Since the resurgence of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) A(H5N1) virus, clade 2.3.4.4b, during 2021, these viruses have spread widely among birds worldwide, causing poultry outbreaks and infections of a wide range of terrestrial and marine mammal species. During 2024, HPAI A(H5N1) virus, clade 2.3.4.4b, was detected in dairy cattle for the first time and caused an ongoing multistate outbreak, with high levels of virus documented in raw cow milk. Human infections with clade 2.3.4.4b viruses from exposures to infected poultry or dairy cattle have resulted in a wide spectrum of illness severity, from conjunctivitis or mild respiratory illness to severe and fatal pneumonia in different countries. Vigilance, and stronger global virologic surveillance among birds, poultry, terrestrial and marine mammals, and humans, with virus characterization and rapid data sharing, is needed to inform the threat of clade 2.3.4.4b viruses, as they continue to evolve, to public health.

BACKGROUND: Pneumonia is common in adults hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed influenza, but the association between timeliness of influenza antiviral treatment and severe clinical outcomes in patients with influenza-associated pneumonia is not well characterized. METHODS: We included adults aged ≥18 years hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed influenza and a discharge diagnosis of pneumonia over 7 influenza seasons (2012-2019) sampled from a multi-state population-based surveillance network. We evaluated 3 treatment groups based on timing of influenza antiviral initiation relative to admission date (day 0, day 1, days 2-5). Baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes were compared across groups using unweighted counts and weighted percentages accounting for the complex survey design. Logistic regression models were generated to evaluate the association between delayed treatment and 30-day all-cause mortality. RESULTS: 26,233 adults were sampled in the analysis. Median age was 71 years and most (92.2%) had ≥1 non-immunocompromising condition. Overall, 60.9% started antiviral treatment on day 0, 29.5% on day 1, and 9.7% on days 2-5 (median 2 days). Baseline characteristics were similar across groups. Thirty-day mortality occurred in 7.5%, 8.5%, and 10.2% of patients who started treatment on day 0, day 1, and days 2-5, respectively. Compared to those treated on day 0, adjusted OR for death was 1.14 (95%CI: 1.01-1.27) in those starting treatment on day 1 and 1.40 (95%CI: 1.17-1.66) in those starting on days 2-5. DISCUSSION: Delayed initiation of antiviral treatment in patients hospitalized with influenza-associated pneumonia was associated with higher risk of death, highlighting the importance of timely initiation of antiviral treatment at admission.

BACKGROUND: Antiviral post-exposure prophylaxis with neuraminidase inhibitors can reduce the incidence of influenza and the risk of symptomatic influenza, but the efficacy of the other classes of antiviral remains unclear. To support an update of WHO influenza guidelines, this systematic review and network meta-analysis evaluated antiviral drugs for post-exposure prophylaxis of influenza. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Global Health, Epistemonikos, and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomised controlled trials published up to Sept 20, 2023 that evaluated the efficacy and safety of antivirals compared with another antiviral or placebo or standard care for prevention of influenza. Pairs of reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. We performed network meta-analyses with frequentist random effects model and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. The outcomes of interest were symptomatic or asymptomatic infection, admission to hospital, all-cause mortality, adverse events related to antivirals, and serious adverse events. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42023466450. FINDINGS: Of 11 845 records identified by our search, 33 trials of six antivirals (zanamivir, oseltamivir, laninamivir, baloxavir, amantadine, and rimantadine) that enrolled 19 096 individuals (mean age 6·75-81·15 years) were included in this systematic review and network meta-analysis. Most of the studies were rated as having a low risk of bias. Zanamivir, oseltamivir, laninamivir, and baloxavir probably achieve important reductions in symptomatic influenza in individuals at high risk of severe disease (zanamivir: risk ratio 0·35, 95% CI 0·25-0·50; oseltamivir: 0·40, 0·26-0·62; laninamivir: 0·43, 0·30-0·63; baloxavir: 0·43, 0·23-0·79; moderate certainty) when given promptly (eg, within 48 h) after exposure to seasonal influenza. These antivirals probably do not achieve important reductions in symptomatic influenza in individuals at low risk of severe disease when given promptly after exposure to seasonal influenza (moderate certainty). Zanamivir, oseltamivir, laninamivir, and baloxavir might achieve important reductions in symptomatic zoonotic influenza in individuals exposed to novel influenza A viruses associated with severe disease in infected humans when given promptly after exposure (low certainty). Oseltamivir, laninamivir, baloxavir, and amantadine probably decrease the risk of all influenza (symptomatic and asymptomatic infection; moderate certainty). Zanamivir, oseltamivir, laninamivir, and baloxavir probably have little or no effect on prevention of asymptomatic influenza virus infection or all-cause mortality (high or moderate certainty). Oseltamivir probably has little or no effect on admission to hospital (moderate certainty). All six antivirals do not significantly increase the incidence of drug-related adverse events or serious adverse events, although the certainty of evidence varies. INTERPRETATION: Post-exposure prophylaxis with zanamivir, oseltamivir, laninamivir, or baloxavir probably decreases the risk of symptomatic seasonal influenza in individuals at high risk for severe disease after exposure to seasonal influenza viruses. Post-exposure prophylaxis with zanamivir, oseltamivir, laninamivir, or baloxavir might reduce the risk of symptomatic zoonotic influenza after exposure to novel influenza A viruses associated with severe disease in infected humans. FUNDING: World Health Organization.

BACKGROUND: The optimal antiviral drug for treatment of severe influenza remains unclear. To support updated WHO influenza clinical guidelines, this systematic review and network meta-analysis evaluated antivirals for treatment of patients with severe influenza. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Global Health, Epistemonikos, and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomised controlled trials published up to Sept 20, 2023, that enrolled hospitalised patients with suspected or laboratory-confirmed influenza and compared direct-acting influenza antivirals against placebo, standard care, or another antiviral. Pairs of coauthors independently extracted data on study characteristics, patient characteristics, antiviral characteristics, and outcomes, with discrepancies resolved by discussion or by a third coauthor. Key outcomes of interest were time to alleviation of symptoms, duration of hospitalisation, admission to intensive care unit, progression to invasive mechanical ventilation, duration of mechanical ventilation, mortality, hospital discharge destination, emergence of antiviral resistance, adverse events, adverse events related to treatments, and serious adverse events. We conducted frequentist network meta-analyses to summarise the evidence and evaluated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42023456650. FINDINGS: Of 11 878 records identified by our search, eight trials with 1424 participants (mean age 36-60 years for trials that reported mean or median age; 43-78% male patients) were included in this systematic review, of which six were included in the network meta-analysis. The effects of oseltamivir, peramivir, or zanamivir on mortality compared with placebo or standard care without placebo for seasonal and zoonotic influenza were of very low certainty. Compared with placebo or standard care, we found low certainty evidence that duration of hospitalisation for seasonal influenza was reduced with oseltamivir (mean difference -1·63 days, 95% CI -2·81 to -0·45) and peramivir (-1·73 days, -3·33 to -0·13). Compared with standard care, there was little or no difference in time to alleviation of symptoms with oseltamivir (0·34 days, -0·86 to 1·54; low certainty evidence) or peramivir (-0·05 days, -0·69 to 0·59; low certainty evidence). There were no differences in adverse events or serious adverse events with oseltamivir, peramivir, and zanamivir (very low certainty evidence). Uncertainty remains about the effects of antivirals on other outcomes for patients with severe influenza. Due to the small number of eligible trials, we could not test for publication bias. INTERPRETATION: In hospitalised patients with severe influenza, oseltamivir and peramivir might reduce duration of hospitalisation compared with standard care or placebo, although the certainty of evidence is low. The effects of all antivirals on mortality and other important patient outcomes are very uncertain due to scarce data from randomised controlled trials. FUNDING: World Health Organization.

IMPORTANCE: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has evolved through multiple phases in the United States, with significant differences in patient centered outcomes with improvements in hospital strain, medical countermeasures, and overall understanding of the disease. We describe how patient characteristics changed and care progressed over the various pandemic phases; we also emphasize the need for an ongoing clinical network to improve the understanding of known and novel respiratory viral diseases. OBJECTIVES: To describe how patient characteristics and care evolved across the various COVID-19 pandemic periods in those hospitalized with viral severe acute respiratory infection (SARI). DESIGN: Severe Acute Respiratory Infection-Preparedness (SARI-PREP) is a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Foundation-funded, Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery-housed, longitudinal multicenter cohort study of viral pneumonia. We defined SARI patients as those hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed respiratory viral infection and an acute syndrome of fever, cough, and radiographic infiltrates or hypoxemia. We collected patient-level data including demographic characteristics, comorbidities, acute physiologic measures, serum and respiratory specimens, therapeutics, and outcomes. Outcomes were described across four pandemic variant periods based on a SARS-CoV-2 sequenced subsample: pre-Delta, Delta, Omicron BA.1, and Omicron post-BA.1. SETTING: Multicenter cohort of adult patients admitted to an acute care ward or ICU from seven hospitals representing diverse geographic regions across the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with SARI caused by infection with respiratory viruses. MAIN OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: Eight hundred seventy-four adult patients with SARI were enrolled at seven study hospitals between March 2020 and April 2023. Most patients (780, 89%) had SARS-CoV-2 infection. Across the COVID-19 cohort, median age was 60 years (interquartile range, 48.0-71.0 yr) and 66% were male. Almost half (430, 49%) of the study population belonged to underserved communities. Most patients (76.5%) were admitted to the ICU, 52.5% received mechanical ventilation, and observed hospital mortality was 25.5%. As the pandemic progressed, we observed decreases in ICU utilization (94% to 58%), hospital length of stay (median, 26.0 to 8.5 d), and hospital mortality (32% to 12%), while the number of comorbid conditions increased. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: We describe increasing comorbidities but improved outcomes across pandemic variant periods, in the setting of multiple factors, including evolving care delivery, countermeasures, and viral variants. An understanding of patient-level factors may inform treatment options for subsequent variants and future novel pathogens.

Introduction: Longitudinal data on how acute respiratory illness (ARI) affects behavior, namely school or work participation, and nonpharmaceutical intervention (NPI) usage before and during the COVID-19 pandemic is limited. The authors assessed how ARIs and specific symptoms affected school, work, and health-related behaviors over time. Methods: From November 2019 to June 2021, participating households with children in King County, Washington, were remotely monitored for ARI symptoms weekly. Following ARIs, participants reported illness-related effects on school, work, and NPI use. Using logistic regression with generalized estimating equations, the authors examined associations between symptoms and behaviors. Results: Of 1,861 participants, 581 (31%) from 293 households reported 884 ARIs and completed one-week follow-up surveys. Compared with the prepandemic period, during the period of the pandemic pre–COVID-19 vaccine, ARI-related school (56% vs 10%, p<0.001) absenteeism decreased and masking increased (3% vs 28%, p<0.001). After vaccine authorization in December 2020, more ARIs resulted in masking (3% vs 48%, p<0.001), avoiding contact with non-household members (26% vs 58%, p<0.001), and staying home (37% vs 69%, p<0.001) compared with the prepandemic period. Constitutional symptoms such as fever were associated with work disruptions (OR=1.91; 95% CI=1.06, 3.43), staying home (OR=1.55; 95% CI=1.06, 2.27), and decreased contact with non-household members (OR=1.58; 95% CI=1.05, 2.36). Conclusions: This remote household study permitted uninterrupted tracking of behavioral changes in families with children before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, identifying increased use of some NPIs when ill but no additional illness-associated work or school disruptions. © 2024 The Authors

INTRODUCTION: Mounting evidence indicates that an individual's humoral adaptive immune response plays a critical role in the setting of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and that the efficiency of the response correlates with disease severity. The relationship between the adaptive immune dynamics in the lower airways with those in the systemic circulation, and how these relate to an individual's clinical response to SARS-CoV-2 infection, are less understood and are the focus of this study. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We investigated the adaptive immune response to SARS-CoV-2 in paired samples from the lower airways and blood from 27 critically ill patients during the first wave of the pandemic (median time from symptom onset to intubation 11 days). Measurements included clinical outcomes (mortality), bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) and blood specimen antibody levels, and BALF viral load. RESULTS: While there was heterogeneity in the levels of the SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies, we unexpectedly found that some BALF specimens displayed higher levels than the paired concurrent plasma samples, despite the known dilutional effects common in BALF samples. We found that survivors had higher levels of anti-spike, anti-spike-N-terminal domain and anti-spike-receptor-binding domain IgG antibodies in their BALF (p<0.05), while there was no such association with antibody levels in the systemic circulation. DISCUSSION: Our data highlight the critical role of local adaptive immunity in the airways as a key defence mechanism against primary SARS-CoV-2 infection.

US public health preparedness and response to highly pathogenic avian influenza A(H5N1) viruses are assessed in this survey study conducted by the CDC. | eng

BACKGROUND: Although antivirals remain important for the treatment COVID-19, methods to assess treatment efficacy are lacking. Here, we investigated the impact of remdesivir on viral dynamics and their contribution to understanding antiviral efficacy in the multicenter ACTT-1 clinical trial that randomized patients to remdesivir or placebo. METHODS: Longitudinal specimens collected during hospitalization from a substudy of 642 COVID-19 patients were measured for viral RNA (upper respiratory tract and plasma), viral nucleocapsid antigen (serum), and host immunologic markers. Associations with clinical outcomes and response to therapy were assessed. RESULTS: Higher baseline plasma viral loads were associated with poorer clinical outcomes, and decreases in viral RNA and antigen in blood but not the upper respiratory tract correlated with enhanced benefit from remdesivir. The treatment effect of remdesivir was most pronounced in patients with elevated baseline nucleocapsid antigen levels: the recovery rate ratio was 1.95 (95%CI 1.40-2.71) for levels >245 pg/ml vs 1.04 (95%CI 0.76-1.42) for levels < 245 pg/ml. Remdesivir also accelerated the rate of viral RNA and antigen clearance in blood, and patients whose blood levels decreased were more likely to recover and survive. CONCLUSIONS: Reductions in SARS-CoV-2 RNA and antigen levels in blood correlated with clinical benefit from antiviral therapy.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) have become widely utilized but longitudinal characterization of their community-based performance remains incompletely understood. METHODS: This prospective longitudinal study at a large public university in Seattle, WA utilized remote enrollment, online surveys, and self-collected nasal swab specimens to evaluate Ag-RDT performance against real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) in the context of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron. Ag-RDT sensitivity and specificity within 1 day of rRT-PCR were evaluated by symptom status throughout the illness episode and Orf1b cycle threshold (Ct). RESULTS: From February to December 2022, 5,757 participants reported 17,572 Ag-RDT results and completed 12,674 rRT-PCR tests, of which 995 (7.9%) were rRT-PCR-positive. Overall sensitivity and specificity were 53.0% (95% CI: 49.6-56.4%) and 98.8% (98.5-99.0%), respectively. Sensitivity was comparatively higher for Ag-RDTs used 1 day after rRT-PCR (69.0%), 4 to 7 days post-symptom onset (70.1%), and Orf1b Ct ≤20 (82.7%). Serial Ag-RDT sensitivity increased with repeat testing ≥2 (68.5%) and ≥4 (75.8%) days after an initial Ag-RDT-negative result. CONCLUSION: Ag-RDT performance varied by clinical characteristics and temporal testing patterns. Our findings support recommendations for serial testing following an initial Ag-RDT-negative result, especially among recently symptomatic persons or those at high-risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection.

BACKGROUND: Early during the COVID-19 pandemic, it was important to better understand transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Household contacts of infected individuals are particularly at risk for infection, but delays in contact tracing, delays in testing contacts, and isolation and quarantine posed challenges to accurately capturing secondary household cases. METHODS: In this study, 346 households in the Seattle region were provided with respiratory specimen collection kits and remotely monitored using web-based surveys for respiratory illness symptoms weekly between October 1, 2020, and June 20, 2021. Symptomatic participants collected respiratory specimens at symptom onset and mailed specimens to the central laboratory in Seattle. Specimens were tested for SARS-CoV-2 using RT-PCR with whole genome sequencing attempted when positive. SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals were notified, and their household contacts submitted specimens every 2 days for 14 days. RESULTS: In total, 1371 participants collected 2029 specimens that were tested; 16 individuals (1.2%) within 6 households tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during the study period. Full genome sequences were generated from 11 individuals within 4 households. Very little genetic variation was found among SARS-CoV-2 viruses sequenced from different individuals in the same household, supporting transmission within the household. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates web-based surveillance of respiratory symptoms, combined with rapid and longitudinal specimen collection and remote contact tracing, provides a viable strategy to monitor households and detect household transmission of SARS-CoV-2. TRIAL REGISTRATION IDENTIFIER: NCT04141930, Date of registration 28/10/2019.

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

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

This report updates the 2009 recommendations by CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) regarding the use of influenza vaccine for the prevention and control of influenza (CDC. Prevention and control of influenza: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP]. MMWR 2009;58[No. RR-8] and CDC. Use of influenza A (H1N1) 2009 monovalent vaccine---recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP], 2009. MMWR 2009;58:[No. RR-10]). The 2010 influenza recommendations include new and updated information. Highlights of the 2010 recommendations include 1) a recommendation that annual vaccination be administered to all persons aged >or=6 months for the 2010-11 influenza season; 2) a recommendation that children aged 6 months--8 years whose vaccination status is unknown or who have never received seasonal influenza vaccine before (or who received seasonal vaccine for the first time in 2009-10 but received only 1 dose in their first year of vaccination) as well as children who did not receive at least 1 dose of an influenza A (H1N1) 2009 monovalent vaccine regardless of previous influenza vaccine history should receive 2 doses of a 2010-11 seasonal influenza vaccine (minimum interval: 4 weeks) during the 2010--11 season; 3) a recommendation that vaccines containing the 2010-11 trivalent vaccine virus strains A/California/7/2009 (H1N1)-like (the same strain as was used for 2009 H1N1 monovalent vaccines), A/Perth/16/2009 (H3N2)-like, and B/Brisbane/60/2008-like antigens be used; 4) information about Fluzone High-Dose, a newly approved vaccine for persons aged >or=65 years; and 5) information about other standard-dose newly approved influenza vaccines and previously approved vaccines with expanded age indications. Vaccination efforts should begin as soon as the 2010-11 seasonal influenza vaccine is available and continue through the influenza season. These recommendations also include a summary of safety data for U.S.-licensed influenza vaccines. These recommendations and other information are available at CDC's influenza website (http://www.cdc.gov/flu); any updates or supplements that might be required during the 2010-11 influenza season also will be available at this website. Recommendations for influenza diagnosis and antiviral use will be published before the start of the 2010-11 influenza season. Vaccination and health-care providers should be alert to announcements of recommendation updates and should check the CDC influenza website periodically for additional information.

This report updates the 2008 recommendations by CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) regarding the use of influenza vaccine for the prevention and control of seasonal influenza (CDC. Prevention and control of influenza: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP]. MMWR 2008;57[No. RR-7]). Information on vaccination issues related to the recently identified novel influenza A H1N1 virus will be published later in 2009. The 2009 seasonal influenza recommendations include new and updated information. Highlights of the 2009 recommendations include 1) a recommendation that annual vaccination be administered to all children aged 6 months-18 years for the 2009-10 influenza season; 2) a recommendation that vaccines containing the 2009-10 trivalent vaccine virus strains A/Brisbane/59/2007 (H1N1)-like, A/Brisbane/10/2007 (H3N2)-like, and B/Brisbane/60/2008-like antigens be used; and 3) a notice that recommendations for influenza diagnosis and antiviral use will be published before the start of the 2009-10 influenza season. Vaccination efforts should begin as soon as vaccine is available and continue through the influenza season. Approximately 83% of the United States population is specifically recommended for annual vaccination against seasonal influenza; however, <40% of the U.S. population received the 2008-09 influenza vaccine. These recommendations also include a summary of safety data for U.S. licensed influenza vaccines. These recommendations and other information are available at CDC's influenza website (http://www.cdc.gov/flu); any updates or supplements that might be required during the 2009-10 influenza season also can be found at this website. Vaccination and health-care providers should be alert to announcements of recommendation updates and should check the CDC influenza website periodically for additional information.

Hanula et al1 reported findings of a systematic review and meta-analysis that included 15 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of oseltamivir treatment for outpatients with influenza (age ≥12 years). The authors found no association between oseltamivir treatment of laboratory-confirmed influenza and risk of hospitalization among 6295 total participants or in subanalyses of older participants (mean age, ≥65 years; relative risk [RR], 0.99; 95% CI, 0.19-5.13) or participants with high-risk comorbidities (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.37-2.17). | | These study findings did not definitively determine whether oseltamivir treatment of outpatients with influenza reduces their risk of progression to severe disease.1 The included RCTs studied mild end points (eg, time to alleviation of symptoms, duration of uncomplicated influenza illness). Moreover, none of the RCTs were designed nor sufficiently powered to assess the end point of hospitalization and most were conducted among patients without increased risk for severe influenza complications.

This study provides survey results from state and territorial public health preparedness directors regarding antiviral shortages during the 2022-2023 respiratory viral season. | eng

BACKGROUND: The epidemiology of respiratory viral infections is complex. How infection with one respiratory virus affects risk of subsequent infection with the same or another respiratory virus is not well described. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data from a longitudinal household cohort study from October 2019-June 2021. Enrolled households completed active surveillance for acute respiratory illness (ARI), and participants with ARI self-collected nasal swabs; after April 2020, participants with ARI or laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 and their household members self-collected nasal swabs. Specimens were tested via multiplex RT-PCR for respiratory viruses. A Cox regression model with a time-dependent covariate examined risk of subsequent detections following a specific primary viral detection. RESULTS: Rhinovirus was the most frequently detected pathogen in study specimens (n=406, 9.5%). Among 51 participants with multiple viral detections, rhinovirus to seasonal coronavirus (8, 14.8%) was the most common viral detection pairing. Relative to no primary detection, there was a 1.03-2.06-fold increase in risk of subsequent virus detection in the 90 days following primary detection; risk varied by primary virus: parainfluenza, rhinovirus, and respiratory syncytial virus were statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Primary virus detection was associated with higher risk of subsequent virus detection within the first 90 days after primary detection.

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

Mortality among patients with COVID-19 and respiratory failure is high and there are no known lower airway biomarkers that predict clinical outcome. We investigated whether bacterial respiratory infections and viral load were associated with poor clinical outcome and host immune tone. We obtained bacterial and fungal culture data from 589 critically ill subjects with COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation. On a subset of the subjects that underwent bronchoscopy, we also quantified SARS-CoV-2 viral load, analyzed the microbiome of the lower airways by metagenome and metatranscriptome analyses and profiled the host immune response. We found that isolation of a hospital-acquired respiratory pathogen was not associated with fatal outcome. However, poor clinical outcome was associated with enrichment of the lower airway microbiota with an oral commensal ( Mycoplasma salivarium ), while high SARS-CoV-2 viral burden, poor anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody response, together with a unique host transcriptome profile of the lower airways were most predictive of mortality. Collectively, these data support the hypothesis that 1) the extent of viral infectivity drives mortality in severe COVID-19, and therefore 2) clinical management strategies targeting viral replication and host responses to SARS-CoV-2 should be prioritized.

Homeless shelter residents and staff may be at higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, | 34 SARS-CoV-2 infection estimates in this population have been reliant on cross-sectional or | 35 outbreak investigation data. We conducted routine surveillance and outbreak testing in 23 | 36 homeless shelters in King County, Washington to estimate the occurrence of laboratory37 confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and risk factors during 1/1/2020 -5/31/2021. Symptom surveys | 38 and nasal swabs were collected for SARS-CoV-2 testing by RT-PCR for residents aged ≥3 | 39 months and staff. We collected 12,915 specimens from 2,930 unique participants. We identified | 40 4.74 (95% CI 4.00 – 5.58) SARS-CoV-2 infections per 100 individuals (residents: 4.96, 95% CI | 41 4.12 – 5.91; staff: 3.86, 95% CI 2.43 – 5.79). Most infections were asymptomatic at time of | 42 detection (74%) and detected during routine surveillance (73%). Outbreak testing yielded higher | 43 test positivity compared to routine surveillance (2.7% vs. 0.9%). Among those infected, | 44 residents were less likely to report symptoms than staff. Participants who were vaccinated | 45 against seasonal influenza and were current smokers had lower odds of having an infection | 46 detected. Active surveillance that includes SARS-CoV-2 testing of all persons is essential in | 47 ascertaining the true burden of SARS-CoV-2 infections among residents and staff of congregate | 48 settings.

Homeless shelter residents and staff may be at higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, SARS-CoV-2 infection estimates in this population have been reliant on cross-sectional or outbreak investigation data. We conducted routine surveillance and outbreak testing in 23 homeless shelters in King County, Washington to estimate the occurrence of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and risk factors during 1/1/2020 -5/31/2021. Symptom surveys and nasal swabs were collected for SARS-CoV-2 testing by RT-PCR for residents aged >=3 months and staff. We collected 12,915 specimens from 2,930 unique participants. We identified 4.74 (95% CI 4.00 - 5.58) SARS-CoV-2 infections per 100 individuals (residents: 4.96, 95% CI 4.12 - 5.91; staff: 3.86, 95% CI 2.43 - 5.79). Most infections were asymptomatic at time of detection (74%) and detected during routine surveillance (73%). Outbreak testing yielded higher test positivity compared to routine surveillance (2.7% vs. 0.9%). Among those infected, residents were less likely to report symptoms than staff. Participants who were vaccinated against seasonal influenza and were current smokers had lower odds of having an infection detected. Active surveillance that includes SARS-CoV-2 testing of all persons is essential in ascertaining the true burden of SARS-CoV-2 infections among residents and staff of congregate settings. 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: Respiratory viruses might influence Streptococcus pneumoniae nasal carriage and subsequent disease risk. We estimated the association between common respiratory viruses and semiquantitative S. pneumoniae nasal carriage density in a household setting before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: From November 2019-June 2021, we enrolled participants in a remote household surveillance study of respiratory pathogens. Participants submitted weekly reports of acute respiratory illness (ARI) symptoms. Mid-turbinate or anterior nasal swabs were self-collected at enrollment, when ARI occurred, and, in the second year of the study only, from household contacts after SARS-CoV-2 was detected in a household member. Specimens were tested using multiplex reverse-transcription PCR for respiratory pathogens, including S. pneumoniae, rhinovirus, adenovirus, common human coronavirus, influenza A/B virus, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) A/B, human metapneumovirus, enterovirus, and human parainfluenza virus. We estimated differences in semiquantitative S. pneumoniae nasal carriage density, estimated by the inverse of S. pneumoniae relative cycle threshold (Crt) values, with and without viral detection for any virus and for specific respiratory viruses using linear generalized estimating equations of S. pneumoniae Crt values on virus detection adjusted for age and swab type and accounting for clustering of swabs within households. RESULTS: We collected 346 swabs from 239 individuals in 151 households that tested positive for S. pneumoniae (n = 157 with and 189 without ≥1 viruses co-detected). Difficulty breathing, cough, and runny nose were more commonly reported among individuals with specimens with viral co-detection compared to without (15%, 80% and 93% vs. 8%, 57%, and 51%, respectively) and ear pain and headache were less commonly reported (3% and 26% vs. 16% and 41%, respectively). For specific viruses among all ages, semiquantitative S. pneumoniae nasal carriage density was greater with viral co-detection for enterovirus, RSV A/B, adenovirus, rhinovirus, and common human coronavirus (P < 0.01 for each). When stratified by age, semiquantitative S. pneumoniae nasal carriage density was significantly greater with viral co-detection among children aged <5 (P = 0.002) and 5-17 years (P = 0.005), but not among adults aged 18-64 years (P = 0.29). CONCLUSION: Detection of common respiratory viruses was associated with greater concurrent S. pneumoniae semiquantitative nasal carriage density in a household setting among children, but not adults.

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) causes disproportionate morbidity and mortality in vulnerable populations. We tested residents of homeless shelters in Seattle, Washington for RSV in a repeated cross-sectional study as part of community surveillance for respiratory viruses. Of 15 364 specimens tested, 35 had RSV detected, compared to 77 with influenza. The most common symptoms for both RSV and influenza were cough and rhinorrhea. Many individuals with RSV (39%) and influenza (58%) reported that their illness significantly impacted their ability to perform their regular activities. RSV and influenza demonstrated similar clinical presentations and burden of illness in vulnerable populations living in congregate settings.

We estimated the incubation period and serial interval for human-to-human-transmitted avian influenza A(H7N9) virus infection using case-patient clusters from epidemics in China during 2013-2017. The median incubation period was 4 days and serial interval 9 days. China's 10-day monitoring period for close contacts of case-patients should detect most secondary infections.

The authors reply: Weng et al. question the clinical benefit of remdesivir treatment. In our article, we noted that the decision to administer remdesivir for compassionate use was based on the patient’s worsening clinical status. No inferences are possible from the uncontrolled treatment of one patient, and we stated, “randomized, controlled trials are needed to determine the safety and efficacy of remdesivir and any other investigational agents for treatment of patients with 2019-nCoV infection.” | | Tsung notes that an increase in lymphocyte counts and subsequent clinical improvement are consistent with activation of the adaptive immune response and resolution of SARS-CoV-2 infection. IgM and IgA antibodies may be detectable early in the clinical course, and IgG antibodies can be detected a median of 14 days after the onset of illness.1 We agree that the adaptive immune response contributes to clinical recovery and clearance of SARS-CoV-2, although one study showed that seroconversion was not correlated with a rapid decline in the SARS-CoV-2 load.2 In another study that showed a good correlation between IgG and neutralizing antibody titers, an increase in IgG antibody levels was correlated with a decrease in the viral load between 1 and 3 weeks after the onset of illness, but SARS-CoV-2 RNA was still detectable for prolonged periods.3 | | Zhang inquires about detection of SARS-CoV-2 in stool and urine specimens after remdesivir treatment. In our patient, although a stool specimen collected on day 7 of illness was positive with high cycle threshold values (36 to 38) that were consistent with detection of viral RNA and probably not infectious virus, a stool specimen obtained from the patient on day 14 of illness was negative. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was not detected in urine specimens; these findings are consistent with those in a larger study.4 | | Wen et al. and Link and Hold raise the issue of fecal–oral transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Diarrhea has been reported to occur in patients with Covid-19, and it can precede the development of respiratory symptoms and progression to pneumonia. SARS-CoV-2 RNA has been detected in stool specimens, and recovery of live infectious virus from stool has been reported.4 Further studies are needed to understand the implications of SARS-CoV-2 detected in stool for transmission of the virus. | | Ren et al. argue that high-resolution low-dose chest CT should be performed instead of chest radiography in persons with fever and suspected Covid-19. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends collection of nasopharyngeal swab specimens and lower respiratory specimens, if available, for SARS-CoV-2 testing and prioritizes testing of hospitalized patients and symptomatic health care workers. Furthermore, the American College of Radiology has noted concerns regarding prevention and control of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in health care facilities, including transmission that may occur with the use of CT scanners, and has recommended that CT should not be used to screen for or diagnose Covid-19.5

Annual seasonal influenza epidemics of variable severity caused by influenza A and B virus infections result in substantial disease burden worldwide. Seasonal influenza virus circulation declined markedly in 2020-21 after SARS-CoV-2 emerged but increased in 2021-22. Most people with influenza have abrupt onset of respiratory symptoms and myalgia with or without fever and recover within 1 week, but some can experience severe or fatal complications. Prevention is primarily by annual influenza vaccination, with efforts underway to develop new vaccines with improved effectiveness. Sporadic zoonotic infections with novel influenza A viruses of avian or swine origin continue to pose pandemic threats. In this Seminar, we discuss updates of key influenza issues for clinicians, in particular epidemiology, virology, and pathogenesis, diagnostic testing including multiplex assays that detect influenza viruses and SARS-CoV-2, complications, antiviral treatment, influenza vaccines, infection prevention, and non-pharmaceutical interventions, and highlight gaps in clinical management and priorities for clinical research.