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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

Before the emergence of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, influenza activity in the United States typically began to increase in the fall and peaked in February. During the 2021-22 season, influenza activity began to increase in November and remained elevated until mid-June, featuring two distinct waves, with A(H3N2) viruses predominating for the entire season. This report summarizes influenza activity during October 3, 2021-June 11, 2022, in the United States and describes the composition of the Northern Hemisphere 2022-23 influenza vaccine. Although influenza activity is decreasing and circulation during summer is typically low, remaining vigilant for influenza infections, performing testing for seasonal influenza viruses, and monitoring for novel influenza A virus infections are important. An outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza A(H5N1) is ongoing; health care providers and persons with exposure to sick or infected birds should remain vigilant for onset of symptoms consistent with influenza. Receiving a seasonal influenza vaccine each year remains the best way to protect against seasonal influenza and its potentially severe consequences.

Previous COVID-19 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 27 July 2020 to 27 August 2020 from COVID-19-unvaccinated persons with detectable anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Neutralizing and binding antibody concentrations were severalfold lower in the unvaccinated study population compared to published concentrations at 28 days postvaccination. In this convenience sample, ~88% of neutralizing and ~63 to 86% of binding antibody concentrations met or exceeded concentrations associated with 70% COVID-19 VE against symptomatic infection; ~30% of neutralizing and 1 to 14% of binding antibody concentrations met or exceeded concentrations associated with 90% COVID-19 VE. Our study not only supports observations of infection-induced immunity and current recommendations for vaccination postinfection to maximize protection against COVID-19, but also provides a large data set of pre-COVID-19 vaccination anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody concentrations that will serve as an important comparator in the current setting of vaccine-induced and hybrid immunity. As new SARS-CoV-2 variants emerge and displace circulating virus strains, we recommend that standardized binding antibody assays that include spike protein-based antigens be utilized to estimate antibody concentrations correlated with protection from COVID-19. These estimates will be helpful in informing public health guidance, such as the need for additional COVID-19 vaccine booster doses to prevent symptomatic infection. IMPORTANCE Although COVID-19 vaccine efficacy (VE) studies have estimated antibody concentrations that correlate with protection from COVID-19, how these estimates compare to those generated in response to SARS-CoV-2 infection is unclear. We assessed quantitative neutralizing and binding antibody concentrations using standardized assays on serum specimens collected from COVID-19-unvaccinated persons with detectable antibodies. We found that most unvaccinated persons with qualitative antibody evidence of prior infection had quantitative antibody concentrations that met or exceeded concentrations associated with 70% VE against COVID-19. However, only a small proportion had antibody concentrations that met or exceeded concentrations associated with 90% VE, suggesting that persons with prior COVID-19 would benefit from vaccination to maximize protective antibody concentrations against COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the stability of improvements in global respiratory virus surveillance in countries supported by the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) after reductions in CDC funding and with the stress of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: We assessed whether national influenza surveillance systems of CDC-funded countries: (i) continued to analyse as many specimens between 2013 and 2021; (ii) participated in activities of the World Health Organization's (WHO) Global Influenza Surveillance and Response System; (iii) tested enough specimens to detect rare events or signals of unusual activity; and (iv) demonstrated stability before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. We used CDC budget records and data from the WHO Global Influenza Surveillance and Response System. FINDINGS: While CDC reduced per-country influenza funding by about 75% over 10 years, the number of specimens tested annually remained stable (mean 2261). Reporting varied substantially by country and transmission zone. Countries funded by CDC accounted for 71% (range 61-75%) of specimens included in WHO consultations on the composition of influenza virus vaccines. In 2019, only eight of the 17 transmission zones sent enough specimens to WHO collaborating centres before the vaccine composition meeting to reliably identify antigenic variants. CONCLUSION: Great progress has been made in the global understanding of influenza trends and seasonality. To optimize surveillance to identify atypical influenza viruses, and to integrate molecular testing, sequencing and reporting of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 into existing systems, funding must continue to support these efforts.

In the United States, annual vaccination against seasonal influenza is recommended for all persons aged ≥6 months except when contraindicated (1). Currently available influenza vaccines are designed to protect against four influenza viruses: A(H1N1)pdm09 (the 2009 pandemic virus), A(H3N2), B/Victoria lineage, and B/Yamagata lineage. Most influenza viruses detected this season have been A(H3N2) (2). With the exception of the 2020-21 season, when data were insufficient to generate an estimate, CDC has estimated the effectiveness of seasonal influenza vaccine at preventing laboratory-confirmed, mild/moderate (outpatient) medically attended acute respiratory infection (ARI) each season since 2004-05. This interim report uses data from 3,636 children and adults with ARI enrolled in the U.S. Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network during October 4, 2021-February 12, 2022. Overall, vaccine effectiveness (VE) against medically attended outpatient ARI associated with influenza A(H3N2) virus was 16% (95% CI = -16% to 39%), which is considered not statistically significant. This analysis indicates that influenza vaccination did not reduce the risk for outpatient medically attended illness with influenza A(H3N2) viruses that predominated so far this season. Enrollment was insufficient to generate reliable VE estimates by age group or by type of influenza vaccine product (1). CDC recommends influenza antiviral medications as an adjunct to vaccination; the potential public health benefit of antiviral medications is magnified in the context of reduced influenza VE. CDC routinely recommends that health care providers continue to administer influenza vaccine to persons aged ≥6 months as long as influenza viruses are circulating, even when VE against one virus is reduced, because vaccine can prevent serious outcomes (e.g., hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, or death) that are associated with influenza A(H3N2) virus infection and might protect against other influenza viruses that could circulate later in the season.

We quantify antibody and memory B-cell responses to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 at 6 and 12 months postinfection among 7 unvaccinated US coronavirus disease 2019 cases. All had detectable S-specific memory B cells and immunoglobulin G at both time points, with geometric mean titers of 117.2 BAU/mL and 84.0 BAU/mL at 6 and 12 months, respectively.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, infection with SARS-CoV-2 caused 380,000 reported deaths from March to December 2020. METHODS: We adapted the Moving Epidemic Method to all-cause mortality data from the United States to assess the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic across age groups and all 50 states. By comparing all-cause mortality during the pandemic with intensity thresholds derived from recent, historical all-cause mortality, we categorized each week from March to December 2020 as either low severity, moderate severity, high severity, or very high severity. RESULTS: Nationally for all ages combined, all-cause mortality was in the very high severity category for 9 weeks. Among people 18 to 49 years of age, there were 29 weeks of consecutive very high severity mortality. Forty-seven states, the District of Columbia, and New York City each experienced at least 1 week of very high severity mortality for all ages combined. CONCLUSIONS: These periods of very high severity of mortality during March through December 2020 are likely directly or indirectly attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic. This method for standardized comparison of severity over time across different geographies and demographic groups provides valuable information to understand the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and to identify specific locations or subgroups for deeper investigations into differences in severity.

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