Molecular surveillance of circulating measles variants serves as a line of evidence for the absence of endemic circulation and provides a means to track chains of transmission. Molecular surveillance for measles (genotyping) is based on the sequence of 450 nucleotides at the end of the nucleoprotein coding region (N450) of the measles genome. Genotyping was established in 1998 and, with over 50,000 sequence submissions to the Measles Nucleotide Surveillance database, has proven to be an effective resource for countries attempting to trace pathways of transmission. This review summarizes the tools used for the molecular surveillance of measles and describes the challenge posed by the decreased number of circulating measles genotypes. The Global Measles and Rubella Laboratory Network addressed this challenge through the development of new tools such as named strains and distinct sequence identifiers that analyze the diversity within the currently circulating genotypes. The advantages and limitations of these approaches are discussed, together with the need to generate additional sequence data including whole genome sequences to ensure the continued utility of strain surveillance for measles.

We investigated a variant of measles virus that encodes three mismatches to the reverse priming site for a widely used diagnostic real-time RT-PCR assay; reduction of sensitivity was hypothesised. We examined performance of the assay in context of the variant using in silico data, synthetic RNA templates and clinical specimens. Sensitivity was reduced observed at low copy numbers for templates encoding the variant sequence. We designed and tested an alternate priming strategy, rescuing the sensitivity of the assay.

Nipah virus causes highly lethal disease, with case-fatality rates ranging from 40% to 100% in recognised outbreaks. No treatments or licensed vaccines are currently available for the prevention and control of Nipah virus infection. In 2019, WHO published an advanced draft of a research and development roadmap for accelerating development of medical countermeasures, including diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines, to enable effective and timely emergency response to Nipah virus outbreaks. This Personal View provides an update to the WHO roadmap by defining current research priorities for development of Nipah virus medical countermeasures, based primarily on literature published in the last 5 years and consensus opinion of 15 subject matter experts with broad experience in development of medical countermeasures for Nipah virus or experience in the epidemiology, ecology, or public health control of outbreaks of Nipah virus. The research priorities are organised into four main sections: cross-cutting issues (for those that apply to more than one category of medical countermeasures), diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines. The strategic goals and milestones identified in each section focus on key achievements that are needed over the next 6 years to ensure that the necessary tools are available for rapid response to future outbreaks of Nipah virus or related henipaviruses.

BACKGROUND: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (N/R) reduces severe outcomes from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); however, rebound after treatment has been reported. We compared symptom and viral dynamics in individuals with COVID-19 who completed N/R treatment and similar untreated individuals. METHODS: We identified symptomatic participants who tested severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-positive and were N/R eligible from a COVID-19 household transmission study. Index cases from ambulatory settings and their households contacts were enrolled. We collected daily symptoms, medication use, and respiratory specimens for quantitative polymerase chain reaction for 10 days during March 2022-May 2023. Participants who completed N/R treatment (treated) were propensity score matched to untreated participants. We compared symptom rebound, viral load (VL) rebound, average daily symptoms, and average daily VL by treatment status measured after N/R treatment completion or 7 days after symptom onset if untreated. RESULTS: Treated (n = 130) and untreated participants (n = 241) had similar baseline characteristics. After treatment completion, treated participants had greater occurrence of symptom rebound (32% vs 20%; P = .009) and VL rebound (27% vs 7%; P < .001). Average daily symptoms were lower among treated participants without symptom rebound (1.0 vs 1.6; P < .01) but not statistically lower with symptom rebound (3.0 vs 3.4; P = .5). Treated participants had lower average daily VLs without VL rebound (0.9 vs 2.6; P < .01) but not statistically lower with VL rebound (4.8 vs 5.1; P = .7). CONCLUSIONS: Individuals who completed N/R treatment experienced fewer symptoms and lower VL but rebound occured more often compared with untreated individuals. Providers should prescribe N/R, when indicated, and communicate rebound risk to patients.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between urinary benzophenone-3 concentrations and measures of ovarian reserve (OR) among women in the Environment and Reproductive Health (EARTH) Study seeking fertility treatment at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. METHODS: Women from the EARTH cohort contributed spot urine samples before assessment of OR outcomes. Antral follicle count (AFC) and day-3 follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) levels were evaluated as part of standard infertility workups during unstimulated menstrual cycles. Quasi-Poisson and linear regression models were used to evaluate the association of specific gravity (SG)-adjusted urinary benzophenone-3 concentrations with AFC and FSH, respectively, with adjustment for age and physical activity. In secondary analyses, models were stratified by age. Sensitivity analyses assessed for confounding by season by restricting to women with exposure and outcome measured in the same season and stratifying by summer vs. non-summer months and for confounding by sunscreen use by restricting to women who filled out product questionnaires and adjusting for and stratifying by average sunscreen use score. RESULTS: The study included 142 women (mean age ± SD, 36.1 ± 4.6; range, 22-45 years) enrolled between 2009 and 2017 with both urinary benzophenone-3 and AFC and 57 women with benzophenone-3 and FSH measurements. Most women were white (78%) and highly educated (49% with a graduate degree). Women contributed a mean of 2.7 urine samples (range, 1-10) with 37% contributing 2 or more samples. Benzophenone-3 was detected in 98% of samples. Geometric mean (GM) SG-corrected urinary benzophenone-3 concentration was 85.9 μ g/L (geometric standard deviation 6.2). There were no associations of benzophenone-3 with AFC and day-3 FSH in the full cohort. In stratified models, a 1-unit increase in log GM benzophenone-3 was associated with AFC 0.91 (95% CI, 0.86, 0.97) times lower among women ≤35 years old and was associated with FSH 0.73 (95% CI, 0.12, 1.34) IU/L higher among women >35 years old. Effect estimates from models stratified by season and sunscreen use were null. CONCLUSION: In main models, urinary benzophenone-3 was not associated with OR. However, younger may be vulnerable to potential effects of benzophenone-3 on AFC. Further research is warranted.

BACKGROUND: Outbreaks of rotavirus gastroenteritis in elderly adults are reported infrequently but are often caused by G2P[4] strains. In 2011, outbreaks were reported in 2 Illinois retirement facilities. OBJECTIVE: To implement control measures, determine the extent and severity of illness, and assess risk factors for disease among residents and employees. DESIGN: Cohort studies using surveys and medical chart abstraction. SETTING: Two large retirement facilities in Cook County, Illinois. PATIENTS: Residents and employees at both facilities and community residents with rotavirus disease. MEASUREMENTS: Attack rates, hospitalization rates, and rotavirus genotype. RESULTS: At facility A, 84 of 324 residents (26%) were identified with clinical or laboratory-confirmed rotavirus gastroenteritis (median age, 84 years) and 11 (13%) were hospitalized. The outbreak lasted 7 weeks. At facility B, 90 case patients among 855 residents (11%) were identified (median age, 88 years) and 19 (21%) were hospitalized. The facility B outbreak lasted 9.3 weeks. Ill employees were identified at both locations. In each facility, attack rates seemed to differ by residential setting, with the lowest rates among those in more separated settings or with high baseline level of infection control measures. The causative genotype for both outbreaks was G2P[4]. Some individuals shed virus detected by enzyme immunoassay or genotyping reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction for at least 35 days. G2P[4] was also identified in 17 of 19 (89%) samples from the older adult community but only 15 of 40 (38%) pediatric samples. LIMITATION: Medical or cognitive impairment among residents limited the success of some interviews. CONCLUSION: Rotavirus outbreaks can occur among elderly adults in residential facilities and can result in considerable morbidity. Among older adults, G2P[4] may be of unique importance. Health professionals should consider rotavirus as a cause of acute gastroenteritis in adults. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Coronavirus virions are spherical or variable in shape and composed of an outer layer of lipid covered with a crown of club-shaped peplomers or spikes. Within each spike is a helical single-stranded RNA-containing structural protein. Although the term corona was first used in English in the 1500s, it was borrowed directly from the Latin word for “crown.” Corona is derived from the Ancient Greek κορώνη (korōnè), meaning “garland” or “wreath,” coming from a proto-Indo-European root, sker- or ker-, meaning “to turn” or “to bend.” | | In the 1967 initial description of an electron microscopic image of a human common cold virus, June Almeida (née Hart) and David Tyrrell described the surface of coronavirus particles as being “covered with a distinct layer of projections roughly 200Ǻ [20 nm] long….[with] a narrow stalk just in the limit of resolution of the microscope and a ‘head’ roughly 100Ǻ across”. In micrographs, the club-shaped spikes that stud the surface of coronaviruses are glycoproteins that give the appearance of a radiate crown.

Multiple respiratory hazards have been identified in the cannabis cultivation and production industry, in which occupational asthma and work-related exacerbation of preexisting asthma have been reported. An employee working in a Massachusetts cannabis cultivation and processing facility experienced progressively worsening work-associated respiratory symptoms, which culminated in a fatal asthma attack in January 2022. This report represents findings of an Occupational Safety and Health Administration inspection, which included a worksite exposure assessment, coworker and next-of-kin interviews, medical record reviews, and collaboration with the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. Respiratory tract or skin symptoms were reported by four of 10 coworkers with similar job duties. Prevention is best achieved through a multifaceted approach, including controlling asthmagen exposures, such as cannabis dust, providing worker training, and conducting medical monitoring for occupational allergy. Evaluation of workers with new-onset or worsening asthma is essential, along with prompt diagnosis and medical management, which might include cessation of work and workers' compensation when relation to work exposures is identified. It is important to recognize that work in cannabis production is potentially causative.

Background: The natural history of SARS-CoV-2 infection and transmission dynamics may have changed as SARS-CoV-2 has evolved and population immunity has shifted. Method(s): Household contacts, enrolled from two multi-site case-ascertained household transmission studies (April 2020-April 2021 and September 2021-September 2022), were followed for 10-14 days after enrollment with daily collection of nasal swabs and/or saliva for SARS-CoV-2 testing and symptom diaries. SARS-CoV-2 virus lineage was determined by whole genome sequencing, with multiple imputation where sequences could not be recovered. Adjusted infection risks were estimated using modified Poisson regression. Finding(s): 858 primary cases with 1473 household contacts were examined. Among unvaccinated household contacts, the infection risk adjusted for presence of prior infection and age was 58% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 49-68%) in households currently exposed to pre-Delta lineages and 90% (95% CI: 74-100%) among those exposed to Omicron BA.5 (detected May - September 2022). The fraction of infected household contacts reporting any symptom was similarly high between pre-Delta (86%, 95% CI: 81-91%) and Omicron lineages (77%, 70-85%). Among Omicron BA.5-infected contacts, 48% (41-56%) reported fever, 63% (56-71%) cough, 22% (17-28%) shortness of breath, and 20% (15-27%) loss of/change in taste/smell. Interpretation(s): The risk of infection among household contacts exposed to SARS-CoV-2 is high and increasing with more recent SARS-CoV-2 lineages. This high infection risk highlights the importance of vaccination to prevent severe disease. Funding(s): Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration. 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.

Policymakers make decisions about COVID-19 management in the face of considerable uncertainty. We convened multiple modeling teams to evaluate reopening strategies for a mid-sized county in the United States, in a novel process designed to fully express scientific uncertainty while reducing linguistic uncertainty and cognitive biases. For the scenarios considered, the consensus from 17 distinct models was that a second outbreak will occur within 6 months of reopening, unless schools and non-essential workplaces remain closed. Up to half the population could be infected with full workplace reopening; non-essential business closures reduced median cumulative infections by 82%. Intermediate reopening interventions identified no win-win situations; there was a trade-off between public health outcomes and duration of workplace closures. Aggregate results captured twice the uncertainty of individual models, providing a more complete expression of risk for decision-making purposes.

Objectives: To compare the effectiveness of a primary COVID-19 vaccine series plus a booster dose with a primary series alone for the prevention of Omicron variant COVID-19 hospitalization. Design(s): Multicenter observational case-control study using the test-negative design to evaluate vaccine effectiveness (VE). Setting(s): Twenty-one hospitals in the United States (US). Participant(s): 3,181 adults hospitalized with an acute respiratory illness between December 26, 2021 and April 30, 2022, a period of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant (BA.1, BA.2) predominance. Participants included 1,572 (49%) case-patients with laboratory confirmed COVID-19 and 1,609 (51%) control patients who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2. Median age was 64 years, 48% were female, and 21% were immunocompromised; 798 (25%) were vaccinated with a primary series plus booster, 1,326 (42%) were vaccinated with a primary series alone, and 1,057 (33%) were unvaccinated. Main Outcome Measure(s): VE against COVID-19 hospitalization was calculated for a primary series plus a booster and a primary series alone by comparing the odds of being vaccinated with each of these regimens versus being unvaccinated among cases versus controls. VE analyses were stratified by immune status (immunocompetent; immunocompromised) because the recommended vaccine schedules are different for these groups. The primary analysis evaluated all COVID-19 vaccine types combined and secondary analyses evaluated specific vaccine products. Result(s): Among immunocompetent patients, VE against Omicron COVID-19 hospitalization for a primary series plus one booster of any vaccine product dose was 77% (95% CI: 71-82%), and for a primary series alone was 44% (95% CI: 31-54%) (p<0.001). VE was higher for a boosted regimen than a primary series alone for both mRNA vaccines used in the US (BNT162b2: primary series plus booster VE 80% (95% CI: 73-85%), primary series alone VE 46% (95% CI: 30-58%) [p<0.001]; mRNA-1273: primary series plus booster VE 77% (95% CI: 67-83%), primary series alone VE 47% (95% CI: 30-60%) [p<0.001]). Among immunocompromised patients, VE for a primary series of any vaccine product against Omicron COVID-19 hospitalization was 60% (95% CI: 41-73%). Insufficient sample size has accumulated to calculate effectiveness of boosted regimens for immunocompromised patients. Conclusion(s): Among immunocompetent people, a booster dose of COVID-19 vaccine provided additional benefit beyond a primary vaccine series alone for preventing COVID-19 hospitalization due to the Omicron variant. Copyright The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.

BACKGROUND: As SARS-CoV-2 vaccination coverage increases in the United States (US), there is a need to understand the real-world effectiveness against severe Covid-19 and among people at increased risk for poor outcomes. METHODS: In a multicenter case-control analysis of US adults hospitalized March 11 - May 5, 2021, we evaluated vaccine effectiveness to prevent Covid-19 hospitalizations by comparing odds of prior vaccination with an mRNA vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna) between cases hospitalized with Covid-19 and hospital-based controls who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: Among 1210 participants, median age was 58 years, 22.8% were Black, 13.8% were Hispanic, and 20.6% had immunosuppression. SARS-CoV-2 lineage B.1.1.7 was most common variant (59.7% of sequenced viruses). Full vaccination (receipt of two vaccine doses ≥14 days before illness onset) had been received by 45/590 (7.6%) cases and 215/620 (34.7%) controls. Overall vaccine effectiveness was 86.9% (95% CI: 80.4 to 91.2%). Vaccine effectiveness was similar for Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, and highest in adults aged 18-49 years (97.3%; 95% CI: 78.9 to 99.7%). Among 45 patients with vaccine-breakthrough Covid hospitalizations, 44 (97.8%) were ≥50 years old and 20 (44.4%) had immunosuppression. Vaccine effectiveness was lower among patients with immunosuppression (59.2%; 95% CI: 11.9 to 81.1%) than without immunosuppression (91.3%; 95% CI: 85.5 to 94.7%). CONCLUSION: During March-May 2021, SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines were highly effective for preventing Covid-19 hospitalizations among US adults. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was beneficial for patients with immunosuppression, but effectiveness was lower in the immunosuppressed population.

IMPORTANCE: Acute neurological involvement occurs in some patients with multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), but few data report neurological and psychological sequelae, and no investigations include direct assessments of cognitive function 6 to 12 months after discharge. OBJECTIVE: To characterize neurological, psychological, and quality of life sequelae after MIS-C. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional cohort study was conducted in the US and Canada. Participants included children with MIS-C diagnosed from November 2020 through November 2021, 6 to 12 months after hospital discharge, and their sibling or community controls, when available. Data analysis was performed from August 2022 to May 2023. EXPOSURE: Diagnosis of MIS-C. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: A central study site remotely administered a onetime neurological examination and in-depth neuropsychological assessment including measures of cognition, behavior, quality of life, and daily function. Generalized estimating equations, accounting for matching, assessed for group differences. RESULTS: Sixty-four patients with MIS-C (mean [SD] age, 11.5 [3.9] years; 20 girls [31%]) and 44 control participants (mean [SD] age, 12.6 [3.7] years; 20 girls [45%]) were enrolled. The MIS-C group exhibited abnormalities on neurological examination more frequently than controls (15 of 61 children [25%] vs 3 of 43 children [7%]; odds ratio, 4.7; 95% CI, 1.3-16.7). Although the 2 groups performed similarly on most cognitive measures, the MIS-C group scored lower on the National Institutes of Health Cognition Toolbox List Sort Working Memory Test, a measure of executive functioning (mean [SD] scores, 96.1 [14.3] vs 103.1 [10.5]). Parents reported worse psychological outcomes in cases compared with controls, particularly higher scores for depression symptoms (mean [SD] scores, 52.6 [13.1] vs 47.8 [9.4]) and somatization (mean [SD] scores, 55.5 [15.5] vs 47.0 [7.6]). Self-reported (mean [SD] scores, 79.6 [13.1] vs 85.5 [12.3]) and parent-reported (mean [SD] scores, 80.3 [15.5] vs 88.6 [13.0]) quality of life scores were also lower in cases than controls. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cohort study, compared with contemporaneous sibling or community controls, patients with MIS-C had more abnormal neurologic examinations, worse working memory scores, more somatization and depression symptoms, and lower quality of life 6 to 12 months after hospital discharge. Although these findings need to be confirmed in larger studies, enhanced monitoring may be warranted for early identification and treatment of neurological and psychological symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Accurate determination of COVID-19 vaccination status is necessary to produce reliable COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates. Data comparing differences in COVID-19 VE by vaccination sources (i.e., immunization information systems [IIS], electronic medical records [EMR], and self-report) are limited. We compared the number of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses identified by each of these sources to assess agreement as well as differences in VE estimates using vaccination data from each individual source and vaccination data adjudicated from all sources combined. METHODS: Adults aged ≥18 years who were hospitalized with COVID-like illness at 21 hospitals in 18 U.S. states participating in the IVY Network during February 1-August 31, 2022, were enrolled. Numbers of COVID-19 vaccine doses identified by IIS, EMR, and self-report were compared in kappa agreement analyses. Effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was estimated using multivariable logistic regression models to compare the odds of COVID-19 vaccination between SARS-CoV-2-positive case-patients and SARS-CoV-2-negative control-patients. VE was estimated using each source of vaccination data separately and all sources combined. RESULTS: A total of 4499 patients were included. Patients with ≥1 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose were identified most frequently by self-report (n = 3570, 79 %), followed by IIS (n = 3272, 73 %) and EMR (n = 3057, 68 %). Agreement was highest between IIS and self-report for 4 doses with a kappa of 0.77 (95 % CI = 0.73-0.81). VE point estimates of 3 doses against COVID-19 hospitalization were substantially lower when using vaccination data from EMR only (VE = 31 %, 95 % CI = 16 %-43 %) than when using all sources combined (VE = 53 %, 95 % CI = 41 %-62%). CONCLUSION: Vaccination data from EMR only may substantially underestimate COVID-19 VE.

INTRODUCTION: Understanding the changing epidemiology of adults hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) informs research priorities and public health policies. METHODS: Among adults (≥18 years) hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed, acute COVID-19 between 11 March 2021, and 31 August 2022 at 21 hospitals in 18 states, those hospitalized during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron-predominant period (BA.1, BA.2, BA.4/BA.5) were compared to those from earlier Alpha- and Delta-predominant periods. Demographic characteristics, biomarkers within 24 hours of admission, and outcomes, including oxygen support and death, were assessed. RESULTS: Among 9825 patients, median (interquartile range [IQR]) age was 60 years (47-72), 47% were women, and 21% non-Hispanic Black. From the Alpha-predominant period (Mar-Jul 2021; N = 1312) to the Omicron BA.4/BA.5 sublineage-predominant period (Jun-Aug 2022; N = 1307): the percentage of patients who had ≥4 categories of underlying medical conditions increased from 11% to 21%; those vaccinated with at least a primary COVID-19 vaccine series increased from 7% to 67%; those ≥75 years old increased from 11% to 33%; those who did not receive any supplemental oxygen increased from 18% to 42%. Median (IQR) highest C-reactive protein and D-dimer concentration decreased from 42.0 mg/L (9.9-122.0) to 11.5 mg/L (2.7-42.8) and 3.1 mcg/mL (0.8-640.0) to 1.0 mcg/mL (0.5-2.2), respectively. In-hospital death peaked at 12% in the Delta-predominant period and declined to 4% during the BA.4/BA.5-predominant period. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to adults hospitalized during early COVID-19 variant periods, those hospitalized during Omicron-variant COVID-19 were older, had multiple co-morbidities, were more likely to be vaccinated, and less likely to experience severe respiratory disease, systemic inflammation, coagulopathy, and death.

Racial and ethnic minority patients are disproportionately affected by healthcare-associated infections (HAIs).Reference Argamany, Delgado and Reveles1–Reference Fortin-Leung and Wiley4 Patients may be at increased risk due to the underlying influence of several factors such as demographics and comorbidities. Studies of patient-level risk factors for specific HAIs have focused on racial and ethnic inequities,Reference Argamany, Delgado and Reveles1–Reference Fortin-Leung and Wiley4 but less is known about other patient-level characteristics that may place patients at greater risk of HAIs during an outbreak or facility-level factors that may place a facility at greater risk of experiencing HAI outbreaks. Additional data are needed beyond what is currently routinely collected in outbreak investigations. Are certain patients more likely to experience harm (eg, increased exposure to pathogens, infection, morbidity, or mortality) if they are in a facility experiencing an HAI outbreak? Are certain facilities (eg, based on populations served, geography, or facility type) more likely to experience HAI outbreaks? Further research is needed to better understand which patient and facility-level factors play a role in differential risk of HAI outbreaks, and collecting these additional data can help elucidate these factors.

Policymakers must make management decisions despite incomplete knowledge and conflicting model projections. Little guidance exists for the rapid, representative, and unbiased collection of policy-relevant scientific input from independent modeling teams. Integrating approaches from decision analysis, expert judgment, and model aggregation, we convened multiple modeling teams to evaluate COVID-19 reopening strategies for a mid-sized United States county early in the pandemic. Projections from seventeen distinct models were inconsistent in magnitude but highly consistent in ranking interventions. The 6-mo-ahead aggregate projections were well in line with observed outbreaks in mid-sized US counties. The aggregate results showed that up to half the population could be infected with full workplace reopening, while workplace restrictions reduced median cumulative infections by 82%. Rankings of interventions were consistent across public health objectives, but there was a strong trade-off between public health outcomes and duration of workplace closures, and no win-win intermediate reopening strategies were identified. Between-model variation was high; the aggregate results thus provide valuable risk quantification for decision making. This approach can be applied to the evaluation of management interventions in any setting where models are used to inform decision making. This case study demonstrated the utility of our approach and was one of several multimodel efforts that laid the groundwork for the COVID-19 Scenario Modeling Hub, which has provided multiple rounds of real-time scenario projections for situational awareness and decision making to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention since December 2020.

Real-world evaluations have demonstrated high effectiveness of vaccines against COVID-19-associated hospitalizations (1-4) measured shortly after vaccination; longer follow-up is needed to assess durability of protection. In an evaluation at 21 hospitals in 18 states, the duration of mRNA vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna) effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19-associated hospitalizations was assessed among adults aged ≥18 years. Among 3,089 hospitalized adults (including 1,194 COVID-19 case-patients and 1,895 non-COVID-19 control-patients), the median age was 59 years, 48.7% were female, and 21.1% had an immunocompromising condition. Overall, 141 (11.8%) case-patients and 988 (52.1%) controls were fully vaccinated (defined as receipt of the second dose of Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines ≥14 days before illness onset), with a median interval of 65 days (range = 14-166 days) after receipt of second dose. VE against COVID-19-associated hospitalization during the full surveillance period was 86% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 82%-88%) overall and 90% (95% CI = 87%-92%) among adults without immunocompromising conditions. VE against COVID-19- associated hospitalization was 86% (95% CI = 82%-90%) 2-12 weeks and 84% (95% CI = 77%-90%) 13-24 weeks from receipt of the second vaccine dose, with no significant change between these periods (p = 0.854). Whole genome sequencing of 454 case-patient specimens found that 242 (53.3%) belonged to the B.1.1.7 (Alpha) lineage and 74 (16.3%) to the B.1.617.2 (Delta) lineage. Effectiveness of mRNA vaccines against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was sustained over a 24-week period, including among groups at higher risk for severe COVID-19; ongoing monitoring is needed as new SARS-CoV-2 variants emerge. To reduce their risk for hospitalization, all eligible persons should be offered COVID-19 vaccination.

COVID-19 mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2 [Pfizer-BioNTech] and mRNA-1273 [Moderna]) provide protection against infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and are highly effective against COVID-19-associated hospitalization among eligible persons who receive 2 doses (1,2). However, vaccine effectiveness (VE) among persons with immunocompromising conditions* is lower than that among immunocompetent persons (2), and VE declines after several months among all persons (3). On August 12, 2021, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for a third mRNA vaccine dose as part of a primary series ≥28 days after dose 2 for persons aged ≥12 years with immunocompromising conditions, and, on November 19, 2021, as a booster dose for all adults aged ≥18 years at least 6 months after dose 2, changed to ≥5 months after dose 2 on January 3, 2022 (4,5,6). Among 2,952 adults (including 1,385 COVID-19 case-patients and 1,567 COVID-19-negative controls) hospitalized at 21 U.S. hospitals during August 19-December 15, 2021, effectiveness of mRNA vaccines against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was compared between adults eligible for but who had not received a third vaccine dose (1,251) and vaccine-eligible adults who received a third dose ≥7 days before illness onset (312). Among 1,875 adults without immunocompromising conditions (including 1,065 [57%] unvaccinated, 679 [36%] 2-dose recipients, and 131 [7%] 3-dose [booster] recipients), VE against COVID-19 hospitalization was higher among those who received a booster dose (97%; 95% CI = 95%-99%) compared with that among 2-dose recipients (82%; 95% CI = 77%-86%) (p <0.001). Among 1,077 adults with immunocompromising conditions (including 324 [30%] unvaccinated, 572 [53%] 2-dose recipients, and 181 [17%] 3-dose recipients), VE was higher among those who received a third dose to complete a primary series (88%; 95% CI = 81%-93%) compared with 2-dose recipients (69%; 95% CI = 57%-78%) (p <0.001). Administration of a third COVID-19 mRNA vaccine dose as part of a primary series among immunocompromised adults, or as a booster dose among immunocompetent adults, provides improved protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalization.

As of April 2023, the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in 1.1 million deaths in the United States, with approximately 75% of deaths occurring among adults aged ≥65 years (1). Data on the durability of protection provided by monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccination against critical outcomes of COVID-19 are limited beyond the Omicron BA.1 lineage period (December 26, 2021-March 26, 2022). In this case-control analysis, the effectiveness of 2-4 monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses was evaluated against COVID-19-associated invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and in-hospital death among immunocompetent adults aged ≥18 years during February 1, 2022-January 31, 2023. Vaccine effectiveness (VE) against IMV and in-hospital death was 62% among adults aged ≥18 years and 69% among those aged ≥65 years. When stratified by time since last dose, VE was 76% at 7-179 days, 54% at 180-364 days, and 56% at ≥365 days. Monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccination provided substantial, durable protection against IMV and in-hospital death among adults during the Omicron variant period. All adults should remain up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccination to prevent critical COVID-19-associated outcomes.

A proficiency testing (PT) scheme was prepared for laboratories engaged in bioanalytical testing for synthetic opioid compounds in urine, plasma, and whole blood. Samples were prepared using compounds included in the Opioid Certified Reference Material Kit (Opioid CRM Kit) developed by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Laboratories received samples during a 2-year project with each year consisting of two PT events 6 months apart. In the first year (pilot test), participants included 10 public health laboratories throughout the United States. In the second year, the group of laboratories expanded to include clinical and forensic drug testing laboratories, and 12 additional participating labs joined the program. In Year 1, overall detection percentages for the compounds present in the PT samples were 95.5% in Event 1% and 97.2% in Event 2. There were 31 apparent false positives reported in Event 1 and four apparent false positives reported in Event 2. Carryover or contamination in laboratory analytical systems were found to be the most significant causes of the false positive results, and none of the laboratories that reported false positives in Event 1 did so in Event 2. In Year 2, overall detection percentages for the compounds present in the PT samples were 89.5% in Event 3% and 94.8% in Event 4. There was one apparent false positive reported in Event 3 and three apparent false positives reported in Event 4. Improvements in drug detection between the two PT events in each year demonstrated the benefit of PT schemes in identifying and addressing potential deficiencies in laboratory systems.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 genomic and subgenomic RNA levels are frequently used as a correlate of infectiousness. The impact of host factors and SARS-CoV-2 lineage on RNA viral load is unclear. METHODS: Total nucleocapsid (N) and subgenomic N (sgN) RNA levels were measured by RT-qPCR in specimens from 3,204 individuals hospitalized with COVID-19 at 21 hospitals. RT-qPCR cycle threshold (Ct) values were used to estimate RNA viral load. The impact of time of sampling, SARS-CoV-2 variant, age, comorbidities, vaccination, and immune status on N and sgN Ct values were evaluated using multiple linear regression. RESULTS: Ct values at presentation for N (mean ±standard deviation) were 24.14±4.53 for non-variants of concern, 25.15±4.33 for Alpha, 25.31±4.50 for Delta, and 26.26±4.42 for Omicron. N and sgN RNA levels varied with time since symptom onset and infecting variant but not with age, comorbidity, immune status, or vaccination. When normalized to total N RNA, sgN levels were similar across all variants. CONCLUSIONS: RNA viral loads were similar among hospitalized adults, irrespective of infecting variant and known risk factors for severe COVID-19. Total N and subgenomic RNA N viral loads were highly correlated, suggesting that subgenomic RNA measurements adds little information for the purposes of estimating infectivity.

IMPORTANCE: Influenza virus infections declined globally during the COVID-19 pandemic. Loss of natural immunity from lower rates of influenza infection and documented antigenic changes in circulating viruses may have resulted in increased susceptibility to influenza virus infection during the 2021-2022 influenza season. OBJECTIVE: To compare the risk of influenza virus infection among household contacts of patients with influenza during the 2021-2022 influenza season with risk of influenza virus infection among household contacts during influenza seasons before the COVID-19 pandemic in the US. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This prospective study of influenza transmission enrolled households in 2 states before the COVID-19 pandemic (2017-2020) and in 4 US states during the 2021-2022 influenza season. Primary cases were individuals with the earliest laboratory-confirmed influenza A(H3N2) virus infection in a household. Household contacts were people living with the primary cases who self-collected nasal swabs daily for influenza molecular testing and completed symptom diaries daily for 5 to 10 days after enrollment. EXPOSURES: Household contacts living with a primary case. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Relative risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza A(H3N2) virus infection in household contacts during the 2021-2022 season compared with prepandemic seasons. Risk estimates were adjusted for age, vaccination status, frequency of interaction with the primary case, and household density. Subgroup analyses by age, vaccination status, and frequency of interaction with the primary case were also conducted. RESULTS: During the prepandemic seasons, 152 primary cases (median age, 13 years; 3.9% Black; 52.0% female) and 353 household contacts (median age, 33 years; 2.8% Black; 54.1% female) were included and during the 2021-2022 influenza season, 84 primary cases (median age, 10 years; 13.1% Black; 52.4% female) and 186 household contacts (median age, 28.5 years; 14.0% Black; 63.4% female) were included in the analysis. During the prepandemic influenza seasons, 20.1% (71/353) of household contacts were infected with influenza A(H3N2) viruses compared with 50.0% (93/186) of household contacts in 2021-2022. The adjusted relative risk of A(H3N2) virus infection in 2021-2022 was 2.31 (95% CI, 1.86-2.86) compared with prepandemic seasons. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among cohorts in 5 US states, there was a significantly increased risk of household transmission of influenza A(H3N2) in 2021-2022 compared with prepandemic seasons. Additional research is needed to understand reasons for this association.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies are increasingly reporting relative VE (rVE) comparing a primary series plus booster doses with a primary series only. Interpretation of rVE differs from traditional studies measuring absolute VE (aVE) of a vaccine regimen against an unvaccinated referent group. We estimated aVE and rVE against COVID-19 hospitalization in primary-series plus first-booster recipients of COVID-19 vaccines. METHODS: Booster-eligible immunocompetent adults hospitalized at 21 medical centers in the United States during December 25, 2021-April 4, 2022 were included. In a test-negative design, logistic regression with case status as the outcome and completion of primary vaccine series or primary series plus 1 booster dose as the predictors, adjusted for potential confounders, were used to estimate aVE and rVE. RESULTS: A total of 2060 patients were analyzed, including 1104 COVID-19 cases and 956 controls. Relative VE against COVID-19 hospitalization in boosted mRNA vaccine recipients versus primary series only was 66% (95% confidence interval [CI], 55%-74%); aVE was 81% (95% CI, 75%-86%) for boosted versus 46% (95% CI, 30%-58%) for primary. For boosted Janssen vaccine recipients versus primary series, rVE was 49% (95% CI, -9% to 76%); aVE was 62% (95% CI, 33%-79%) for boosted versus 36% (95% CI, -4% to 60%) for primary. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccine booster doses increased protection against COVID-19 hospitalization compared with a primary series. Comparing rVE measures across studies can lead to flawed interpretations of the added value of a new vaccination regimen, whereas difference in aVE, when available, may be a more useful metric.

Monovalent COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, designed against the ancestral strain of SARS-CoV-2, successfully reduced COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality in the United States and globally (1,2). However, vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19-associated hospitalization has declined over time, likely related to a combination of factors, including waning immunity and, with the emergence of the Omicron variant and its sublineages, immune evasion (3). To address these factors, on September 1, 2022, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended a bivalent COVID-19 mRNA booster (bivalent booster) dose, developed against the spike protein from ancestral SARS-CoV-2 and Omicron BA.4/BA.5 sublineages, for persons who had completed at least a primary COVID-19 vaccination series (with or without monovalent booster doses) ≥2 months earlier (4). Data on the effectiveness of a bivalent booster dose against COVID-19 hospitalization in the United States are lacking, including among older adults, who are at highest risk for severe COVID-19-associated illness. During September 8-November 30, 2022, the Investigating Respiratory Viruses in the Acutely Ill (IVY) Network(§) assessed effectiveness of a bivalent booster dose received after ≥2 doses of monovalent mRNA vaccine against COVID-19-associated hospitalization among immunocompetent adults aged ≥65 years. When compared with unvaccinated persons, VE of a bivalent booster dose received ≥7 days before illness onset (median = 29 days) against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was 84%. Compared with persons who received ≥2 monovalent-only mRNA vaccine doses, relative VE of a bivalent booster dose was 73%. These early findings show that a bivalent booster dose provided strong protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalization in older adults and additional protection among persons with previous monovalent-only mRNA vaccination. All eligible persons, especially adults aged ≥65 years, should receive a bivalent booster dose to maximize protection against COVID-19 hospitalization this winter season. Additional strategies to prevent respiratory illness, such as masking in indoor public spaces, should also be considered, especially in areas where COVID-19 community levels are high (4,5).

BACKGROUND: Test-negative design (TND) studies have produced validated estimates of vaccine effectiveness (VE) for influenza vaccine studies. However, syndrome-negative controls have been proposed for differentiating bias and true estimates in VE evaluations for COVID-19. To understand the use of alternative control groups, we compared characteristics and VE estimates of syndrome-negative and test-negative VE controls. METHODS: Adults hospitalized at 21 medical centers in 18 states March 11-August 31, 2021 were eligible for analysis. Case patients had symptomatic acute respiratory infection (ARI) and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Control groups were test-negative patients with ARI but negative SARS-CoV-2 testing, and syndrome-negative controls were without ARI and negative SARS-CoV-2 testing. Chi square and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to detect differences in baseline characteristics. VE against COVID-19 hospitalization was calculated using logistic regression comparing adjusted odds of prior mRNA vaccination between cases hospitalized with COVID-19 and each control group. RESULTS: 5811 adults (2726 cases, 1696 test-negative controls, and 1389 syndrome-negative controls) were included. Control groups differed across characteristics including age, race/ethnicity, employment, previous hospitalizations, medical conditions, and immunosuppression. However, control-group-specific VE estimates were very similar. Among immunocompetent patients aged 18-64years, VE was 93% (95% CI: 90-94) using syndrome-negative controls and 91% (95% CI: 88-93) using test-negative controls. CONCLUSIONS: Despite demographic and clinical differences between control groups, the use of either control group produced similar VE estimates across age groups and immunosuppression status. These findings support the use of test-negative controls and increase confidence in COVID-19 VE estimates produced by test-negative design studies.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with historically low influenza circulation during the 2020-2021 season, followed by increase in influenza circulation during the 2021-2022 US season. The 2a.2 subgroup of the influenza A(H3N2) 3C.2a1b subclade that predominated was antigenically different from the vaccine strain. METHODS: To understand the effectiveness of the 2021-2022 vaccine against hospitalized influenza illness, a multi-state sentinel surveillance network enrolled adults aged ≥18 years hospitalized with acute respiratory illness (ARI) and tested for influenza by a molecular assay. Using the test-negative design, vaccine effectiveness (VE) was measured by comparing the odds of current season influenza vaccination in influenza-positive case-patients and influenza-negative, SARS-CoV-2-negative controls, adjusting for confounders. A separate analysis was performed to illustrate bias introduced by including SARS-CoV-2 positive controls. RESULTS: A total of 2334 patients, including 295 influenza cases (47% vaccinated), 1175 influenza- and SARS-CoV-2 negative controls (53% vaccinated), and 864 influenza-negative and SARS-CoV-2 positive controls (49% vaccinated), were analyzed. Influenza VE was 26% (95%CI: -14 to 52%) among adults aged 18-64 years, -3% (95%CI: -54 to 31%) among adults aged ≥65 years, and 50% (95%CI: 15 to 71%) among adults 18-64 years without immunocompromising conditions. Estimated VE decreased with inclusion of SARS-CoV-2-positive controls. CONCLUSIONS: During a season where influenza A(H3N2) was antigenically different from the vaccine virus, vaccination was associated with a reduced risk of influenza hospitalization in younger immunocompetent adults. However, vaccination did not provide protection in adults ≥65 years of age. Improvements in vaccines, antivirals, and prevention strategies are warranted.

The SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant (B.1.1.529 or BA.1) became predominant in the United States by late December 2021 (1). BA.1 has since been replaced by emerging lineages BA.2 (including BA.2.12.1) in March 2022, followed by BA.4 and BA.5, which have accounted for a majority of SARS-CoV-2 infections since late June 2022 (1). Data on the effectiveness of monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccines against BA.4/BA.5-associated hospitalizations are limited, and their interpretation is complicated by waning of vaccine-induced immunity (2-5). Further, infections with earlier Omicron lineages, including BA.1 and BA.2, reduce vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates because certain persons in the referent unvaccinated group have protection from infection-induced immunity. The IVY Network(†) assessed effectiveness of 2, 3, and 4 doses of monovalent mRNA vaccines compared with no vaccination against COVID-19-associated hospitalization among immunocompetent adults aged ≥18 years during December 26, 2021-August 31, 2022. During the BA.1/BA.2 period, VE 14-150 days after a second dose was 63% and decreased to 34% after 150 days. Similarly, VE 7-120 days after a third dose was 79% and decreased to 41% after 120 days. VE 7-120 days after a fourth dose was 61%. During the BA.4/BA.5 period, similar trends were observed, although CIs for VE estimates between categories of time since the last dose overlapped. VE 14-150 days and >150 days after a second dose was 83% and 37%, respectively. VE 7-120 days and >120 days after a third dose was 60%and 29%, respectively. VE 7-120 days after the fourth dose was 61%. Protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalization waned even after a third dose. The newly authorized bivalent COVID-19 vaccines include mRNA from the ancestral SARS-CoV-2 strain and from shared mRNA components between BA.4 and BA.5 lineages and are expected to be more immunogenic against BA.4/BA.5 than monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (6-8). All eligible adults aged ≥18 years(§) should receive a booster dose, which currently consists of a bivalent mRNA vaccine, to maximize protection against BA.4/BA.5 and prevent COVID-19-associated hospitalization.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, self-reported COVID-19 vaccination might facilitate rapid evaluations of vaccine effectiveness (VE) when source documentation (e.g., immunization information systems [IIS]) is not readily available. We evaluated the concordance of COVID-19 vaccination status ascertained by self-report versus source documentation and its impact on VE estimates. METHODS: Hospitalized adults (18years) admitted to 18 U.S. medical centers March-June 2021 were enrolled, including COVID-19 cases and SARS-CoV-2 negative controls. Patients were interviewed about COVID-19 vaccination. Abstractors simultaneously searched IIS, medical records, and other sources for vaccination information. To compare vaccination status by self-report and documentation, we estimated percent agreement and unweighted kappa with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We then calculated VE in preventing COVID-19 hospitalization of full vaccination (2 doses of mRNA product 14days prior to illness onset) independently using data from self-report or source documentation. RESULTS: Of 2520 patients, 594 (24%) did not have self-reported vaccination information to assign vaccination group; these patients tended to be more severely ill. Among 1924 patients with both self-report and source documentation information, 95.0% (95% CI: 93.9-95.9%) agreement was observed, with a kappa of 0.9127 (95% CI: 0.9109-0.9145). VE was 86% (95% CI: 81-90%) by self-report data only and 85% (95% CI: 81-89%) by source documentation data only. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one-quarter of hospitalized patients could not provide self-report COVID-19 vaccination status. Among patients with self-report information, there was high concordance with source documented status. Self-report may be a reasonable source of COVID-19 vaccination information for timely VE assessment for public health action.

BACKGROUND: Adults in the United States (US) began receiving the viral vector COVID-19 vaccine, Ad26.COV2.S (Johnson & Johnson [Janssen]), in February 2021. We evaluated Ad26.COV2.S vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19 hospitalization and high disease severity during the first 10 months of its use. METHODS: In a multicenter case-control analysis of US adults (≥18 years) hospitalized March 11-December 15, 2021, we estimated VE against susceptibility to COVID-19 hospitalization (VEs), comparing odds of prior vaccination with a single dose Ad26.COV2.S vaccine between hospitalized cases with COVID-19 and controls without COVID-19. Among hospitalized patients with COVID-19, we estimated VE against disease progression (VEp) to death or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), comparing odds of prior vaccination between patients with and without progression. RESULTS: After excluding patients receiving mRNA vaccines, among 3,979 COVID-19 case-patients (5% vaccinated with Ad26.COV2.S) and 2.229 controls (13% vaccinated with Ad26.COV2.S), VEs of Ad26.COV2.S against COVID-19 hospitalization was 70% (95% CI: 63%-75%) overall, including 55% (29%-72%) among immunocompromised patients, and 72% (64%-77%) among immunocompetent patients, for whom VEs was similar at 14-90 days (73% [59%-82%]), 91-180 days (71% [60%-80%]), and 181-274 days (70% [54%-81%]) post-vaccination. Among hospitalized COVID-19 case-patients, VEp was 46% (18%-65%) among immunocompetent patients. CONCLUSIONS: The Ad26.COV2.S COVID-19 vaccine reduced the risk of COVID-19 hospitalization by 72% among immunocompetent adults without waning through 6 months post-vaccination. After hospitalization for COVID-19, vaccinated immunocompetent patients were less likely to require IMV or die compared to unvaccinated immunocompetent patients.