BACKGROUND: Approaches for determining whether influenza vaccination prevents infection, attenuates illness, or both are important for developing improved vaccines. We estimated influenza infection incidence and evaluated symptom ascertainment methodologies in children to inform future vaccine trial design. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study among children aged 6 to 23 months from May to October 2022. Study nurses collected symptom and temperature data and midturbinate nasal swabs twice weekly irrespective of symptoms; caregivers entered symptom data daily and collected nasal swabs weekly. Samples were tested for influenza with polymerase chain reaction. RESULTS: Of 230 healthy screened children, 93 were enrolled, of whom 87 (94%) completed 6-month follow-up. In total, 95% (4245/4476) of scheduled nurses, 90% (2045/2276) of caregiver swabs, 99% (92/93) of baseline blood collections, and 67% (9245/13 768) of scheduled symptom diaries were completed. Polymerase chain reaction-confirmed influenza incidence was 65% (60/93) for ≥1 infection; 11 (18%) individuals had 2 episodes and 1 (2%) had 3. Of 73 episodes, 55 (75%) had ≥1 symptom and 37 (51%) had fever (measured and/or reported). Median infection duration was 7 days (IQR, 4-9). Human RNase P gene was detected in 99% (2032/2045) of caregiver-collected swabs, through which 5 additional episodes were identified. Per episode, caregivers' diaries of reported and measured fever were 19% (25/73, 34%) and 11% (15/73, 21%) higher than nurse-reported (11/73, 15%) and nurse-measured (7/73, 10%) fever, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of influenza infection was high and mainly symptomatic, suggesting that this platform could be suitable for future trials of vaccine efficacy and correlates of protection against infection and illness in children.

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

OBJECTIVES: Trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine effectiveness was low in a prospective cohort of healthcare personnel (HCP) in Israel from 2016 to 2019. We conducted a randomised immunogenicity trial of quadrivalent recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV4) and standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV4) among frequently and infrequently vaccinated previous cohort participants. METHODS: From October 2019 to January 2020, we enrolled and randomly allocated HCP from two Israeli hospitals to receive IIV4 or RIV4. Hemagglutination inhibition (HAI) antibody titres against 2019-2020 vaccine reference influenza viruses were compared between vaccine groups using geometric mean titre (GMT) ratios from sera collected one-month post-vaccination and by frequency of vaccination in the past 5 years (>2 vs ≤2). RESULTS: Among 415 HCP, the GMT ratio comparing RIV4 to IIV4 was 2.0 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.7-2.7) for A(H1N1)pdm09, 1.6 (95% CI: 1.3-1.9) for A(H3N2), 1.8 (95% CI: 1.4-2.2) for B(Yamagata), and 1.1 (95% CI: 0.9-1.4) for B(Victoria). Similarly, RIV4 elicited higher HAI titres than IIV4 against all 2019-2020 vaccine reference viruses except B(Victoria) among infrequently and frequently vaccinated HCP (lower bound of GMT ratio 95% CIs ≥1.0). CONCLUSION: RIV4 had improved immunogenicity for influenza vaccine strains among both infrequent and frequent vaccinees compared to standard-dose IIV4. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04523324.

BACKGROUND: Immunogenicity studies suggest that recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV) may provide better protection against influenza than standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccines (SD IIV). This randomized trial evaluated the relative vaccine effectiveness (VE) and immunogenicity of RIV versus SD IIV in frontline workers and students aged 18-64 years. METHODS: Participants were randomized to receive RIV or SD IIV and followed for reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)-confirmed influenza during the 2022-2023 influenza season. Sera were collected from a subset of participants before and at 1 and 6 months postvaccination and tested by hemagglutination inhibition for A/H1N1, A/H3N2, B/Yamagata, and B/Victoria and against cell-grown vaccine reference viruses for A/H1N1 and A/H3N2. RESULTS: Overall, 3988 participants were enrolled and vaccinated (25% of the trial sample size goal); RT-PCR-confirmed influenza occurred in 20 of 1963 RIV recipients and 28 of 1964 SD IIV recipients. Relative VE was 29% (95% confidence interval [CI], -26% to 60%). In the immunogenicity substudy (n = 118), the geometric mean titer ratio (GMTR) comparing RIV to SD IIV at 1 month was 2.3 (95% CI, 1.4-3.7) for cell-grown A/H1N1, 2.1 (95% CI, 1.3-3.4) for cell-grown A/H3N2, 1.1 (95% CI, .7-1.6) for B/Victoria, and 1.4 (95% CI, .9-2.0) for B/Yamagata. At 6 months, GMTRs were >1 against A/H1N1, A/H3N2, and B/Yamagata. CONCLUSIONS: Relative VE of RIV compared to SD IIV did not reach statistical significance, but RIV elicited more robust humoral immune responses to 2 of 4 vaccine viruses at 1 month and 3 of 4 viruses at 6 months after vaccination, suggesting possible improved and sustained immune protection from RIV. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT05514002.

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.

BACKGROUND: Viral respiratory illnesses are the most common acute illnesses experienced and generally follow a predicted pattern over time. The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic interrupted that pattern. METHODS: The HIVE (Household Influenza Vaccine Evaluation) study was established in 2010 to follow a cohort of Southeast Michigan households over time. Initially focused on influenza, surveillance was expanded to include other major respiratory pathogens, and, starting in 2015, the population was followed year-round. Symptoms of acute illness were reported, and respiratory specimens were collected and tested to identify viral infections. Based on the known population being followed, virus-specific incidence was calculated. RESULTS: From 2015 to 2022, 1755 participants were followed in HIVE for 7785 person-years with 7833 illnesses documented. Before the pandemic, rhinovirus (RV) and common cold human coronaviruses (HCoVs) were the viruses most frequently identified, and incidence decreased with increasing age. Type A influenza was next but with comparable incidence by age. Parainfluenza and respiratory syncytial viruses were less frequent overall, followed by human metapneumoviruses. Incidence was highest in young children, but infections were frequently documented in all age groups. Seasonality followed patterns established decades ago. The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic disrupted these patterns, except for RV and, to a lesser extent, HCoVs. In the first two years of the pandemic, RV incidence far exceeded that of SARS-CoV-2. CONCLUSION: Longitudinal cohort studies are important in comparing the incidence, seasonality, and characteristics of different respiratory viral infections. Studies documented the differential effect of the pandemic on the incidence of respiratory viruses in addition to SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: Annual influenza vaccination is recommended for older adults but repeated vaccination with standard-dose influenza vaccine has been linked to reduced immunogenicity and effectiveness, especially against A(H3N2) viruses. METHODS: Community-dwelling Hong Kong adults aged 65-82 years were randomly allocated to receive 2017-2018 standard-dose quadrivalent, MF59-adjuvanted trivalent, high-dose trivalent, and recombinant-HA quadrivalent vaccination. Antibody response to unchanged A(H3N2) vaccine antigen was compared among participants with and without self-reported prior year (2016-2017) standard-dose vaccination. RESULTS: Mean fold rise (MFR) in antibody titers from day 0 to day 30 by hemagglutination inhibition and virus microneutralization assays were lower among 2017-2018 standard-dose and enhanced vaccine recipients with (range, 1.7-3.0) versus without (range, 4.3-14.3) prior 2016-2017 vaccination. MFR was significantly reduced by about one-half to four-fifths for previously vaccinated recipients of standard-dose and all 3 enhanced vaccines (β range, .21-.48). Among prior-year vaccinated older adults, enhanced vaccines induced higher 1.43 to 2.39-fold geometric mean titers and 1.28 to 1.74-fold MFR versus standard-dose vaccine by microneutralization assay. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of unchanged A(H3N2) vaccine strain, prior-year vaccination was associated with reduced antibody response among both standard-dose and enhanced influenza vaccine recipients. Enhanced vaccines improved antibody response among older adults with prior-year standard-dose vaccination.

We reviewed the tools that have been developed to characterize and communicate seasonal influenza activity in the United States. Here we focus on systematic surveillance and applied analytics, including seasonal burden and disease severity estimation, short-term forecasting, and longer-term modeling efforts. For each set of activities, we describe the challenges and opportunities that have arisen because of the COVID-19 pandemic. In conclusion, we highlight how collaboration and communication have been and will continue to be key components of reliable and actionable influenza monitoring, forecasting, and modeling activities.

Vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies utilizing the test-negative design are typically conducted in clinical settings, rather than community populations, leading to bias in VE estimates against mild disease and limited information on VE in healthy young adults. In a community-based university population, we utilized data from a large SARS-CoV-2 testing program to estimate relative VE of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine primary series and monovalent booster dose versus primary series only against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection from September 2021 to July 2022. We used the test-negative design and logistic regression implemented via generalized estimating equations adjusted for age, calendar time, prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, and testing frequency (proxy for test-seeking behavior) to estimate relative VE. Analyses included 2,218 test-positive cases (59 % received monovalent booster dose) and 9,615 test-negative controls (62 %) from 9,066 individuals, with median age of 21 years, mostly students (71 %), White (56 %) or Asian (28 %), and with few comorbidities (3 %). More cases (23 %) than controls (6 %) had COVID-19-like illness. Estimated adjusted relative VE of primary series and monovalent booster dose versus primary series only against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection was 40 % (95 % CI: 33-47 %) during the overall analysis period and 46 % (39-52 %) during the period of Omicron circulation. Relative VE was greater for those without versus those with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (41 %, 34-48 % versus 33 %, 9 %-52 %, P < 0.001). Relative VE was also greater in the six months after receiving a booster dose (41 %, 33-47 %) compared to more than six months (27 %, 8-42 %), but this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.06). In this relatively young and healthy adult population, an mRNA monovalent booster dose provided increased protection against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, overall and with the Omicron variant. University testing programs may be utilized for estimating VE in healthy young adults, a population that is not well-represented by routine VE studies.

Repeat vaccination with egg-based influenza vaccines could preferentially boost antibodies targeting the egg-adapted epitopes and reduce immunogenicity to circulating viruses. In this randomized trial (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03722589), sera pre- and post-vaccination with quadrivalent inactivated egg-based (IIV4), cell culture-based (ccIIV4), and recombinant (RIV4) influenza vaccines were collected from healthcare personnel (18-64 years) in 2018-19 (N = 723) and 2019-20 (N = 684) influenza seasons. We performed an exploratory analysis. Vaccine egg-adapted changes had the most impact on A(H3N2) immunogenicity. In year 1, RIV4 induced higher neutralizing and total HA head binding antibodies to cell- A(H3N2) virus than ccIIV4 and IIV4. In year 2, among the 7 repeat vaccination arms (IIV4-IIV4, IIV4-ccIIV4, IIV4-RIV4, RIV4-ccIIV4, RIV4-RIV4, ccIIV4-ccIIV4 and ccIIV4-RIV4), repeat vaccination with either RIV4 or ccIIV4 further improved antibody responses to circulating viruses with decreased neutralizing antibody egg/cell ratio. RIV4 also had higher post-vaccination A(H1N1)pdm09 and A(H3N2) HA stalk antibodies in year 1, but there was no significant difference in HA stalk antibody fold rise among vaccine groups in either year 1 or year 2. Multiple seasons of non-egg-based vaccination may be needed to redirect antibody responses from immune memory to egg-adapted epitopes and re-focus the immune responses towards epitopes on the circulating viruses to improve vaccine effectiveness.

This report updates previous recommendations by CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) regarding the use of antiviral agents for the prevention and treatment of influenza (CDC. Prevention and control of influenza: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP]. MMWR 2008;57[No. RR-7]).This report contains information on treatment and chemoprophylaxis of influenza virus infection and provides a summary of the effectiveness and safety of antiviral treatment medications. Highlights include recommendations for use of 1) early antiviral treatment of suspected or confirmed influenza among persons with severe influenza (e.g., those who have severe, complicated, or progressive illness or who require hospitalization); 2) early antiviral treatment of suspected or confirmed influenza among persons at higher risk for influenza complications; and 3) either oseltamivir or zanamivir for persons with influenza caused by 2009 H1N1 virus, influenza A (H3N2) virus, or influenza B virus or when the influenza virus type or influenza A virus subtype is unknown; 4) antiviral medications among children aged <1 year; 5) local influenza testing and influenza surveillance data, when available, to help guide treatment decisions; and 6) consideration of antiviral treatment for outpatients with confirmed or suspected influenza who do not have known risk factors for severe illness, if treatment can be initiated within 48 hours of illness onset. Additional information is available from CDC's influenza website at http://www.cdc.gov/flu, including any updates or supplements to these recommendations that might be required during the 2010-11 influenza season. Health-care providers should be alert to announcements of recommendation updates and should check the CDC influenza website periodically for additional information. Recommendations related to the use of vaccines for the prevention of influenza during the 2010-11 influenza season have been published previously (CDC. Prevention and control of influenza with vaccines: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP], 2010. MMWR 2010;59[No. RR-8]).

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 Households represent important settings for transmission of influenza and other respiratory viruses. Current influenza diagnosis and treatment relies upon patient visits to healthcare facilities, which may lead to under-diagnosis and treatment delays. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of an at-home approach to influenza diagnosis and treatment via home testing, telehealth care, and rapid antiviral home delivery.Methods We conducted a pilot interventional study of remote influenza diagnosis and treatment in Seattle-area households with children during the 2019-2020 influenza season using pre-positioned nasal swabs and home influenza tests. Home monitoring for respiratory symptoms occurred weekly; if symptoms were reported within 48 hours of onset, participants collected mid-nasal swabs and used a rapid home-based influenza immunoassay. An additional home-collected swab was returned to a laboratory for confirmatory influenza RT-PCR testing. Baloxavir antiviral treatment was prescribed and delivered to symptomatic and age-eligible participants, following a telehealth encounter.Results 124 households comprising 481 individuals self-monitored for respiratory symptoms, with 58 home tests administered. 12 home tests were positive for influenza, of which 8 were true positives confirmed by RT-PCR. The sensitivity and specificity of the home influenza test was 72.7% and 96.2%, respectively. There were 8 home deliveries of baloxavir, with 7 (87.5%) occurring within 3 hours of prescription, and all within 48 hours of symptom onset.Conclusions We demonstrate the feasibility of self-testing combined with rapid home delivery of influenza antiviral treatment. This approach may be an important control strategy for influenza epidemics and pandemics.Summary In this pilot study, 481 individuals self-monitored for respiratory symptoms. Of 58 home tests, 12 were influenza-positive. There were 8 baloxavir home deliveries within 48 hours of illness onset. A home-based approach to influenza diagnosis and treatment could be feasible.Competing Interest StatementH.Y.C. has received research support from GlaxoSmithKline, Novavax, and Sanofi Pasteur; J.A.E. has received research support from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKine, Merck, and Pfizer and served as a consultant for Sanofi Pasteur and Meissa Vaccines. M.L.J. has received research support from Sanofi Pasteur. M.B. receives research support and serves as a consultant for Ansun Biopharma, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, and Vir Biotechnology; and serves as a consultant to GlaxoSmithKline, ReViral, ADMA, Pulmocdie and ModernaClinical TrialNCT04141930Funding StatementThe Seattle Flu Study is funded by Gates Ventures. The funder was not involved in the design of the study, does not have any ownership over the management and conduct of the study, the data, or the rights to publish.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:University of Washington Institutional Review Board (STUDY00008200)All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesData and code used for analyses may be available upon request.

BACKGROUND Information is limited on messenger RNA (mRNA) BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna) COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection or attenuating disease when administered in real-world conditions.METHODS Prospective cohorts of 3,975 healthcare personnel, first responders, and other essential and frontline workers completed weekly SARS-CoV-2 testing during December 14 2020—April 10 2021. Self-collected mid-turbinate nasal swabs were tested by qualitative and quantitative reverse-transcription–polymerase-chain-reaction (RT-PCR). VE was calculated as 100%×(1−hazard ratio); adjusted VE was calculated using vaccination propensity weights and adjustments for site, occupation, and local virus circulation.RESULTS SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 204 (5.1%) participants; 16 were partially (≥14 days post-dose-1 to 13 days after dose-2) or fully (≥14 days post-dose-2) vaccinated, and 156 were unvaccinated; 32 with indeterminate status (&lt;14 days after dose-1) were excluded. Adjusted mRNA VE of full vaccination was 91% (95% confidence interval [CI]=76%–97%) against symptomatic or asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection; VE of partial vaccination was 81% (95% CI=64%-90%). Among partially or fully vaccinated participants with SARS-CoV-2 infection, mean viral RNA load (Log10 copies/mL) was 40% lower (95% CI=16%-57%), the risk of self-reported febrile COVID-19 was 58% lower (Risk Ratio=0.42, 95% CI=0.18-0.98), and 2.3 fewer days (95% CI=0.8-3.7) were spent sick in bed compared to unvaccinated infected participants.CONCLUSIONS Authorized mRNA vaccines were highly effective among working-age adults in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infections when administered in real-world conditions and attenuated viral RNA load, febrile symptoms, and illness duration among those with breakthrough infection despite vaccination.Competing Interest StatementAllison L. Naleway reported funding from Pfizer for a meningococcal B vaccine study unrelated to the submitted work. Kurt T. Hegmann serves at the Editor of the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine evidence-based practice guidelines. Matthew S. These reported grants and personal fees from Reed Group and the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, outside the submitted work. Other authors have reported no conflicts of interest.Funding StatementFunding provided in whole or in part by federal funds from the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention under contract numbers 75D30120R68013 awarded to Marshfield Clinic Research Laboratory, 75D30120C08379 to University of Arizona, and 75D30120C08150 awarded to Abt Associates, Inc.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 was reviewed and approved by the University of Arizona IRB as the single IRB for this studyAll 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.YesSummary data will be available once all study objectives are met.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has caused substantial morbidity and mortality.Objectives To describe monthly demographic and clinical trends among adults hospitalized with COVID-19.Design Pooled cross-sectional.Setting 99 counties within 14 states participating in the Coronavirus Disease 2019-Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network (COVID-NET).Patients U.S. adults (aged ≥18 years) hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 during March 1-December 31, 2020.Measurements Monthly trends in weighted percentages of interventions and outcomes including length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit admissions (ICU), invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), vasopressor use and in-hospital death (death). Monthly hospitalization, ICU and death rates per 100,000 population.Results Among 116,743 hospitalized adults, median age was 62 years. Among 18,508 sampled adults, median LOS decreased from 6.4 (March) to 4.6 days (December). Remdesivir and systemic corticosteroid use increased from 1.7% and 18.9% (March) to 53.8% and 74.2% (December), respectively. Frequency of ICU decreased from 37.8% (March) to 20.5% (December). IMV (27.8% to 8.7%), vasopressors (22.7% to 8.8%) and deaths (13.9% to 8.7%) decreased from March to October; however, percentages of these interventions and outcomes remained stable or increased in November and December. Percentage of deaths significantly decreased over time for non-Hispanic White patients (p-value &lt;0.01) but not non-Hispanic Black or Hispanic patients. Rates of hospitalization (105.3 per 100,000), ICU (20.2) and death (11.7) were highest during December.Limitations COVID-NET covers approximately 10% of the U.S. population; findings may not be generalizable to the entire country.Conclusions After initial improvement during April-October 2020, trends in interventions and outcomes worsened during November-December, corresponding with the 3rd peak of the U.S. pandemic. These data provide a longitudinal assessment of trends in COVID-19-associated outcomes prior to widespread COVID-19 vaccine implementation.Competing Interest StatementDr. Evan Anderson reports grants from Pfizer, grants from Merck, grants from PaxVax, grants from Micron, grants from Sanofi-Pasteur, grants from Janssen, grants from MedImmune, grants from GSK, personal fees from Sanofi-Pasteur, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Medscape, personal fees from Kentucky Bioprocessing, Inc, personal fees from Sanofi-Pasteur, outside the submitted work. Dr. William Schaffner reports personal fees from VBI Vaccines, outside the submitted work. Funding StatementThis work was supported by the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention through an Emerging Infections Program cooperative agreement (grant CK17-1701) and through a Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists cooperative agreement (grant NU38OT000297-02-00).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. Sites participating in COVID-NET obtained approval from their respective state and local Institutional Review Boards, as applicable.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 check ist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesPublicly available data referred to in this analysis can be found at: https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/covidnet/covid19_3.html https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/covidnet/covid19_3.html

Background Identification of risk factors for COVID-19-associated hospitalization is needed to guide prevention and clinical care.Objective To examine if age, sex, race/ethnicity, and underlying medical conditions is independently associated with COVID-19-associated hospitalizations.Design Cross-sectional.Setting 70 counties within 12 states participating in the Coronavirus Disease 2019-Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network (COVID-NET) and a population-based sample of non-hospitalized adults residing in the COVID-NET catchment area from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System.Participants U.S. community-dwelling adults (≥18 years) with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19-associated hospitalizations, March 1- June 23, 2020.Measurements Adjusted rate ratios (aRR) of hospitalization by age, sex, race/ethnicity and underlying medical conditions (hypertension, coronary artery disease, history of stroke, diabetes, obesity [BMI ≥30 kg/m2], severe obesity [BMI≥40 kg/m2], chronic kidney disease, asthma, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease).Results Our sample included 5,416 adults with COVID-19-associated hospitalizations. Adults with (versus without) severe obesity (aRR:4.4; 95%CI: 3.4, 5.7), chronic kidney disease (aRR:4.0; 95%CI: 3.0, 5.2), diabetes (aRR:3.2; 95%CI: 2.5, 4.1), obesity (aRR:2.9; 95%CI: 2.3, 3.5), hypertension (aRR:2.8; 95%CI: 2.3, 3.4), and asthma (aRR:1.4; 95%CI: 1.1, 1.7) had higher rates of hospitalization, after adjusting for age, sex, and race/ethnicity. In models adjusting for the presence of an individual underlying medical condition, higher hospitalization rates were observed for adults ≥65 years, 45-64 years (versus 18-44 years), males (versus females), and non-Hispanic black and other race/ethnicities (versus non-Hispanic whites).Limitations Interim analysis limited to hospitalizations with underlying medical condition data.Conclusion Our findings elucidate groups with higher hospitalization risk that may benefit from targeted preventive and therapeutic interventions.Competing Interest StatementDr. Anderson reports personal fees from AbbVie, personal fees from Pfizer, grants from Pfizer, grants from Merck, grants from Micron, grants from Paxvax, grants from Sanofi Pasteur, grants from Novavax, grants from MedImmune, grants from Regeneron, grants from GSK, outside the submitted work. Mr. Henderson, Ms. Kim, Ms. George, and Ms. Hill report grants from Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE), during the conduct of the study. Dr. Lynfield reports grants from CDC- Emerging Infections Program, during the conduct of the study; and Royalties from a book on infectious disease surveillance and compensation for AAP Red Book (Report from Committee on Infectious Disease) donated to Minnesota Dept of Health. Dr. Schaffner reports grants from CDC, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from VBI Vaccines, outside the submitted work. Dr. Talbot reports other from Seqirus, outside the submitted work.Funding StatementThis work was supported by the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention through an Emerging Infections Program cooperative agreement (grant CK17-1701) and through a Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists cooperative agreement (grant NU38OT000297-02-00).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 analysis was exempt from CDC's Institutional Review Board, as it was considered part of public health surveillance and emergency response. Participating sites obtained approval for the COVID-NET surveillance protocol from their respective state and local IRBs, as required.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 regi try, 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 is not publically available at this time.

Importance Reported cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection likely underestimate the prevalence of infection in affected communities. Large-scale seroprevalence studies provide better estimates of the proportion of the population previously infected.Objective To estimate prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in convenience samples from several geographic sites in the United States.Design Serologic testing of convenience samples using residual sera obtained for routine clinical testing by two commercial laboratory companies.Setting Connecticut (CT), south Florida (FL), Missouri (MO), New York City metro region (NYC), Utah (UT), and Washington State’s (WA) Puget Sound region.Participants Persons of all ages with serum collected during intervals from March 23 through May 3, 2020.Exposure SARS-CoV-2 virus infection.Main outcomes and measures We estimated the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 spike protein using an ELISA assay. We standardized estimates to the site populations by age and sex. Estimates were adjusted for test performance characteristics (96.0% sensitivity and 99.3% specificity). We estimated the number of infections in each site by extrapolating seroprevalence to site populations. We compared estimated infections to number of reported COVID-19 cases as of last specimen collection date.Results We tested sera from 11,933 persons. Adjusted estimates of the proportion of persons seroreactive to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein ranged from 1.13% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-1.94) in WA to 6.93% (95% CI 5.02-8.92) in NYC (collected March 23-April 1). For sites with later collection dates, estimates ranged from 1.85% (95% CI 1.00-3.23, collected April 6-10) for FL to 4.94% (95% CI 3.61-6.52) for CT (April 26-May 3). The estimated number of infections ranged from 6 to 24 times the number of reported cases in each site.Conclusions and relevance Our seroprevalence estimates suggest that for five of six U.S. sites, from late March to early May 2020, &gt;10 times more SARS-CoV-2 infections occurred than the number of reported cases. Seroprevalence and under-ascertainment varied by site and specimen collection period. Most specimens from each site had no evidence of antibody to SARS-CoV-2. Tracking population seroprevalence serially, in a variety of specific geographic sites, will inform models of transmission dynamics and guide future community-wide public health measures.Question What proportion of persons in six U.S. sites had detectable antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, March 23-May 3, 2020?Findings We tested 11,933 residual clinical specimens. We estimate that from 1.1% of persons in the Puget Sound to 6.9% in New York City (collected March 23-April 1) had detectable antibodies. Estimates ranged from 1.9% in south Florida to 4.9% in Connecticut with specimens collected during intervals from April 6-May 3. Six to 24 times more infections were estimated per site with seroprevalence than with case report data.Meaning For most sites, evidence suggests &gt;10 times more SARS-CoV-2 infections occurred than reported cases. Most persons in each site likely had no detectable SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This protocol underwent review by CDC human subjects research officials, who determined that the testing represented non-research activity in the setting of a public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic.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 su h 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.YesA limited dataset will be made publicly available at a later time.

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.

Background As of May 15, 2020, the United States has reported the greatest number of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases and deaths globally.Objective To describe risk factors for severe outcomes among adults hospitalized with COVID-19.Design Cohort study of patients identified through the Coronavirus Disease 2019-Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network.Setting 154 acute care hospitals in 74 counties in 13 states.Patients 2491 patients hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 during March 1-May 2, 2020.Measurements Age, sex, race/ethnicity, and underlying medical conditions.Results Ninety-two percent of patients had ≥1 underlying condition; 32% required intensive care unit (ICU) admission; 19% invasive mechanical ventilation; 15% vasopressors; and 17% died during hospitalization. Independent factors associated with ICU admission included ages 50-64, 65-74, 75-84 and ≥85 years versus 18-39 years (adjusted risk ratio (aRR) 1.53, 1.65, 1.84 and 1.43, respectively); male sex (aRR 1.34); obesity (aRR 1.31); immunosuppression (aRR 1.29); and diabetes (aRR 1.13). Independent factors associated with in-hospital mortality included ages 50-64, 65-74, 75-84 and ≥85 years versus 18-39 years (aRR 3.11, 5.77, 7.67 and 10.98, respectively); male sex (aRR 1.30); immunosuppression (aRR 1.39); renal disease (aRR 1.33); chronic lung disease (aRR 1.31); cardiovascular disease (aRR 1.28); neurologic disorders (aRR 1.25); and diabetes (aRR 1.19). Race/ethnicity was not associated with either ICU admission or death.Limitation Data were limited to patients who were discharged or died in-hospital and had complete chart abstractions; patients who were still hospitalized or did not have accessible medical records were excluded.Conclusion In-hospital mortality for COVID-19 increased markedly with increasing age. These data help to characterize persons at highest risk for severe COVID-19-associated outcomes and define target groups for prevention and treatment strategies.Funding Source This work was supported by grant CK17-1701 from the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention through an Emerging Infections Program cooperative agreement and by Cooperative Agreement Number NU38OT000297-02-00 awarded to the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Competing Interest StatementH. Keipp Talbot reports personal fees from Seqirus outside the submitted work. William Schaffner reports personal fees from Pfizer and personal fees from Roche Diagnostics outside the submitted work. Evan Anderson reports personal fees from Abbvie and Pfizer outside the submitted work. H. Keipp Talbot reports grants from Sanofi outside the submitted work; Mary Hill reports grants from CSTE, during the conduct of the study; Melissa Sutton reports grants from CDC Emerging Infections Program during the conduct of the study; William Schaffner reports grants from CDC during the conduct of the study. Sue Kim reports grants from CSTE during the conduct of the study. Evan Anderson reports grants from Pfizer, grants from MedImmune, grants from Regeneron, grants from PaxVax, grants from Merck, grants from Novavax, grants from Sanofi-Pasteur, grants from Micron, outside the submitted work. Laurie Billing reports grants from the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) during the conduct of the study.Funding StatementThis work was supported by grant CK17-1701 from the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention through an Emerging Infections Program cooperative agreement and by Cooperative Agreement Number NU38OT000297-02-00 awarded to the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that al 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.YesAggregate data is available on CDC’s COVID-NET Interactive website. https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/COVIDNet/COVID19_3.html https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/COVIDNet/COVID19_5.html

Previous vaccine efficacy (VE) studies have estimated neutralizing and binding antibody concentrations that correlate with protection from symptomatic infection; how these estimates compare to those generated in response to SARS-CoV-2 infection is unclear. Here, we assessed quantitative neutralizing and binding antibody concentrations using standardized SARS-CoV-2 assays on 3,067 serum specimens collected during July 27, 2020-August 27, 2020 from COVID-19 unvaccinated persons with detectable anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies using qualitative antibody assays. Quantitative neutralizing and binding antibody concentrations were strongly positively correlated (r=0.76, p<0.0001) and were noted to be several fold lower in the unvaccinated study population as compared to published data on concentrations noted 28 days post-vaccination. In this convenience sample, ~88% of neutralizing and ~63-86% of binding antibody concentrations met or exceeded concentrations associated with 70% COVID-19 VE against symptomatic infection from published VE studies; ~30% of neutralizing and 1-14% of binding antibody concentrations met or exceeded concentrations associated with 90% COVID-19 VE. These data support observations of infection-induced immunity and current recommendations for vaccination post infection to maximize protection against symptomatic COVID-19. Copyright The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. This article is a US Government work. It is not subject to copyright under 17 USC 105 and is also made available for use under a CC0 license.

During February 7─September 3, 2022, a total of 39 US states experienced outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza A(H5N1) virus in birds from commercial poultry farms and backyard flocks. Among persons exposed to infected birds, highly pathogenic avian influenza A(H5) viral RNA was detected in 1 respiratory specimen from 1 person.

BACKGROUND: Emerging data suggest that second-generation influenza vaccines with higher hemagglutinin (HA) antigen content and/or different production methods may induce stronger antibody responses to HA than standard-dose egg-based influenza vaccines in adults. We compared antibody responses to high-dose egg-based inactivated (HD-IIV3), recombinant (RIV4), and cell culture-based (ccIIV4) vs standard-dose egg-based inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV4) among health care personnel (HCP) aged 18-65 years in 2 influenza seasons (2018-2019, 2019-2020). METHODS: In the second trial season, newly and re-enrolled HCPs who received SD-IIV4 in season 1 were randomized to receive RIV4, ccIIV4, or SD-IIV4 or were enrolled in an off-label, nonrandomized arm to receive HD-IIV3. Prevaccination and 1-month-postvaccination sera were tested by hemagglutination inhibition (HI) assay against 4 cell culture propagated vaccine reference viruses. Primary outcomes, adjusted for study site and baseline HI titer, were seroconversion rate (SCR), geometric mean titers (GMTs), mean fold rise (MFR), and GMT ratios that compared vaccine groups to SD-IIV4. RESULTS: Among 390 HCP in the per-protocol population, 79 received HD-IIV3, 103 RIV4, 106 ccIIV4, and 102 SD-IIV4. HD-IIV3 recipients had similar postvaccination antibody titers compared with SD-IIV4 recipients, whereas RIV4 recipients had significantly higher 1-month-postvaccination antibody titers against vaccine reference viruses for all outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: HD-IIV3 did not induce higher antibody responses than SD-IIV4, but, consistent with previous studies, RIV4 was associated with higher postvaccination antibody titers. These findings suggest that recombinant vaccines rather than vaccines with higher egg-based antigen doses may provide improved antibody responses in highly vaccinated populations.

Transplant recipients are among the groups for whom the updated recommendations for 2020–2021 influenza vaccination should generally be considered essential, notably in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic.

This article summarizes what is currently known about the 2019 novel coronavirus and offers interim guidance.

Messenger RNA (mRNA) BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna) COVID-19 vaccines have been shown to be effective in preventing symptomatic COVID-19 in randomized placebo-controlled Phase III trials (1,2); however, the benefits of these vaccines for preventing asymptomatic and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) infection, particularly when administered in real-world conditions, is less well understood. Using prospective cohorts of health care personnel, first responders, and other essential and frontline workers* in eight U.S. locations during December 14, 2020-March 13, 2021, CDC routinely tested for SARS-CoV-2 infections every week regardless of symptom status and at the onset of symptoms consistent with COVID-19-associated illness. Among 3,950 participants with no previous laboratory documentation of SARS-CoV-2 infection, 2,479 (62.8%) received both recommended mRNA doses and 477 (12.1%) received only one dose of mRNA vaccine.(†) Among unvaccinated participants, 1.38 SARS-CoV-2 infections were confirmed by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) per 1,000 person-days.(§) In contrast, among fully immunized (≥14 days after second dose) persons, 0.04 infections per 1,000 person-days were reported, and among partially immunized (≥14 days after first dose and before second dose) persons, 0.19 infections per 1,000 person-days were reported. Estimated mRNA vaccine effectiveness for prevention of infection, adjusted for study site, was 90% for full immunization and 80% for partial immunization. These findings indicate that authorized mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are effective for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection, regardless of symptom status, among working-age adults in real-world conditions. COVID-19 vaccination is recommended for all eligible persons.

The COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent implementation of nonpharmaceutical interventions (e.g., cessation of global travel, mask use, physical distancing, and staying home) reduced the transmission of some viral respiratory pathogens.1 In the United States, influenza activity decreased in March 2020, was historically low through the summer of 2020,2 and remained low during October 2020–May 2021 (<0.4% of respiratory specimens with positive test results for each week of the season). Circulation of other respiratory pathogens, including respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), common human coronaviruses (HCoVs) types OC43, NL63, 229E, and HKU1, and parainfluenza viruses (PIVs) types 1–4 also decreased in early 2020 and did not increase until spring 2021. Human metapneumovirus (HMPV) circulation decreased in March 2020 and remained low through May 2021. Respiratory adenovirus (RAdV) circulated at lower levels throughout 2020 and as of early May 2021. Rhinovirus and enterovirus (RV/EV) circulation decreased in March 2020, remained low until May 2020, and then increased to near prepandemic seasonal levels. Circulation of respiratory viruses could resume at prepandemic levels after COVID-19 mitigation practices become less stringent. Clinicians should be aware of increases in some respiratory virus activity and remain vigilant for off-season increases. In addition to the use of everyday preventive actions, fall influenza vaccination campaigns are an important component of prevention as COVID-19 mitigation measures are relaxed and schools and workplaces resume in-person activities.

A network of global respiratory disease surveillance systems and partnerships has been built over decades as a direct response to the persistent threat of seasonal, zoonotic, and pandemic influenza. These efforts have been spearheaded by the World Health Organization, country ministries of health, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nongovernmental organizations, academic groups, and others. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention worked closely with ministries of health in partner countries and the World Health Organization to leverage influenza surveillance systems and programs to respond to SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Countries used existing surveillance systems for severe acute respiratory infection and influenza-like illness, respiratory virus laboratory resources, pandemic influenza preparedness plans, and ongoing population-based influenza studies to track, study, and respond to SARS-CoV-2 infections. The incorporation of COVID-19 surveillance into existing influenza sentinel surveillance systems can support continued global surveillance for respiratory viruses with pandemic potential.

INTRODUCTION: CDC estimates that influenza resulted in 9-41 million illnesses, 140,000-710,000 hospitalizations, and 12,000-52,000 deaths annually during 2010-2020. Persons from some racial and ethnic minority groups have historically experienced higher rates of severe influenza and had lower influenza vaccination coverage compared with non-Hispanic White (White) persons. This report examines influenza hospitalization and vaccination rates by race and ethnicity during a 12-13-year period (through the 2021-22 influenza season). METHODS: Data from population-based surveillance for laboratory-confirmed influenza-associated hospitalizations in selected states participating in the Influenza-Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network (FluSurv-NET) from the 2009-10 through 2021-22 influenza seasons (excluding 2020-21) and influenza vaccination coverage data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) from the 2010-11 through 2021-22 influenza seasons were analyzed by race and ethnicity. RESULTS: From 2009-10 through 2021-22, age-adjusted influenza hospitalization rates (hospitalizations per 100,000 population) were higher among non-Hispanic Black (Black) (rate ratio [RR] = 1.8), American Indian or Alaska Native (AI/AN; RR = 1.3), and Hispanic (RR = 1.2) adults, compared with the rate among White adults. During the 2021-22 season, influenza vaccination coverage was lower among Hispanic (37.9%), AI/AN (40.9%), Black (42.0%), and other/multiple race (42.6%) adults compared with that among White (53.9%) and non-Hispanic Asian (Asian) (54.2%) adults; coverage has been consistently higher among White and Asian adults compared with that among Black and Hispanic adults since the 2010-11 season. The disparity in vaccination coverage by race and ethnicity was present among those who reported having medical insurance, a personal health care provider, and a routine medical checkup in the past year. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH PRACTICE: Racial and ethnic disparities in influenza disease severity and influenza vaccination coverage persist. Health care providers should assess patient vaccination status at all medical visits and offer (or provide a referral for) all recommended vaccines. Tailored programmatic efforts to provide influenza vaccination through nontraditional settings, along with national and community-level efforts to improve awareness of the importance of influenza vaccination in preventing illness, hospitalization, and death among racial and ethnic minority communities might help address health care access barriers and improve vaccine confidence, leading to decreases in disparities in influenza vaccination coverage and disease severity.

BACKGROUND: Antibody responses to non-egg-based standard-dose cell-culture influenza vaccine (containing 15 µg hemagglutinin (HA)/component) and recombinant vaccine (containing 45 µg HA/component) during consecutive seasons have not been studied in the United States. METHODS: In a randomized trial of immunogenicity of quadrivalent influenza vaccines among healthcare personnel (HCP) aged 18-64 years over two consecutive seasons, HCP who received recombinant-hemagglutinin (RIV) or cell-culture-based vaccine (ccIIV) during the first season (Y1) were re-randomized the second season of 2019-2020 (Y2) to receive ccIIV or RIV, resulting in four ccIIV-RIV combinations. In Y2, hemagglutination inhibition (HI) antibody titers against reference cell-grown vaccine viruses were compared in each ccIIV-RIV group with titers among HCP randomized both seasons to receive egg-based, standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV), using geometric mean titer (GMT) ratios of Y2-post-vaccination titers. RESULTS: Y2 data from 414 HCPs were analyzed per-protocol. Compared to 60 IIV/IIV recipients, 74 RIV/RIV and 106 ccIIV/RIV recipients showed significantly elevated GMT ratios (Bonferroni corrected P <.007) against all components except A (H3N2). Post-vaccination GMT ratios for ccIIV/ccIIV and RIV/ccIIV were not significantly elevated compared to IIV/IIV except for RIV/ccIIV against A(H1N1)pdm09. CONCLUSIONS: In adult HCPs, receipt of RIV two consecutive seasons or the second season was more immunogenic than consecutive egg-based IIV for three of the four components of quadrivalent vaccine. Immunogenicity of ccIIV/ccIIV was similar to that of IIV/IIV. Differences in hemagglutinin antigen content may play a role in immunogenicity of influenza vaccination in consecutive seasons.

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.