Guatemala. We offered all eligible workers enrollment during June 15-December 30, 2020, and annually, then tracked them for influenza-like illnesses (ILI) through self-reporting to study nurses, sentinel surveillance at health posts, and absenteeism. Workers who had ILI submitted nasopharyngeal swab specimens for testing for influenza virus, respiratory syncytial virus, and SARS-CoV-2, then completed surveys at days 0, 7, and 28. Through October 10, 2021, a total of 1,833 workers reported 169 ILIs (12.0 cases/100 person-years), and 43 (25.4%) were laboratory-confirmed infections with SARS-CoV-2 (3.1 cases/100 person-years). Workers who had SARS-CoV-2positive ILIs reported more frequent anosmia, dysgeusia, difficulty concentrating, and irritability and worse clinical and well-being severity scores than workers who had test resultnegative ILIs. Workers who had positive results also had greater absenteeism and lost income. These results support prioritization of farm workers in Guatemala for COVID-19 vaccination.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) supports international partners in introducing vaccines, including those against SARS-CoV-2 virus. CDC contributes to the development of global technical tools, guidance, and policy for COVID-19 vaccination and has established its COVID-19 International Vaccine Implementation and Evaluation (CIVIE) program. CIVIE supports ministries of health and their partner organizations in developing or strengthening their national capacities for the planning, implementation, and evaluation of COVID-19 vaccination programs. CIVIE's 7 priority areas for country-specific technical assistance are vaccine policy development, program planning, vaccine confidence and demand, data management and use, workforce development, vaccine safety, and evaluation. We discuss CDC's work on global COVID-19 vaccine implementation, including priorities, challenges, opportunities, and applicable lessons learned from prior experiences with Ebola, influenza, and meningococcal serogroup A conjugate vaccine introductions.

Human biomonitoring (HBM) data measured in specific contexts or populations provide information for comparing population exposures. There are numerous health-based biomonitoring guidance values, but to locate these values, interested parties need to seek them out individually from publications, governmental reports, websites and other sources. Until now, there has been no central, international repository for this information. Thus, a tool is needed to help researchers, public health professionals, risk assessors, and regulatory decision makers to quickly locate relevant values on numerous environmental chemicals. A free, on-line repository for international health-based guidance values to facilitate the interpretation of HBM data is now available. The repository is referred to as the "Human Biomonitoring Health-Based Guidance Value (HB2GV) Dashboard". The Dashboard represents the efforts of the International Human Biomonitoring Working Group (i-HBM), affiliated with the International Society of Exposure Science. The i-HBM's mission is to promote the use of population-level HBM data to inform public health decision-making by developing harmonized resources to facilitate the interpretation of HBM data in a health-based context. This paper describes the methods used to compile the human biomonitoring health-based guidance values, how the values can be accessed and used, and caveats with using the Dashboard for interpreting HBM data. To our knowledge, the HB2GV Dashboard is the first open-access, curated database of HBM guidance values developed for use in interpreting HBM data. This new resource can assist global HBM data users such as risk assessors, risk managers and biomonitoring programs with a readily available compilation of guidance values.

BACKGROUND: Although several studies have reported attenuated influenza illness following influenza vaccination, results have been inconsistent and have focused predominantly on adults in the USA. This study aimed to evaluate the severity of influenza illness by vaccination status in a broad range of influenza vaccine target groups across multiple South American countries. METHODS: We analysed data from four South American countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Paraguay) participating in REVELAC-i, a multicentre, test-negative design, vaccine effectiveness network including 41 sentinel hospitals. Individuals hospitalised at one of these centres with severe acute respiratory infection were tested for influenza by real-time RT-PCR, and were included in the analysis if they had complete information about their vaccination status and outcomes of their hospital stay. We used multivariable logistic regression weighted by inverse probability of vaccination and adjusted for antiviral use, duration of illness before admission, and calendar week, to calculate the adjusted odds ratios (aORs) of intensive care unit (ICU) admission and in-hospital death (and combinations of these outcomes) among influenza-positive patients by vaccination status for three target groups: young children (aged 6-24 months), adults (aged 18-64 years) with pre-existing health conditions, and older adults (aged ≥65 years). Survival curves were used to compare length of hospital stay by vaccination status in each target group. FINDINGS: 2747 patients hospitalised with PCR-confirmed influenza virus infection between Jan 1, 2013, and Dec 8, 2019, were included in the study: 649 children (70 [10·8%] fully vaccinated, 193 [29·7%] partially vaccinated) of whom 87 (13·4%) were admitted to ICU and 12 (1·8%) died in hospital; 520 adults with pre-existing medical conditions (118 [22·7%] vaccinated), of whom 139 (26·7%) were admitted to ICU and 55 (10·6%) died in hospital; and 1578 older adults (609 [38·6%] vaccinated), of whom 271 (17·2%) were admitted to ICU and 220 (13·9%) died in hospital. We observed earlier discharge among partially vaccinated children (adjusted hazard ratio 1·14 [95% CI 1·01-1·29]), fully vaccinated children (1·24 [1·04-1·47]), and vaccinated adults with pre-existing medical conditions (1·78 [1·18-2·69]) compared with their unvaccinated counterparts, but not among vaccinated older adults (0·82 [0·65-1·04]). Compared with unvaccinated individuals, lower odds of ICU admission were found for partially vaccinated children (aOR 0·64 [95% CI 0·44-0·92]) and fully vaccinated children (0·52 [0·28-0·98]), but not for adults with pre-existing conditions (1·25 [0·93-1·67]) or older adults (0·88 [0·72-1·08]). Lower odds of in-hospital death (0·62 [0·50-0·78]) were found in vaccinated versus unvaccinated older adults, with or without ICU admission, but did not differ significantly in partially vaccinated (1·35 [0·57-3·20]) or fully vaccinated young children (0·88 [0·16-4·82]) or adults with pre-existing medical conditions (1·09 [0·73-1·63]) compared with the respective unvaccinated patient groups. INTERPRETATION: Influenza vaccination was associated with illness attenuation among those hospitalised with influenza, although results differed by vaccine target group. These findings might suggest that attenuation of disease severity might be specific to certain target groups, seasons, or settings. FUNDING: US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. TRANSLATIONS: For the Spanish and Portuguese translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Essential agricultural workers work under occupational conditions that may increase the risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure and transmission. Data from an agricultural worker cohort in Guatemala, and anti-SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid IgG (anti-N IgG) testing were used to estimate past infections and analyze risk factors associated with seropositivity at enrollment and association with SARS-CoV-2 infection. The stability of neutralizing antibody (NAb) responses were assessed in a subset of participants. The adjusted relative risk (aRR) for seroprevalence at enrollment was estimated accounting for correlations within worksites. At enrollment, 616 (46.2%) of 1334 (93.2%) participants had anti-N IgG results indicating prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. A cough ≤ 10 days prior to enrollment (aRR = 1.28, 95% CI: 1.13-1.46) and working as a packer (aRR = 2.00, 95% CI: 1.67-2.38) or packing manager within the plants (aRR = 1.82, 95% CI: 1.36-2.43) were associated with increased risk of seropositivity. COVID-19 incidence density among seronegative workers was 2.3/100 Person-Years (P-Y), higher than seropositive workers (0.4/100 P-Y). Most workers with follow-up NAb testing (65/77, 84%) exhibited a 95% average decrease in NAb titers in &lt;6 months. While participants seropositive at baseline were less likely to experience a symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection during follow-up, NAb titers rapidly waned, underscoring the need for multipronged COVID-19 prevention strategies in the workplace, including vaccination.

Background: Respiratory viruses remain a key cause of early childhood illness, hospitalization, and death globally. The recent pandemic has rekindled interest in the control of respiratory viruses among paediatric populations. We estimate the burden of such viruses among children <2 years. Methods: Enrolled neonates were followed until two years of age. Weekly active symptom monitoring for the development of acute respiratory illnesses (ARI) defined as cough, rhinorrhoea, difficulty breathing, asthenia, anorexia, irritability, or vomiting was conducted. When the child had ARI and fever, nasopharyngeal swabbing was performed, and samples were tested through singleplex RT-PCR. Incidence of respiratory viruses was calculated by dividing the number of laboratory-confirmed detections by the person-time accrued during weeks when that virus was detectable through national surveillance then corrected for under-ascertainment among untested children. Findings: During December 2014–November 2017, 1567 enrolled neonates contributed 2,186.9 person-years (py). Six in ten (64·4%) children developed ARI (total 2493 episodes). Among children <2 years, incidence of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV)-associated ARI episodes (21·0, 95%CI 19·3–22·8, per 100py) and rhinovirus-associated (20·5, 95%CI 20·4–20·7) were similar and higher than parainfluenza 1–3-associated (14·2, 95%CI 12·2–16·1), human metapneumovirus-associated (9·2, 95%CI 7·7–10·8), influenza-associated (5·9, 95%CI 4·4–7·5), and adenovirus-associated ARI episodes (5·1, 95%CI 5·0–5·2). Children aged <3 months had the highest rates of RSV ARI (49·1, 95%CI 44·0–54·1 per 100py) followed by children aged 3–5 (25·1, 95%CI 20·1–30·0), 6–11 (17·6, 95%CI 13·2–21·9), and 12–23 months (11·9, 95%CI 10·8–12·9). One in ten children with RSV was referred to the hospital (2·5, 95%CI 2·1–2·8, per 100py). Interpretation: Children frequently developed viral ARI and a substantive proportion required hospital care. Such findings suggest the importance of exploring the value of new interventions and increasing uptake of existing prevention measures to mitigate burden of epidemic-prone respiratory viruses. Funding: The study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. © 2022

OBJECTIVE: Vulnerability indices use quantitative indicators and geospatial data to examine the level of vulnerability to morbidity in a community. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) uses 3 indices for the COVID-19 response: the CDC Social Vulnerability Index (CDC-SVI), the US COVID-19 Community Vulnerability Index (CCVI), and the Pandemic Vulnerability Index (PVI). The objective of this review was to describe these tools and explain the similarities and differences between them. METHODS: We described the 3 indices, outlined the underlying data sources and metrics for each, and discussed their use by CDC for the COVID-19 response. We compared the percentile score for each county for each index by calculating Spearman correlation coefficients (Spearman r). RESULTS: These indices have some, but not all, component metrics in common. The CDC-SVI is a validated metric that estimates social vulnerability, which comprises the underlying population-level characteristics that influence differences in health risk among communities. To address risk specific to the COVID-19 pandemic, the CCVI and PVI build on the CDC-SVI and include additional variables. The 3 indices were highly correlated. Spearman r for comparisons between the CDC-SVI score and the CCVI and between the CCVI and the PVI score was 0.83. Spearman r for the comparison between the CDC-SVI score and PVI score was 0.73. CONCLUSION: The indices can empower local and state public health officials with additional information to focus resources and interventions on disproportionately affected populations to combat the ongoing pandemic and plan for future pandemics.

Arthritis is associated with joint pain, disability, and physical inactivity, potentially resulting in poor quality of life. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention analyzed 2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data to estimate state-specific arthritis prevalence and, among adults with arthritis, the prevalence of physical inactivity, fair/poor self-rated health status, and severe joint pain. Among adults with arthritis, age-standardized prevalences of physical inactivity, fair/poor health status, and severe joint pain were high in all states and highest in southeastern states. Increased promotion and use of evidence-based public health interventions for arthritis may improve health-promoting behaviors and health outcomes among adults with arthritis.

Pain has been established as a major public health problem in the United States (U.S.) with 50 million adults experiencing chronic pain and 20 million afflicted with high-impact chronic pain (i.e., chronic pain that interferes with life or work activities). High financial and social costs are associated with chronic pain. Over the past two decades, pain management has been complicated by the marked increase in opioids prescribed to treat chronic non-cancer pain and by the concurrent opioid crisis. Monitoring the prevalence of chronic pain and pain management is especially important because pain management is changing in uncertain ways. We review potential U.S. chronic pain surveillance systems, present potential difficulties of chronic pain surveillance, and explore how to address chronic pain surveillance in the current opioid era. We consider case definitions, severity, anatomic site, and varieties of chronic pain management strategies in reviewing and evaluating national surveys for chronic pain surveillance. Based on the criteria evaluated, the National Health Interview Survey offers the best single source for pain surveillance as the pain-related questions administered are brief, valid, and cover a broad scope of pain-related phenomenon. Perspective: This review article describes data sources that can be leveraged to conduct national chronic pain surveillance in the United States, explores case defining or pain-related questions administered, and evaluates them against eight surveillance attributes.

Among EvergreenHealth Home Care Service professionals, no coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases were reported when they were instructed to use standard, contact, and droplet precautions with eye protection while providing home health care to patients diagnosed with laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). These precautions might provide some level of protection against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among home healthcare personnel.

Arthritis is a highly prevalent and disabling condition among U.S. adults (1); arthritis-attributable functional limitations and severe joint pain affect many aspects of health and quality of life (2). Self-management education (self-management) and physical activity can reduce pain and improve the health status and quality of life of adults with arthritis; however, in 2014, only 11.4% and 61.0% of arthritis patients reported engaging in each, respectively. To assess self-reported self-management class attendance and health care provider physical activity counseling among adults with doctor-diagnosed arthritis, CDC analyzed 2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data. In 2019, an age-standardized state median of one in six (16.2%) adults with arthritis reported ever attending a self-management class, and 69.3% reported ever receiving health care provider counselling to be physically active. Prevalences of both differed by state and sociodemographic characteristics; decreased with lower educational attainment, joint pain severity, and urbanicity; and were lower in men than in women. Health care providers can play an important role in promoting self-management class attendance and physical activity by counseling arthritis patients about their benefits and referring patients to evidence-based programs (3).

Primary care providers (PCPs) can offer counseling to adults with arthritis on physical activity, which can reduce pain and improve physical function, mental health, and numerous other health outcomes. We analyzed cross-sectional 2018 DocStyles data for 1,366 PCPs who reported they always or sometimes recommend physical activity to adults with arthritis. Most PCPs sampled (88.2%) recommended walking, swimming, or cycling; 65.5% did not recommend any evidence-based, arthritis-appropriate physical activity programs recognized by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Opportunities exist for public health awareness campaigns to educate PCPs about evidence-based physical activity programs proven to optimize health for adults with arthritis when more than counseling is needed.

The numerous health benefits of physical activity include reduced risk for chronic disease and improved mental health and quality of life (1). Physical activity can improve physical function and reduce pain and fall risk among adults with arthritis, a group of approximately 100 conditions affecting joints and surrounding tissues (most commonly osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, gout, rheumatoid arthritis, and lupus) (1). Despite these benefits, the 54.6 million U.S. adults currently living with arthritis are generally less active than adults without arthritis, and only 36.2% of adults with arthritis are aerobically active (i.e., meet aerobic physical activity guidelines*) (2). Little is known about which physical activities adults with arthritis engage in. CDC analyzed 2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data to examine the most common nonwork-related physical activities among adults with arthritis who reported any physical activity during the past month, nationally and by state. In 2019, 67.2% of adults with arthritis reported engaging in physical activity in the past month; among these persons, the most commonly reported activities were walking (70.8%), gardening (13.3%), and weightlifting (7.3%). In 45 U.S. states, at least two thirds of adults with arthritis who engaged in physical activity reported walking. Health care providers can help inactive adults with arthritis become active and, by encouraging physical activity and referring these persons to evidence-based physical activity programs, improve their health and quality of life.

Arthritis has been the most frequently reported main cause of disability among U.S. adults for >15 years (1), was responsible for >$300 billion in arthritis-attributable direct and indirect annual costs in the U.S. during 2013 (2), is linked to disproportionately high levels of anxiety and depression (3), and is projected to increase 49% in prevalence from 2010-2012 to 2040 (4). To update national prevalence estimates for arthritis and arthritis-attributable activity limitation (AAAL) among U.S. adults, CDC analyzed combined National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data from 2016-2018. An estimated 58.5 million adults aged ≥18 years (23.7%) reported arthritis; 25.7 million (10.4% overall; 43.9% among those with arthritis) reported AAAL. Prevalence of both arthritis and AAAL was highest among adults with physical limitations, few economic opportunities, and poor overall health. Arthritis was reported by more than one half of respondents aged ≥65 years (50.4%), adults who were unable to work or disabled* (52.3%), or adults with fair/poor self-rated health (51.2%), joint symptoms in the past 30 days (52.2%), activities of daily living (ADL)(†) disability (54.8%), or instrumental activities of daily living (IADL)(§) disability (55.9%). More widespread dissemination of existing, evidence-based, community-delivered interventions, along with clinical coordination and attention to social determinants of health (e.g., improved social, economic, and mental health opportunities), can help reduce widespread arthritis prevalence and its adverse effects.

SARS-CoV-2 transmission from contaminated surfaces, or fomites, has been a concern during the COVID-19 pandemic. Households have been important sites of transmission throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, but there is limited information on SARS-CoV-2 contamination of surfaces in these settings. We describe environmental detection of SARS-CoV-2 in households of persons with COVID-19 to better characterize the potential risks of fomite transmission. Ten households with ≥1 person with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and with ≥2 members total were enrolled in Utah, U.S.A. Nasopharyngeal and anterior nasal swabs were collected from members and tested for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR. Fifteen surfaces were sampled in each household and tested for presence and viability of SARS-CoV-2. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in 23 (15%) of 150 environmental swab samples, most frequently on nightstands (4/6; 67%), pillows (4/23; 17%), and light switches (3/21; 14%). Viable SARS-CoV-2 was cultured from one sample. All households with SARS-CoV-2-positive surfaces had ≥1 person who first tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 ≤ 6 days prior to environmental sampling. SARS-CoV-2 surface contamination occurred early in the course of infection when respiratory transmission is most likely, notably on surfaces in close, prolonged contact with persons with COVID-19. While fomite transmission might be possible, risk is low.

OBJECTIVES: To obtain timely and detailed data on COVID-19 cases in the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) uses 2 data sources: (1) aggregate counts for daily situational awareness and (2) person-level data for each case (case surveillance). The objective of this study was to describe the sensitivity of case ascertainment and the completeness of person-level data received by CDC through national COVID-19 case surveillance. METHODS: We compared case and death counts from case surveillance data with aggregate counts received by CDC during April 5-September 30, 2020. We analyzed case surveillance data to describe geographic and temporal trends in data completeness for selected variables, including demographic characteristics, underlying medical conditions, and outcomes. RESULTS: As of November 18, 2020, national COVID-19 case surveillance data received by CDC during April 5-September 30, 2020, included 4 990 629 cases and 141 935 deaths, representing 72.7% of the volume of cases (n = 6 863 251) and 71.8% of the volume of deaths (n = 197 756) in aggregate counts. Nationally, completeness in case surveillance records was highest for age (99.9%) and sex (98.8%). Data on race/ethnicity were complete for 56.9% of cases; completeness varied by region. Data completeness for each underlying medical condition assessed was <25% and generally declined during the study period. About half of case records had complete data on hospitalization and death status. CONCLUSIONS: Incompleteness in national COVID-19 case surveillance data might limit their usefulness. Streamlining and automating surveillance processes would decrease reporting burdens on jurisdictions and likely improve completeness of national COVID-19 case surveillance data.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks in nursing homes can be large with high case fatality. Identifying asymptomatic individuals early through serial testing is recommended to control COVID-19 in nursing homes, both in response to an outbreak ("outbreak testing" of residents and healthcare personnel) and in facilities without outbreaks ("non-outbreak testing" of healthcare personnel). The effectiveness of outbreak testing and isolation with or without non-outbreak testing was evaluated. METHODS: Using published SARS-CoV-2 transmission parameters, the fraction of SARS-CoV-2 transmissions prevented through serial testing (weekly, every three days, or daily) and isolation of asymptomatic persons compared to symptom-based testing and isolation was evaluated through mathematical modeling using a Reed-Frost model to estimate the percentage of cases prevented (i.e., "effectiveness") through either outbreak testing alone or outbreak plus non-outbreak testing. The potential effect of simultaneous decreases (by 10%) in the effectiveness of isolating infected individuals when instituting testing strategies was also evaluated. RESULTS: Modeling suggests that outbreak testing could prevent 54% (weekly testing with 48-hour test turnaround) to 92% (daily testing with immediate results and 50% relative sensitivity) of SARS-CoV-2 infections. Adding non-outbreak testing could prevent up to an additional 8% of SARS-CoV-2 infections (depending on test frequency and turnaround time). However, added benefits of non-outbreak testing were mostly negated if accompanied by decreases in infection control practice. CONCLUSIONS: When combined with high-quality infection control practices, outbreak testing could be an effective approach to preventing COVID-19 in nursing homes, particularly if optimized through increased test frequency and use of tests with rapid turnaround.

Virus shedding in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) can occur before onset of symptoms; less is known about symptom progression or infectiousness associated with initiation of viral shedding. We investigated household transmission in 5 households with daily specimen collection for 5 consecutive days starting a median of 4 days after symptom onset in index patients. Seven contacts across 2 households implementing no precautionary measures were infected. Of these 7, 2 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by reverse transcription PCR on day 3 of 5. Both had mild, nonspecific symptoms for 1-3 days preceding the first positive test. SARS-CoV-2 was cultured from the fourth-day specimen in 1 patient and from the fourth- and fifth-day specimens in the other. We also describe infection control measures taken in the households that had no transmission. Persons exposed to SARS-CoV-2 should self-isolate, including from household contacts, wear a mask, practice hand hygiene, and seek testing promptly.