BACKGROUND: Seasonal influenza causes an estimated 120 000 to 710 000 hospitalizations annually in the United States. Treatment with antiviral medications, such as oseltamivir, can reduce risks of hospitalization among people with influenza-associated illness. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends initiating antiviral treatment as soon as possible for outpatients with suspected or confirmed influenza who have severe or progressive illness or are at higher risk of influenza complications. METHODS: We developed a probabilistic model to estimate the impact of antiviral treatment in reducing hospitalizations among US outpatients with influenza. Parameters were informed by seasonal influenza surveillance platforms and stratified by age group and whether individuals had a condition associated with higher risk of influenza complications. We modeled different scenarios for influenza antiviral effectiveness and outpatient testing and prescribing practices, then compared our results with a baseline scenario in which antivirals were not used. RESULTS: Across the modeled scenarios, antiviral treatment resulted in 1215 to 14 184 fewer influenza-associated hospitalizations on average when compared with the baseline scenario (0.2%-2.7% reduction). The greatest effects occurred among adults aged ≥65 years and individuals with conditions associated with higher risk of influenza complications. Modeling 50% improvements in access to care, testing, prescribing, and treatment resulted in greater potential impacts, with over 71 000 (13.3%) influenza-associated hospitalizations averted on average compared to baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support recommendations to prioritize outpatient antiviral treatment among older adults and others at higher risk of influenza complications. Improving access to prompt testing and treatment among outpatients with suspected influenza could reduce hospitalizations substantially.

The generation time, representing the interval between infections in primary and secondary cases, is essential for understanding and predicting the transmission dynamics of seasonal influenza, including the real-time effective reproduction number (Rt). However, comprehensive generation time estimates for seasonal influenza, especially since the 2009 influenza pandemic, are lacking. We estimated the generation time utilizing data from a 7-site case-ascertained household study in the United States over two influenza seasons, 2021/2022 and 2022/2023. More than 200 individuals who tested positive for influenza and their household contacts were enrolled within 7 days of the first illness in the household. All participants were prospectively followed for 10 days, completing daily symptom diaries and collecting nasal swabs, which were then tested for influenza via RT-PCR. We analyzed these data by modifying a previously published Bayesian data augmentation approach that imputes infection times of cases to obtain both intrinsic (assuming no susceptible depletion) and realized (observed within household) generation times. We assessed the robustness of the generation time estimate by varying the incubation period, and generated estimates of the proportion of transmission occurring before symptomatic onset, the infectious period, and the latent period. We estimated a mean intrinsic generation time of 3.2 (95 % credible interval, CrI: 2.9-3.6) days, with a realized household generation time of 2.8 (95 % CrI: 2.7-3.0) days. The generation time exhibited limited sensitivity to incubation period variation. Estimates of the proportion of transmission that occurred before symptom onset, the infectious period, and the latent period were sensitive to variations in the incubation period. Our study contributes to the ongoing efforts to refine estimates of the generation time for influenza. Our estimates, derived from recent data following the COVID-19 pandemic, are consistent with previous pre-pandemic estimates, and will be incorporated into real-time Rt estimation efforts.

Isolation of symptomatic infectious persons can reduce influenza transmission. However, virus shedding that occurs without symptoms will be unaffected by such measures. Identifying effective isolation strategies for influenza requires understanding the interplay between individual virus shedding and symptom presentation. From 2017 to 2020, we conducted a case-ascertained household transmission study using influenza real-time RT-qPCR testing of nasal swabs and daily symptom diary reporting for up to 7 days after enrolment (≤14 days after index onset). We assumed real-time RT-qPCR cycle threshold (Ct) values were indicators of quantitative virus shedding and used symptom diaries to create a score that tracked influenza-like illness (ILI) symptoms (fever, cough, or sore throat). We fit phenomenological nonlinear mixed-effects models stratified by age and vaccination status and estimated two quantities influencing isolation effectiveness: shedding before symptom onset and shedding that might occur once isolation ends. We considered different isolation end points (including 24 h after fever resolution or 5 days after symptom onset) and assumptions about the infectiousness of Ct shedding trajectories. Of the 116 household contacts with ≥2 positive tests for longitudinal analyses, 105 (91%) experienced ≥1 ILI symptom. On average, children <5 years experienced greater peak shedding, longer durations of shedding, and elevated ILI symptom scores compared with other age groups. Most individuals (63/105) shed <10% of their total shed virus before symptom onset, and shedding after isolation varied substantially across individuals, isolation end points, and infectiousness assumptions. Our results can inform strategies to reduce transmission from symptomatic individuals infected with influenza.

BACKGROUND: Novel influenza viruses pose a potential pandemic risk, and rapid detection of infections in humans is critical to characterizing the virus and facilitating the implementation of public health response measures. METHODS: We use a probabilistic framework to estimate the likelihood that novel influenza virus cases would be detected through testing in different community and healthcare settings (urgent care, emergency department, hospital, and intensive care unit [ICU]) while at low frequencies in the United States. Parameters were informed by data on seasonal influenza virus activity and existing testing practices. RESULTS: In a baseline scenario reflecting the presence of 100 novel virus infections with similar severity to seasonal influenza viruses, the median probability of detecting at least one infection per month was highest in urgent care settings (72%) and when community testing was conducted at random among the general population (77%). However, urgent care testing was over 15 times more efficient (estimated as the number of cases detected per 100,000 tests) due to the larger number of tests required for community testing. In scenarios that assumed increased clinical severity of novel virus infection, median detection probabilities increased across all healthcare settings, particularly in hospitals and ICUs (up to 100%) where testing also became more efficient. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that novel influenza virus circulation is likely to be detected through existing healthcare surveillance, with the most efficient testing setting impacted by the disease severity profile. These analyses can help inform future testing strategies to maximize the likelihood of novel influenza detection.

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the role of asymptomatic influenza virus infections in influenza transmission was uncertain. However, the importance of asymptomatic infection with SARS-CoV-2 for onward transmission of COVID-19 has led experts to question whether the role of asymptomatic influenza virus infections in transmission had been underappreciated. We discuss the existing evidence on the frequency of asymptomatic influenza virus infections, the extent to which they contribute to infection transmission, and remaining knowledge gaps. We propose priority areas for further evaluation, study designs, and case definitions to address existing knowledge gaps.

BACKGROUND: Antiviral chemoprophylaxis is recommended for use during influenza outbreaks in nursing homes to prevent transmission and severe disease among non-ill residents. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance recommends prophylaxis be initiated for all non-ill residents once an influenza outbreak is detected and be continued for at least 14 days and until seven days after the last laboratory-confirmed influenza case is identified. However, not all facilities strictly adhere to this guidance and the impact of such partial adherence is not fully understood. METHODS: We developed a stochastic compartmental framework to model influenza transmission within an average-sized U.S. nursing home. We compared the number of symptomatic illnesses and hospitalizations under varying prophylaxis implementation strategies, in addition to different levels of prophylaxis uptake and adherence by residents and healthcare personnel (HCP). RESULTS: Prophylaxis implemented according to current guidance reduced total symptomatic illnesses and hospitalizations among residents by an average of 12% and 36%, respectively, compared with no prophylaxis. We did not find evidence that alternative implementations of prophylaxis were more effective: compared to full adoption of current guidance, partial adoption resulted in increased symptomatic illnesses and/or hospitalizations, and longer or earlier adoption offered no additional improvements. In addition, increasing uptake and adherence among nursing home residents was effective in reducing resident illnesses and hospitalizations, but increasing HCP uptake had minimal indirect impacts for residents. CONCLUSIONS: The greatest benefits of influenza prophylaxis during nursing home outbreaks will likely be achieved through increasing uptake and adherence among residents and following current CDC guidance.

BACKGROUND: High-dose, adjuvanted, and recombinant influenza vaccines may offer improved effectiveness among older adults compared to standard-dose, unadjuvanted, inactivated vaccines. However, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) only recently recommended preferential use of these 'higher-dose or adjuvanted' vaccines. One concern was that individuals might delay or decline vaccination if a preferred vaccine is not readily available. METHODS: We mathematically model how a recommendation for preferential use of higher-dose or adjuvanted vaccines in adults ≥65 years might impact influenza burden in the United States during exemplar 'high-' and 'low-' severity seasons. We assume higher-dose or adjuvanted vaccines are more effective than standard vaccines and that such a recommendation would increase uptake of the former but could cause (i) delays in administration of additional higher-dose or adjuvanted vaccines relative to standard vaccines and/or (ii) reductions in overall coverage if individuals only offered standard vaccines forego vaccination. RESULTS: In a best-case scenario, assuming no delay or coverage reduction, a new recommendation could decrease hospitalizations and deaths in adults ≥65 years by 0-4% compared with current uptake. However, intermediate and worst-case scenarios, with assumed delays of 3 or 6 weeks and/or 10 or 20% reductions in coverage, included projections in which hospitalizations and deaths increased by over 7%. CONCLUSIONS: We estimate that increased use of higher-dose or adjuvanted vaccines could decrease influenza burden in adults ≥65 in the United States provided there is timely and adequate access to these vaccines, and that standard vaccines are administered when they are unavailable.