INTRODUCTION: Although preventable, dental caries remains highly prevalent. Many children do not receive preventive dental services routinely in clinical settings. This review examined the effectiveness of school (preschool through high school) fluoride varnish delivery programs (SFVDP) in preventing caries. METHODS: Community Guide systematic review methods were followed. In 2024, databases were searched for studies published through December 2023 on SFVDP effectiveness in increasing fluoride varnish (FV) receipt and decreasing caries. Included studies had to be written in English, published in peer-reviewed journals, and conducted in upper-middle or high-income countries. Data synthesis conducted in 2024 used median RR and interquartile interval (IQI) to summarize findings across studies. RESULTS: Of 31 included studies with 60,780 students, 25 were randomized controlled trials-20 with good quality of execution. Most studies were conducted in low socioeconomic status (SES) areas among students at elevated caries risk. SFVDP reduced caries initiation by 32% (IQI: 21%, 37%) in permanent teeth (19 studies, 25,826 students) and by 25% (IQI: 4%, 37%) in primary teeth (12 studies, 4,304 students). Stratified assessments indicated findings were largely applicable to different settings, populations, and intervention characteristics. Two studies found SFVDP significantly increased the number of annual FV applications and two found that SFVDP effectiveness was inversely related to SES. DISCUSSION: About 30% of states report having no SFVDPs. Possible barriers to implementation include that Medicaid in some states only reimburses dental and medical professionals and does not reimburse non-dental providers for FV delivered to children older than 6 years.

Murine typhus, caused by Rickettsia typhi, is re-emerging in many parts of the world. The disease is also called endemic typhus to differentiate from epidemic typhus (caused by Rickettsia prowazekii), and sometimes also named flea-borne typhus. Occasionally, literature sources will include Rickettsia felis as a causative agent of flea-borne typhus, but illnesses caused by R. felis are actually flea-borne spotted fever. Murine typhus occurs in warm, coastal areas worldwide. In the United States, most cases are reported from California, Texas, and Hawaii. Murine typhus is usually a self-limited febrile illness but about one-quarter of patients suffer organ complications. The disease is only infrequently fatal. Regarding disease ecology, the historical paradigm is that rats (Rattus rattus and R. norvegicus) are reservoirs of R. typhi worldwide, with rat fleas (Xenopsylla cheopis) as primary vectors. More recently, researchers have proposed an alternative suburban murine typhus transmission cycle involving opossums, cat fleas, cats, and dogs in Texas, California, and rural Mexico. Because cat fleas feed on a variety of mammals, there may be other avenues for R. typhi transmission, including stray or feral cats bringing cat fleas and other infected fleas into proximity with humans and possible aerosolization of infected flea feces. Additional fleas, ticks, lice, and mites may play a role in various areas throughout the world, but a striking lack of fundamental research on this topic makes drawing conclusions difficult. This review provides an overview of the history, epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment of murine typhus, with special emphasis on its disease ecology.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory syncytial virus vaccines first recommended for use during 2023 were efficacious against lower respiratory tract disease in clinical trials. Limited real-world data regarding respiratory syncytial virus vaccine effectiveness are available. To inform vaccine policy and address gaps in evidence from the clinical trials, we aimed to assess the effectiveness against respiratory syncytial virus-associated hospitalisations and emergency department encounters among adults aged at least 60 years. METHODS: We conducted a test-negative design analysis in an electronic health records-based network in eight states in the USA, including hospitalisations and emergency department encounters with respiratory syncytial virus-like illness among adults aged at least 60 years who underwent respiratory syncytial virus testing from Oct 1, 2023, to March 31, 2024. Respiratory syncytial virus vaccination status at the time of the encounter was derived from electronic health record documentation, state and city immunisation registries, and, for some sites, medical claims. Vaccine effectiveness was estimated by immunocompromise status, comparing the odds of vaccination among respiratory syncytial virus-positive case patients and respiratory syncytial virus-negative control patients, and adjusting for age, race and ethnicity, sex, calendar day, social vulnerability index, number of underlying non-respiratory medical conditions, presence of respiratory underlying medical conditions, and geographical region. FINDINGS: Among 28 271 hospitalisations for respiratory syncytial virus-like illness among adults aged at least 60 years without immunocompromising conditions, vaccine effectiveness was 80% (95% CI 71-85) against respiratory syncytial virus-associated hospitalisations, and vaccine effectiveness was 81% (52-92) against respiratory syncytial virus-associated critical illness (ICU admission or death, or both). Among 8435 hospitalisations for respiratory syncytial virus-like illness among adults with immunocompromising conditions, vaccine effectiveness was 73% (48-85) against associated hospitalisation. Among 36 521 emergency department encounters for respiratory syncytial virus-like illness among adults aged at least 60 years without an immunocompromising condition, vaccine effectiveness was 77% (70-83) against respiratory syncytial virus-associated emergency department encounters. Vaccine effectiveness estimates were similar by age group and product type. INTERPRETATION: Respiratory syncytial virus vaccination was effective in preventing respiratory syncytial virus-associated hospitalisations and emergency department encounters among adults aged at least 60 years in the USA during the 2023-24 respiratory syncytial virus season, which was the first season after respiratory syncytial virus vaccine was approved. FUNDING: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

BACKGROUND: Outer membrane vesicle (OMV) meningococcal serogroup B (MenB) vaccines might be protective against gonorrhea. We evaluated the effectiveness of MenB-4C, an OMV MenB vaccine, against gonorrhea. METHODS: We identified gonococcal mono-infections, chlamydial mono-infections, and gonococcal/chlamydial co-infections among persons aged 15-30 years in the electronic health records of Kaiser Permanente Northern California during 2016-2021. We determined MenB-4C vaccination status (vaccinated [≥1 MenB-4C vaccine dose] or unvaccinated [MenB-4C vaccine naïve]) at each infection. We used log-binomial regression with generalized estimating equations to calculate adjusted prevalence ratios (APR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) to determine if MenB-4C vaccination was protective against gonococcal mono-infections compared to chlamydial mono-infection. We also evaluated if MenB-4C vaccination was protective against gonococcal/chlamydial co-infections. Because of concerns with small sample size of vaccinated persons, we estimated effects using a limited model (adjusting for race/ethnicity only) and an expanded model (adjusting for additional potential confounders). RESULTS: Of 68,454 persons, we identified 558 (0.8 %) MenB-4C vaccinated persons and 85,393 infections (13,000 gonococcal mono-infections, 68,008 chlamydial mono-infections, and 4385 gonococcal/chlamydial co-infections). After adjusting for race/ethnicity, MenB-4C vaccination was 23 % protective against gonococcal mono-infection compared to chlamydial mono-infection (APR = 0.77, 95 % CI = 0.64-0.99) in the limited model but not in the expanded model. CONCLUSION: MenB-4C vaccination was protective against gonococcal mono-infection, independent of race/ethnicity. This protective effect was not observed when other potential confounders were included in the analysis. Protection against gonococcal/chlamydial co-infection was not observed. Efficacy data from clinical trials are needed.

BACKGROUND: The 2022-2023 United States influenza season had unusually early influenza activity with high hospitalization rates. Vaccine-matched A(H3N2) viruses predominated, with lower levels of A(H1N1)pdm09 activity also observed. METHODS: Using the test-negative design, we evaluated influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) during the 2022-2023 season against influenza A-associated emergency department/urgent care (ED/UC) visits and hospitalizations from October 2022 to March 2023 among adults (aged ≥18 years) with acute respiratory illness (ARI). VE was estimated by comparing odds of seasonal influenza vaccination among case-patients (influenza A test positive by molecular assay) and controls (influenza test negative), applying inverse-propensity-to-be-vaccinated weights. RESULTS: The analysis included 85 389 ED/UC ARI encounters (17.0% influenza A positive; 37.8% vaccinated overall) and 19 751 hospitalizations (9.5% influenza A positive; 52.8% vaccinated overall). VE against influenza A-associated ED/UC encounters was 44% (95% confidence interval [CI], 40%-47%) overall and 45% and 41% among adults aged 18-64 and ≥65 years, respectively. VE against influenza A-associated hospitalizations was 35% (95% CI, 27%-43%) overall and 23% and 41% among adults aged 18-64 and ≥65 years, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: VE was moderate during the 2022-2023 influenza season, a season characterized with increased burden of influenza and co-circulation with other respiratory viruses. Vaccination is likely to substantially reduce morbidity, mortality, and strain on healthcare resources.

The U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program, which commenced in December 2020, has been instrumental in preventing morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 disease. Safety monitoring has been an essential component of the program. The federal government undertook a comprehensive and coordinated approach to implement complementary safety monitoring systems and to communicate findings in a timely and transparent way to healthcare providers, policymakers, and the public. Monitoring involved both well-established and newly developed systems that relied on both spontaneous (passive) and active surveillance methods. Clinical consultation for individual cases of adverse events following vaccination was performed, and monitoring of special populations, such as pregnant persons, was conducted. This report describes the U.S. government's COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring systems and programs used by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Defense, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Indian Health Service. Using the adverse event of myocarditis following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination as a model, we demonstrate how the multiple, complementary monitoring systems worked to rapidly detect, assess, and verify a vaccine safety signal. In addition, longer-term follow-up was conducted to evaluate the recovery status of myocarditis cases following vaccination. Finally, the process for timely and transparent communication and dissemination of COVID-19 vaccine safety data is described, highlighting the responsiveness and robustness of the U.S. vaccine safety monitoring infrastructure during the national COVID-19 vaccination program.

IMPORTANCE: Pregnant people and infants are at high risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes. Understanding changes in attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines among pregnant and recently pregnant people is important for public health messaging. OBJECTIVE: To assess attitudinal trends regarding COVID-19 vaccines by (1) vaccination status and (2) race, ethnicity, and language among samples of pregnant and recently pregnant Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) members from 2021 to 2023. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional surveye study included pregnant or recently pregnant members of the VSD, a collaboration of 13 health care systems and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Unvaccinated, non-Hispanic Black, and Spanish-speaking members were oversampled. Wave 1 took place from October 2021 to February 2022, and wave 2 took place from November 2022 to February 2023. Data were analyzed from May 2022 to September 2023. EXPOSURES: Self-reported or electronic health record (EHR)-derived race, ethnicity, and preferred language. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Self-reported vaccination status and attitudes toward monovalent (wave 1) or bivalent Omicron booster (wave 2) COVID-19 vaccines. Sample- and response-weighted analyses assessed attitudes by vaccination status and 3 race, ethnicity, and language groupings of interest. RESULTS: There were 1227 respondents; all identified as female, the mean (SD) age was 31.7 (5.6) years, 356 (29.0%) identified as Black race, 555 (45.2%) identified as Hispanic ethnicity, and 445 (36.3%) preferred the Spanish language. Response rates were 43.5% for wave 1 (652 of 1500 individuals sampled) and 39.5% for wave 2 (575 of 1456 individuals sampled). Respondents were more likely than nonrespondents to be White, non-Hispanic, and vaccinated per EHR. Overall, 76.8% (95% CI, 71.5%-82.2%) reported 1 or more COVID-19 vaccinations; Spanish-speaking Hispanic respondents had the highest weighted proportion of respondents with 1 or more vaccination. Weighted estimates of somewhat or strongly agreeing that COVID-19 vaccines are safe decreased from wave 1 to 2 for respondents who reported 1 or more vaccinations (76% vs 50%; χ21 = 7.8; P < .001), non-Hispanic White respondents (72% vs 43%; χ21 = 5.4; P = .02), and Spanish-speaking Hispanic respondents (76% vs 53%; χ21 = 22.8; P = .002). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Decreasing confidence in COVID-19 vaccine safety in a large, diverse pregnant and recently pregnant insured population is a public health concern.

In September 2023, CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended updated 2023-2024 (monovalent XBB.1.5) COVID-19 vaccination for all persons aged ≥6 months to prevent COVID-19, including severe disease. As with past COVID-19 vaccines, additional doses may be considered for persons with immunocompromising conditions, who are at higher risk for severe COVID-19 and might have decreased response to vaccination. In this analysis, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of an updated COVID-19 vaccine dose against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was evaluated during September 2023-February 2024 using data from the VISION VE network. Among adults aged ≥18 years with immunocompromising conditions, VE against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was 38% in the 7-59 days after receipt of an updated vaccine dose and 34% in the 60-119 days after receipt of an updated dose. Few persons (18%) in this high-risk study population had received updated COVID-19 vaccine. All persons aged ≥6 months should receive updated 2023-2024 COVID-19 vaccination; persons with immunocompromising conditions may get additional updated COVID-19 vaccine doses ≥2 months after the last recommended COVID-19 vaccine.

BACKGROUND: A 2-dose series of recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) was 97% effective against herpes zoster (HZ) in a pivotal clinical trial. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate real-world effectiveness of RZV against HZ. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Four health care systems in the Vaccine Safety Datalink. PARTICIPANTS: Persons aged 50 years or older. MEASUREMENTS: The outcome was incident HZ defined by a diagnosis with an antiviral prescription. Cox regression was used to estimate the hazard of HZ in vaccinated persons compared with unvaccinated persons, with adjustment for covariates. Vaccine effectiveness (VE) was calculated as 1 minus the adjusted hazard ratio and was estimated by time since the last RZV dose and by corticosteroid use. RESULTS: The study included nearly 2.0 million persons who contributed 7.6 million person-years of follow-up. After adjustment, VE of 1 dose was 64% and VE of 2 doses was 76%. After 1 dose only, VE was 70% during the first year, 45% during the second year, 48% during the third year, and 52% after the third year. After 2 doses, VE was 79% during the first year, 75% during the second year, and 73% during the third and fourth years. Vaccine effectiveness was 65% in persons who received corticosteroids before vaccination and 77% in those who did not. LIMITATION: Herpes zoster could not be identified as accurately in these observational data as in the previous clinical trials. CONCLUSION: Two doses of RZV were highly effective, although less effective than in the previous clinical trials. Two-dose effectiveness waned very little during the 4 years of follow-up. However, 1-dose effectiveness waned substantially after 1 year, underscoring the importance of the second dose. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Exposure to environmental hazards is an important determinant of health, and the frequency and severity of exposures is expected to be impacted by climate change. Through a partnership with the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Environmental Public Health Tracking Network is integrating timely observations and model data of priority environmental hazards into its publicly accessible Data Explorer (https://ephtracking.cdc.gov/DataExplorer/). Newly integrated data sets over the contiguous U.S. (CONUS) include: daily 5-day forecasts of air quality based on the Goddard Earth Observing System Composition Forecast, daily historical (1980-present) concentrations of speciated PM(2.5) based on the modern era retrospective analysis for research and applications, version 2, and Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) daily near real-time maps of flooding (MCDWD). Data integrated into the CDC Tracking Network are broadly intended to improve community health through action by informing both research and early warning activities, including (a) describing temporal and spatial trends in disease and potential environmental exposures, (b) identifying populations most affected, (c) generating hypotheses about associations between health and environmental exposures, and (d) developing, guiding, and assessing environmental public health policies and interventions aimed at reducing or eliminating health outcomes associated with environmental factors.

BACKGROUND: The 2022-2023 United States influenza season had unusually early influenza activity with high hospitalization rates. Vaccine-matched A(H3N2) viruses predominated, with lower levels of A(H1N1)pdm09 activity also observed. METHODS: Using the test-negative design, we evaluated influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) during the 2022-2023 season against influenza-A-associated emergency department/urgent care (ED/UC) visits and hospitalizations from October 2022-March 2023 among adults (age ≥18 years) with acute respiratory illness (ARI). VE was estimated by comparing odds of seasonal influenza vaccination among case-patients (influenza A test-positive by molecular assay) and controls (influenza test-negative), applying inverse-propensity-to-be-vaccinated weights. RESULTS: The analysis included 85,389 ED/UC ARI encounters (17.0% influenza-A-positive; 37.8% vaccinated overall) and 19,751 hospitalizations (9.5% influenza-A-positive; 52.8% vaccinated overall). VE against influenza-A-associated ED/UC encounters was 44% (95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 40-47%) overall and 45% and 41% among adults aged 18-64 and ≥65 years, respectively. VE against influenza-A-associated hospitalizations was 35% (95%CI: 27-43%) overall and 23% and 41% among adults aged 18-64 and ≥65 years, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: VE was moderate during the 2022-2023 influenza season, a season characterized with increased burden of influenza and co-circulation with other respiratory viruses. Vaccination is likely to substantially reduce morbidity, mortality, and strain on healthcare resources.

BACKGROUND: During the 2022-2023 influenza season, the United States experienced the highest influenza-associated pediatric hospitalization rate since 2010-2011. Influenza A/H3N2 infections were predominant. METHODS: We analyzed acute respiratory illness (ARI)-associated emergency department or urgent care (ED/UC) encounters or hospitalizations at three health systems among children and adolescents aged 6 months-17 years who had influenza molecular testing during October 2022-March 2023. We estimated influenza A vaccine effectiveness (VE) using a test-negative approach. The odds of vaccination among influenza-A-positive cases and influenza-negative controls were compared after adjusting for confounders and applying inverse-propensity-to-be-vaccinated weights. We developed overall and age-stratified VE models. RESULTS: Overall, 13,547 of 44,787 (30.2%) eligible ED/UC encounters and 263 of 1,862 (14.1%) hospitalizations were influenza-A-positive cases. Among ED/UC patients, 15.2% of influenza-positive versus 27.1% of influenza-negative patients were vaccinated; VE was 48% (95% confidence interval [CI], 44%-52%) overall, 53% (95% CI, 47%-58%) among children aged 6 months-4 years and 38% (95% CI, 30%-45%) among those aged 9-17 years. Among hospitalizations, 17.5% of influenza-positive versus 33.4% of influenza-negative patients were vaccinated; VE was 40% (95% CI, 6%-61%) overall, 56% (95% CI, 23%-75%) among children ages 6 months-4 years and 46% (95% CI, 2%-70%) among those 5-17 years. CONCLUSIONS: During the 2022-2023 influenza season, vaccination reduced the risk of influenza-associated ED/UC encounters and hospitalizations by almost half (overall VE 40-48%). Influenza vaccination is a critical tool to prevent moderate-to-severe influenza illness in children and adolescents.

OBJECTIVE: Racial and ethnic disparities in influenza vaccination coverage among pregnant women in the United States have been documented. This study assessed the contribution of vaccine-related attitudes to coverage disparities. METHODS: Surveys were conducted following the 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 influenza seasons in a US research network. Using electronic health record data to identify pregnant women, random samples were selected for surveying; non-Hispanic Black women and influenza-unvaccinated women were oversampled. Regression-based decomposition analyses were used to assess the contribution of vaccine-related attitudes to racial and ethnic differences in influenza vaccination. Data were combined across survey years, and analyses were weighted and accounted for survey design. RESULTS: Survey response rate was 41.2% (721 of 1748) for 2019-2020 and 39.3% (706 of 1798) for 2020-2021. Self-reported influenza vaccination was higher among non-Hispanic White respondents (79.4% coverage, 95% CI 73.1%-85.7%) than Hispanic (66.2% coverage, 95% CI 52.5%-79.9%) and non-Hispanic Black (55.8% coverage, 95% CI 50.2%-61.4%) respondents. For all racial and ethnic groups, a high proportion (generally >80%) reported being seen for care, recommended for influenza vaccination, and offered vaccination. In decomposition analyses, vaccine-related attitudes (e.g., worry about vaccination causing influenza; concern about vaccine safety and effectiveness) explained a statistically significant portion of the observed racial and ethnic disparities in vaccination. Maternal age, education, and health status were not significant contributors after controlling for vaccine-related attitudes. CONCLUSIONS: In a setting with relatively high influenza vaccination coverage among pregnant women, racial and ethnic disparities in coverage were identified. Vaccine-related attitudes were associated with the disparities observed.

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

The larva of the ixodid tick Dermacentor parumapertus Neumann, chiefly a parasite of hares and rabbits, is redescribed using scanning electron micrographs of seven specimens derived from two engorged females collected from two black-tailed jackrabbits, Lepus californicus, at the Black Gap Wildlife Management Area, Brewster County, southwestern Texas. The use of chaetotaxy for separating the genera of Ixodidae is discussed, and a morphological key is provided for separating the larvae of D. parumapertus from those of five other Dermacentor species with partly sympatric geographic ranges. © 2023 Systematic and Applied Acarology Society. All rights reserved.

BACKGROUND: The epidemiology of COVID-19 continues to develop with emerging variants, expanding population-level immunity, and advances in clinical care. We describe changes in the clinical epidemiology of hospitalized COVID-19 and risk factors for critical outcomes over time. METHODS: We included adults aged ≥18 years from 10 states hospitalized with COVID-19 June 2021-March 2023 when multiple SARS-CoV-2 variants or sub-lineages predominated. We evaluated changes in baseline demographic and clinical characteristics and critical outcomes (intensive care unit admission and/or death) and used regression models to evaluate critical outcomes risk factors (risk ratios) stratified by COVID-19 vaccination status. RESULTS: 60,488 COVID-19-associated hospitalizations were included in the analysis. Among those hospitalized, from Delta period (June-December 2021) to the Omicron post-BA.4/BA.5 period (September 2022-March 2023), median age increased from 60 to 75 years, proportion vaccinated increased from 18.2% to 70.1%, while critical outcomes declined from 24.8% to 19.4% (all p < 0.001). Compared to all hospitalization events, those with critical outcomes had a higher proportion of four or more categories of medical conditions categories assessed (32.8% critical versus 23.0% all hospitalized). Critical outcome risk factors were similar for unvaccinated and vaccinated populations; presence of ≥4 medical condition categories was most strongly associated with risk of critical outcomes regardless of vaccine status (unvaccinated aRR 2.27 [95% CI: 2.14-2.41]; vaccinated aRR 1.73 [95% CI: 1.56-1.92]) across periods. CONCLUSION: The proportion of adults hospitalized with COVID-19 who experienced critical outcomes decreased with time and median patient age increased with time. Multimorbidity was mostly strongly associated with critical outcomes.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration authorized use of mRNA COVID-19 bivalent booster vaccines on August 31, 2022. Currently, CDC's clinical guidance states that COVID-19 and other vaccines may be administered simultaneously. At time of authorization and recommendations, limited data existed describing simultaneous administration of COVID-19 bivalent booster and other vaccines. We describe simultaneous influenza and mRNA COVID-19 bivalent booster vaccine administration between August 31-December 31, 2022, among persons aged ≥6 months in the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) by COVID-19 bivalent booster vaccine type, influenza vaccine type, age group, sex, and race and ethnicity. Of 2,301,876 persons who received a COVID-19 bivalent booster vaccine, 737,992 (32.1%) received simultaneous influenza vaccine, majority were female (53.1%), aged ≥18 years (91.4%), and non-Hispanic White (55.7%). These findings can inform future VSD studies on simultaneous influenza and COVID-19 bivalent booster vaccine safety and coverage, which may have implications for immunization service delivery.

On June 19, 2022, the original monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were approved as a primary series for children aged 6 months-4 years (Pfizer-BioNTech) and 6 months-5 years (Moderna) based on safety, immunobridging, and limited efficacy data from clinical trials. On December 9, 2022, CDC expanded recommendations for use of updated bivalent vaccines to children aged ≥6 months. mRNA COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) against emergency department or urgent care (ED/UC) encounters was evaluated within the VISION Network during July 4, 2022-June 17, 2023, among children with COVID-19-like illness aged 6 months-5 years. Among children aged 6 months-5 years who received molecular SARS-CoV-2 testing during August 1, 2022-June 17, 2023, VE of 2 monovalent Moderna doses against ED/UC encounters was 29% (95% CI = 12%-42%) ≥14 days after dose 2 (median = 100 days after dose 2; IQR = 63-155 days). Among children aged 6 months-4 years with a COVID-19-like illness who received molecular testing during September 19, 2022-June 17, 2023, VE of 3 monovalent Pfizer-BioNTech doses was 43% (95% CI = 17%-61%) ≥14 days after dose 3 (median = 75 days after dose 3; IQR = 40-139 days). Effectiveness of ≥1 bivalent dose, comparing children with at least a complete primary series and ≥1 bivalent dose to unvaccinated children, irrespective of vaccine manufacturer, was 80% (95% CI = 42%-96%) among children aged 6 months-5 years a median of 58 days (IQR = 32-83 days) after the dose. All children should stay up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccines, including initiation of COVID-19 vaccination immediately when they are eligible.

Polygenic risk scores (PRS), often aggregating the results from genome-wide association studies, can bridge the gap between the initial discovery efforts and clinical applications for disease risk estimation. However, there is remarkable heterogeneity in the reporting of these risk scores. This lack of adherence to reporting standards hinders the translation of PRS into clinical care. The ClinGen Complex Disease Working Group, in a collaboration with the Polygenic Score (PGS) Catalog, have updated the Genetic Risk Prediction (GRIPS) Reporting Statement to the current state of the field and to enable downstream utility. Drawing upon experts in epidemiology, statistics, disease-specific applications, implementation, and policy, this 22-item reporting framework defines the minimal information needed to interpret and evaluate a PRS, especially with respect to any downstream clinical applications. Items span detailed descriptions of the study population (recruitment method, key demographic and clinical characteristics, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and outcome definition), statistical methods for both PRS development and validation, and considerations for potential limitations of the published risk score and downstream clinical utility. Additionally, emphasis has been placed on data availability and transparency to facilitate reproducibility and benchmarking against other PRS, such as deposition in the publicly available PGS Catalog. By providing these criteria in a structured format that builds upon existing standards and ontologies, the use of this framework in publishing PRS will facilitate translation of PRS into clinical care and progress towards defining best practices.Summary In recent years, polygenic risk scores (PRS) have increasingly been used to capture the genome-wide liability underlying many human traits and diseases, hoping to better inform an individual’s genetic risk. However, a lack of adherence to existing reporting standards has hindered the translation of this important tool into clinical and public health practice; in particular, details necessary for benchmarking and reproducibility are underreported. To address this gap, the ClinGen Complex Disease Working Group and Polygenic Score (PGS) Catalog have updated the Genetic Risk Prediction (GRIPS) Reporting Statement into the 22-item Polygenic Risk Score Reporting Statement (PRS-RS). This framework provides the minimal information expected of authors to promote the validity, transparency, and reproducibility of PRS by encouraging authors to detail the study population, statistical methods, and potential clinical utility of a published score. The widespread adoption of this framework will encourage rigorous methodological consideration and facilitate benchmarking to ensure high quality scores are translated into the clinic.Competing Interest StatementMIM is on the advisory panels Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, and Zoe Global; Honoraria: Merck, Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, and Eli Lilly; Research funding: Abbvie, Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Servier &amp; Takeda. As of June 2019, he is an employee of Genentech with stock and stock options in Roche. No other authors have competing interests to declare.Funding StatementClinGen is primarily funded by the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), through the following three grants: U41HG006834, U41HG009649, U41HG009650. ClinGen also receives support for content curation from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), through the following three grants: U24HD093483, U24HD093486, U24HD093487. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. Additionally, the views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health. Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Human Genome Research Institute of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number U41HG007823 (EBI-NHGRI GWAS Catalog, PGS Catalog). In addition, we acknowledge funding from the European Molecular Biology Laboratory. Individuals were funded from the following sources: MIM was a Wellcome Investigator and an NIHR Senior Investigator with funding from NIDDK (U01-DK105535); Wellcome (090532, 098381, 106130, 203141, 212259). MI, SAL, and JD were supported by core funding from: the UK Medical Research Council (MR/L003120/1), the British Heart Foundation (RG/13/13/30194; RG/18/13/33946) and the National Institute for Health Research (Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre at the Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust). SAL is supported by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research postdoctoral fellowship (MFE-171279). JD holds a British Heart Foundation Personal Chair and a National Institute for Health Research Senior Investigator Award. This work was also supported by Health Data Research UK, which is funded by the UK Medical Research Council, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, Economic and Social Research Council, Department of Health and Social Care (England), Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates, Health and Social Care Research and Development Division (Welsh Government), Public Health Agency (Northern Ireland), British Heart Foundation and Wellcome.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:N/AAll 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.YesN/A

Objective: To determine whether modified K-12 student quarantine policies that allow some students to continue in-person education during their quarantine period increase schoolwide SARS-CoV-2 transmission risk following the increase in cases in winter 2020-2021. Method(s): We conducted a prospective cohort study of COVID-19 cases and exposures among students and staff (n=65,621) in 103 Missouri public schools. Participants were offered free, saliva-based RT-PCR testing. An adjusted Cox regression model compared hazard rates of school-based SARS-CoV-2 infections between schools with a modified versus standard quarantine policy. Result(s): From January-March 2021, a projected 23 (1%) school-based transmission events occurred among 1,636 school close contacts. There was no difference in the adjusted hazard rates of school-based SARS-CoV-2 infections between schools with a modified versus standard quarantine policy (hazard ratio=1.00; 95% confidence interval: 0.97-1.03). Discussion(s): School-based SARS-CoV-2 transmission was rare in 103 K-12 schools implementing multiple COVID-19 prevention strategies. Modified student quarantine policies were not associated with increased school incidence of COVID-19. Modifications to student quarantine policies may be a useful strategy for K-12 schools to safely reduce disruptions to in-person education during times of increased COVID-19 community incidence. 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: Immunocompromised (IC) persons are at increased risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes and are less protected by 1-2 COVID-19 vaccine doses than are immunocompetent (non-IC) persons. We compared vaccine effectiveness (VE) against medically attended COVID-19 of 2-3 mRNA and 1-2 viral-vector vaccine doses between IC and non-IC adults. Method(s): Using a test-negative design among eight VISION Network sites, VE against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19-associated emergency department (ED) or urgent care (UC) events and hospitalizations from 26 August-25 December 2021 was estimated separately among IC and non-IC adults and among specific IC condition subgroups. Vaccination status was defined using number and timing of doses. VE for each status (versus unvaccinated) was adjusted for age, geography, time, prior positive test result, and local SARS-CoV-2 circulation. Result(s): We analyzed 8,848 ED/UC events and 18,843 hospitalizations among IC patients and 200,071 ED/UC events and 70,882 hospitalizations among non-IC patients. Among IC patients, 3-dose mRNA VE against ED/UC (73% [95% CI: 64-80]) and hospitalization (81% [95% CI: 76-86]) was lower than that among non-IC patients (ED/UC: 94% [95% CI: 93-94]; hospitalization: 96% [95% CI: 95-97]). Similar patterns were observed for viral-vector vaccines. Transplant recipients had lower VE than other IC subgroups. Conclusion(s): During B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant predominance, IC adults received moderate protection against COVID-19-associated medical events from three mRNA doses, or one viral-vector dose plus a second dose of any product. However, protection was lower in IC versus non-IC patients, especially among transplant recipients, underscoring the need for additional protection among IC adults. Copyright The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. This article is a US Government work. It is not subject to copyright under 17 USC 105 and is also made available for use under a CC0 license.

Importance: Post-authorization monitoring of vaccines in a large population can detect rare adverse events not identified in clinical trials including Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS). GBS has a background rate of 1-2 per 100,000 person-years. Objective(s): To 1) describe cases and incidence of GBS following COVID-19 vaccination, and 2) assess the risk of GBS after vaccination for Ad.26.COV2.S (Janssen) and mRNA vaccines. Design(s): Interim analysis of surveillance data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink. Setting(s): Eight participating integrated healthcare systems in the United States. Participant(s): 10,158,003 individuals aged >=12 years. Exposures: Receipt of Ad.26.COV2.S, BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech), or mRNA-1273 (Moderna) COVID-19 vaccine. Main Outcomes and Measures: GBS with symptom onset in the 1-84 days after vaccination as confirmed by medical record review and adjudication. Descriptive characteristics of confirmed cases, GBS incidence rates during postvaccination risk intervals after each type of vaccine compared to the background rate, rate ratios (RRs) comparing GBS incidence in the 1-21 vs. 22-42 days postvaccination, and RRs directly comparing risk of GBS after Ad.26.COV2.S vs. mRNA vaccination, using Poisson regression adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, site, and calendar day. Result(s): From December 13, 2020 through November 13, 2021, 14,723,318 doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered, including 467,126 Ad.26.COV2.S, 8,573,823 BNT162b2, and 5,682,369 mRNA-1273 doses. Eleven cases of GBS after Ad.26.COV2.S were confirmed. The unadjusted incidence rate of confirmed cases of GBS per 100,000 person-years in the 1-21 days after Ad.26.COV2.S was 34.6 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 15.8-65.7), significantly higher than the background rate, and the adjusted RR in the 1-21 vs. 22-42 days following Ad.26.COV2.S was 6.03 (95% CI: 0.79-147.79). Thirty-four cases of GBS after mRNA vaccines were confirmed. The unadjusted incidence rate of confirmed cases per 100,000 person-years in the 1-21 days after mRNA vaccines was 1.4 (95% CI: 0.7-2.5) and the adjusted RR in the 1-21 vs. 22-42 days following mRNA vaccines was 0.56 (95% CI: 0.21-1.48). In a head-to-head comparison of Ad.26.COV2.S vs. mRNA vaccines, the adjusted RR was 20.56 (95% CI: 6.94-64.66). Conclusions and Relevance: In this interim analysis of surveillance data of COVID-19 vaccines, the incidence of GBS was elevated after Ad.26.COV2.S. Surveillance is ongoing. Copyright The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.

BACKGROUND: Immunocompromised (IC) persons are at increased risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes and are less protected by 1-2 COVID-19 vaccine doses than are immunocompetent (non-IC) persons. We compared vaccine effectiveness (VE) against medically attended COVID-19 of 2-3 mRNA and 1-2 viral-vector vaccine doses between IC and non-IC adults. METHODS: Using a test-negative design among eight VISION Network sites, VE against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19-associated emergency department (ED) or urgent care (UC) events and hospitalizations from 26 August-25 December 2021 was estimated separately among IC and non-IC adults and among specific IC condition subgroups. Vaccination status was defined using number and timing of doses. VE for each status (versus unvaccinated) was adjusted for age, geography, time, prior positive test result, and local SARS-CoV-2 circulation. RESULTS: We analyzed 8,848 ED/UC events and 18,843 hospitalizations among IC patients and 200,071 ED/UC events and 70,882 hospitalizations among non-IC patients. Among IC patients, 3-dose mRNA VE against ED/UC (73% [95% CI: 64-80]) and hospitalization (81% [95% CI: 76-86]) was lower than that among non-IC patients (ED/UC: 94% [95% CI: 93-94]; hospitalization: 96% [95% CI: 95-97]). Similar patterns were observed for viral-vector vaccines. Transplant recipients had lower VE than other IC subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: During B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant predominance, IC adults received moderate protection against COVID-19-associated medical events from three mRNA doses, or one viral-vector dose plus a second dose of any product. However, protection was lower in IC versus non-IC patients, especially among transplant recipients, underscoring the need for additional protection among IC adults.

INTRODUCTION: Safety data on simultaneous vaccination (SV) with primary series monovalent COVID-19 vaccines and other vaccines are limited. We describe SV with primary series COVID-19 vaccines and assess 23 pre-specified health outcomes following SV among persons aged ≥5 years in the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD). METHODS: We utilized VSD's COVID-19 vaccine surveillance data from December 11, 2020-May 21, 2022. Analyses assessed frequency of SV. Rate ratios (RRs) were estimated by Poisson regression when the number of outcomes was ≥5 across both doses, comparing outcome rates between COVID-19 vaccinees receiving SV and COVID-19 vaccinees receiving no SV in the 1-21 days following COVID-19 vaccine dose 1 and 1-42 days following dose 2 by SV type received ("All SV", "Influenza SV", "Non-influenza SV"). RESULTS: SV with COVID-19 vaccines was not common practice (dose 1: 0.7 % of 8,455,037 persons, dose 2: 0.3 % of 7,787,013 persons). The most frequent simultaneous vaccines were influenza, HPV, Tdap, and meningococcal. Outcomes following SV with COVID-19 vaccines were rare (total of 56 outcomes observed after dose 1 and dose 2). Overall rate of outcomes among COVID-19 vaccinees who received SV was not statistically significantly different than the rate among those who did not receive SV (6.5 vs. 6.8 per 10,000 persons). Statistically significant elevated RRs were observed for appendicitis (2.09; 95 % CI, 1.06-4.13) and convulsions/seizures (2.78; 95 % CI, 1.10-7.06) in the "All SV" group following dose 1, and for Bell's palsy (2.82; 95 % CI, 1.14-6.97) in the "Influenza SV" group following dose 2. CONCLUSION: Combined pre-specified health outcomes observed among persons who received SV with COVID-19 vaccine were rare and not statistically significantly different compared to persons who did not receive SV with COVID-19 vaccine. Statistically significant adjusted rate ratios were observed for some individual outcomes, but the number of outcomes was small and there was no adjustment for multiple testing.

We previously assessed safety of monovalent messenger RNA (mRNA) coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines using weekly surveillance monitoring known as rapid cycle analysis (RCA) among individuals aged 5 years and older, identifying an increased risk for myocarditis and pericarditis in younger males, particularly following dose 2 of the primary series.1,–3 Information regarding COVID-19 vaccine safety among children under age 5 is limited.4 Here we report RCA safety surveillance of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines administered in this youngest age group within the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD).

On September 1, 2022, CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended a single bivalent mRNA COVID-19 booster dose for persons aged ≥12 years who had completed at least a monovalent primary series. Early vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates among adults aged ≥18 years showed receipt of a bivalent booster dose provided additional protection against COVID-19-associated emergency department and urgent care visits and hospitalizations compared with that in persons who had received only monovalent vaccine doses (1); however, insufficient time had elapsed since bivalent vaccine authorization to assess the durability of this protection. The VISION Network* assessed VE against COVID-19-associated hospitalizations by time since bivalent vaccine receipt during September 13, 2022-April 21, 2023, among adults aged ≥18 years with and without immunocompromising conditions. During the first 7-59 days after vaccination, compared with no vaccination, VE for receipt of a bivalent vaccine dose among adults aged ≥18 years was 62% (95% CI = 57%-67%) among adults without immunocompromising conditions and 28% (95% CI = 10%-42%) among adults with immunocompromising conditions. Among adults without immunocompromising conditions, VE declined to 24% (95% CI = 12%-33%) among those aged ≥18 years by 120-179 days after vaccination. VE was generally lower for adults with immunocompromising conditions. A bivalent booster dose provided the highest protection, and protection was sustained through at least 179 days against critical outcomes, including intensive care unit (ICU) admission or in-hospital death. These data support updated recommendations allowing additional optional bivalent COVID-19 vaccine doses for certain high-risk populations. All eligible persons should stay up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccines.

OBJECTIVES: We assessed BNT162b2 vaccine effectiveness (VE) against mild to moderate and severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in children and adolescents through the Omicron BA.4/BA.5 period. METHODS: Using VISION Network records from April 2021 to September 2022, we conducted a test-negative, case-control study assessing VE against COVID-19-associated emergency department/urgent care (ED/UC) encounters and hospitalizations using logistic regression, conditioned on month and site, adjusted for covariates. RESULTS: We compared 9800 ED/UC cases with 70 232 controls, and 305 hospitalized cases with 2612 controls. During Delta, 2-dose VE against ED/UC encounters at 12 to 15 years was initially 93% (95% confidence interval 89 to 95), waning to 77% (69% to 84%) after ≥150 days. At ages 16 to 17, VE was initially 93% (86% to 97%), waning to 72% (63% to 79%) after ≥150 days. During Omicron, VE at ages 12 to 15 was initially 64% (44% to 77%), waning to 13% (3% to 23%) after ≥150 days; at ages 16 to 17 VE was 31% (10% to 47%) during days 60 to 149, waning to 7% (-8 to 20%) after 150 days. A monovalent booster increased VE to 54% (40% to 65%) at ages 12 to 15 and 46% (30% to 58%) at ages 16 to 17. At ages 5 to 11, 2-dose VE was 49% (33% to 61%) initially and 41% (29% to 51%) after 150 days. During Delta, VE against hospitalizations at ages 12 to 17 was high (>97%), and at ages 16 to 17 remained 98% (73% to 100%) beyond 150 days; during Omicron, hospitalizations were too infrequent to precisely estimate VE. CONCLUSIONS: BNT162b2 protected children and adolescents against mild to moderate and severe COVID-19. VE was lower during Omicron predominance including BA.4/BA.5, waned after dose 2 but increased after a monovalent booster. Children and adolescents should receive all recommended COVID-19 vaccinations.

IMPORTANCE: Recent SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant sublineages, including BA.4 and BA.5, may be associated with greater immune evasion and less protection against COVID-19 after vaccination. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the estimated vaccine effectiveness (VE) of 2, 3, or 4 doses of COVID-19 mRNA vaccination among immunocompetent adults during a period of BA.4 or BA.5 predominant circulation; and to evaluate the relative severity of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients across Omicron BA.1, BA.2 or BA.2.12.1, and BA.4 or BA.5 sublineage periods. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This test-negative case-control study was conducted in 10 states with data from emergency department (ED) and urgent care (UC) encounters and hospitalizations from December 16, 2021, to August 20, 2022. Participants included adults with COVID-19-like illness and molecular testing for SARS-CoV-2. Data were analyzed from August 2 to September 21, 2022. EXPOSURES: mRNA COVID-19 vaccination. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The outcomes of interest were COVID-19 ED or UC encounters, hospitalizations, and admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) or in-hospital death. VE associated with protection against medically attended COVID-19 was estimated, stratified by care setting and vaccine doses (2, 3, or 4 doses vs 0 doses as the reference group). Among hospitalized patients with COVID-19, demographic and clinical characteristics and in-hospital outcomes were compared across sublineage periods. RESULTS: During the BA.4 and BA.5 predominant period, there were 229 eligible ED and UC encounters among patients with COVID-19-like illness (median [IQR] age, 51 [33-70] years; 49 682 [60.4%] female patients), and 19 114 patients (23.2%) had test results positive for SARS-CoV-2; among 21 007 hospitalized patients (median [IQR] age, 71 [58-81] years; 11 209 [53.4%] female patients), 3583 (17.1 %) had test results positive for SARS-CoV-2. Estimated VE against hospitalization was 25% (95% CI, 17%-32%) for receipt of 2 vaccine doses at 150 days or more after receipt, 68% (95% CI, 50%-80%) for a third dose 7 to 119 days after receipt, and 36% (95% CI, 29%-42%) for a third dose 120 days or more (median [IQR], 235 [204-262] days) after receipt. Among patients aged 65 years or older who had received a fourth vaccine dose, VE was 66% (95% CI, 53%-75%) at 7 to 59 days after vaccination and 57% (95% CI, 44%-66%) at 60 days or more (median [IQR], 88 [75-105] days) after vaccination. Among hospitalized patients with COVID-19, ICU admission or in-hospital death occurred in 21.4% of patients during the BA.1 period vs 14.7% during the BA.4 and BA.5 period (standardized mean difference: 0.17). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this case-control study of COVID-19 vaccines and illness, VE associated with protection against medically attended COVID-19 illness was lower with increasing time since last dose; estimated VE was higher after receipt of 1 or 2 booster doses compared with a primary series alone.

BACKGROUND: Following historically low influenza activity during the 2020-2021 season, the United States saw an increase in influenza circulating during the 2021-2022 season. Most viruses belonged to the influenza A(H3N2) 3C.2a1b 2a.2 subclade. METHODS: We conducted a test-negative case-control analysis among adults ≥18 years of age at three sites within the VISION Network. Encounters included emergency department/urgent care (ED/UC) visits or hospitalizations with ≥1 acute respiratory illness (ARI) discharge diagnosis codes and molecular testing for influenza. Vaccine effectiveness (VE) was calculated by comparing the odds of influenza vaccination ≥14 days before the encounter date between influenza-positive cases (type A) and influenza-negative and SARS-CoV-2-negative controls, applying inverse probability-to-be-vaccinated weights, and adjusting for confounders. RESULTS: 86,732 ED/UC ARI-associated encounters (7,696 [9%] cases) and 16,805 hospitalized ARI-associated encounters (649 [4%] cases) were included. VE against influenza-associated ED/UC encounters was 25% (95% confidence interval (CI): 20-29%) and 25% (95%CI: 11-37%) against influenza-associated hospitalizations. VE against ED/UC encounters was lower in adults ≥65 years of age (7%; CI: -5-17%) or with immunocompromising conditions (4%, CI:-45-36%). CONCLUSIONS: During an influenza A(H3N2)-predominant influenza season, modest VE was observed. These findings highlight the need for improved vaccines, particularly for A(H3N2) viruses that are historically associated with lower VE.

During June-October 2022, the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.5 sublineage accounted for most of the sequenced viral genomes in the United States, with further Omicron sublineage diversification through November 2022.* Bivalent mRNA vaccines contain an ancestral SARS-CoV-2 strain component plus an updated component of the Omicron BA.4/BA.5 sublineages. On September 1, 2022, a single bivalent booster dose was recommended for adults who had completed a primary vaccination series (with or without subsequent booster doses), with the last dose administered ≥2 months earlier (1). During September 13-November 18, the VISION Network evaluated vaccine effectiveness (VE) of a bivalent mRNA booster dose (after 2, 3, or 4 monovalent doses) compared with 1) no previous vaccination and 2) previous receipt of 2, 3, or 4 monovalent-only mRNA vaccine doses, among immunocompetent adults aged ≥18 years with an emergency department/urgent care (ED/UC) encounter or hospitalization for a COVID-19-like illness.(†) VE of a bivalent booster dose (after 2, 3, or 4 monovalent doses) against COVID-19-associated ED/UC encounters was 56% compared with no vaccination, 31% compared with monovalent vaccination only with last dose 2-4 months earlier, and 50% compared with monovalent vaccination only with last dose ≥11 months earlier. VE of a bivalent booster dose (after 2, 3, or 4 monovalent doses) against COVID-19-associated hospitalizations was 57% compared with no vaccination, 38% compared with monovalent vaccination only with last dose 5-7 months earlier, and 45% compared with monovalent vaccination only with last dose ≥11 months earlier. Bivalent vaccines administered after 2, 3, or 4 monovalent doses were effective in preventing medically attended COVID-19 compared with no vaccination and provided additional protection compared with past monovalent vaccination only, with relative protection increasing with time since receipt of the last monovalent dose. All eligible persons should stay up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccinations, including receiving a bivalent booster dose. Persons should also consider taking additional precautions to avoid respiratory illness this winter season, such as masking in public indoor spaces, especially in areas where COVID-19 community levels are high.