Repeat vaccination with egg-based influenza vaccines could preferentially boost antibodies targeting the egg-adapted epitopes and reduce immunogenicity to circulating viruses. In this randomized trial (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03722589), sera pre- and post-vaccination with quadrivalent inactivated egg-based (IIV4), cell culture-based (ccIIV4), and recombinant (RIV4) influenza vaccines were collected from healthcare personnel (18-64 years) in 2018-19 (N = 723) and 2019-20 (N = 684) influenza seasons. We performed an exploratory analysis. Vaccine egg-adapted changes had the most impact on A(H3N2) immunogenicity. In year 1, RIV4 induced higher neutralizing and total HA head binding antibodies to cell- A(H3N2) virus than ccIIV4 and IIV4. In year 2, among the 7 repeat vaccination arms (IIV4-IIV4, IIV4-ccIIV4, IIV4-RIV4, RIV4-ccIIV4, RIV4-RIV4, ccIIV4-ccIIV4 and ccIIV4-RIV4), repeat vaccination with either RIV4 or ccIIV4 further improved antibody responses to circulating viruses with decreased neutralizing antibody egg/cell ratio. RIV4 also had higher post-vaccination A(H1N1)pdm09 and A(H3N2) HA stalk antibodies in year 1, but there was no significant difference in HA stalk antibody fold rise among vaccine groups in either year 1 or year 2. Multiple seasons of non-egg-based vaccination may be needed to redirect antibody responses from immune memory to egg-adapted epitopes and re-focus the immune responses towards epitopes on the circulating viruses to improve vaccine effectiveness.

Background Data on the development of neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 after SARS-CoV-2 infection and after vaccination with messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccines are limited.Methods From a prospective cohort of 3,975 adult essential and frontline workers tested weekly from August, 2020 to March, 2021 for SARS-CoV-2 infection by Reverse Transcription- Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) assay irrespective of symptoms, 497 participants had sera drawn after infection (170), vaccination (327), and after both infection and vaccination (50 from the infection population). Serum was collected after infection and each vaccine dose. Serum- neutralizing antibody titers against USA-WA1/2020-spike pseudotype virus were determined by the 50% inhibitory dilution. Geometric mean titers (GMTs) and corresponding fold increases were calculated using t-tests and linear mixed effects models.Results Among 170 unvaccinated participants with SARS-CoV-2 infection, 158 (93%) developed neutralizing antibodies (nAb) with a GMT of 1,003 (95% CI=766-1,315). Among 139 previously uninfected participants, 138 (99%) developed nAb after mRNA vaccine dose-2 with a GMT of 3,257 (95% CI = 2,596-4,052). GMT was higher among those receiving mRNA-1273 vaccine (GMT =4,698, 95%CI= 3,186-6,926) compared to BNT162b2 vaccine (GMT=2,309, 95%CI=1,825-2,919). Among 32 participants with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, GMT was 21,655 (95%CI=14,766-31,756) after mRNA vaccine dose-1, without further increase after dose- 2.Conclusions A single dose of mRNA vaccine after SARS-CoV-2 infection resulted in the highest observed nAb response. Two doses of mRNA vaccine in previously uninfected participants resulted in higher nAb to SARS-CoV-2 than after one dose of vaccine or SARS- CoV-2 infection alone. Neutralizing antibody response also differed by mRNA vaccine product.Main Point Summary One dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine after previous SARS-CoV-2 infection produced the highest neutralizing antibody titers; among those without history of infection, two doses of mRNA vaccine produced the most robust response.Competing Interest StatementAllison Naleway receives research funding from Pfizer and Vir Biotechnology and Jennifer Kuntz receives research funding from Pfizer, Novartis, and Vir Biotechnology for unrelated studies. All other authors: No conflicts. Funding StatementThis work was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases [contracts 75D30120R68013 to Marshfield Clinic Research Institute, 75D30120C08379 to the University of Arizona, and 75D30120C08150 to Abt Associates].Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This study is governed by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention IRB review board and gave ethical approval for this work.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the pres nt work are contained in the manuscript

BACKGROUND Information is limited on messenger RNA (mRNA) BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna) COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection or attenuating disease when administered in real-world conditions.METHODS Prospective cohorts of 3,975 healthcare personnel, first responders, and other essential and frontline workers completed weekly SARS-CoV-2 testing during December 14 2020—April 10 2021. Self-collected mid-turbinate nasal swabs were tested by qualitative and quantitative reverse-transcription–polymerase-chain-reaction (RT-PCR). VE was calculated as 100%×(1−hazard ratio); adjusted VE was calculated using vaccination propensity weights and adjustments for site, occupation, and local virus circulation.RESULTS SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 204 (5.1%) participants; 16 were partially (≥14 days post-dose-1 to 13 days after dose-2) or fully (≥14 days post-dose-2) vaccinated, and 156 were unvaccinated; 32 with indeterminate status (<14 days after dose-1) were excluded. Adjusted mRNA VE of full vaccination was 91% (95% confidence interval [CI]=76%–97%) against symptomatic or asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection; VE of partial vaccination was 81% (95% CI=64%-90%). Among partially or fully vaccinated participants with SARS-CoV-2 infection, mean viral RNA load (Log10 copies/mL) was 40% lower (95% CI=16%-57%), the risk of self-reported febrile COVID-19 was 58% lower (Risk Ratio=0.42, 95% CI=0.18-0.98), and 2.3 fewer days (95% CI=0.8-3.7) were spent sick in bed compared to unvaccinated infected participants.CONCLUSIONS Authorized mRNA vaccines were highly effective among working-age adults in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infections when administered in real-world conditions and attenuated viral RNA load, febrile symptoms, and illness duration among those with breakthrough infection despite vaccination.Competing Interest StatementAllison L. Naleway reported funding from Pfizer for a meningococcal B vaccine study unrelated to the submitted work. Kurt T. Hegmann serves at the Editor of the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine evidence-based practice guidelines. Matthew S. These reported grants and personal fees from Reed Group and the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, outside the submitted work. Other authors have reported no conflicts of interest.Funding StatementFunding provided in whole or in part by federal funds from the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention under contract numbers 75D30120R68013 awarded to Marshfield Clinic Research Laboratory, 75D30120C08379 to University of Arizona, and 75D30120C08150 awarded to Abt Associates, Inc.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This study was reviewed and approved by the University of Arizona IRB as the single IRB for this studyAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesSummary data will be available once all study objectives are met.

Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs), firefighters, and other first responders are at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to healthcare personnel but have relatively low COVID-19 vaccine uptake. Resistance to COVID-19 vaccine mandates among first responders has the potential to disrupt essential public services and threaten public health and safety. Using data from the HEROES-RECOVER prospective cohorts, we report on the increased illness burden of COVID-19 among unvaccinated first responders. From January to September 2021, first responders contributed to weekly active surveillance for COVID-19-like illness (CLI). Self-collected respiratory specimens collected weekly, irrespective of symptoms, and at the onset CLI were tested by Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) assay for SARSCoV-2. Among 1415 first responders, 17% were LEOs, 68% firefighters, and 15% had other first responder occupations. Unvaccinated (41%) compared to fully vaccinated (59%) first responders were less likely to believe COVID-19 vaccines are very or extremely effective (17% versus 54%) or very or extremely safe (15% versus 54%). From January through September 2021, among unvaccinated LEOs, the incidence of COVID-19 was 11.9 per 1,000 person-weeks (95%CI=7.0-20.1) compared to only 0.6 (95%CI=0.2-2.5) among vaccinated LEOs. Incidence of COVID-19 was also higher among unvaccinated firefighters (9.0 per 1,000 person-weeks; 95%CI=6.4-12.7) compared to those vaccinated (1.8 per 1,000; 95%CI=1.1-2.8). Once they had laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, unvaccinated first responders were sick for a mean+/-SD of 14.7+/-21.7 days and missed a mean of 38.0+/-46.0 hours of work. These findings suggest that state and local governments with large numbers of unvaccinated first responders may face major disruptions in their workforce due to COVID-19 illness. 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: Emerging data suggest that second-generation influenza vaccines with higher hemagglutinin (HA) antigen content and/or different production methods may induce stronger antibody responses to HA than standard-dose egg-based influenza vaccines in adults. We compared antibody responses to high-dose egg-based inactivated (HD-IIV3), recombinant (RIV4), and cell culture-based (ccIIV4) vs standard-dose egg-based inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV4) among health care personnel (HCP) aged 18-65 years in 2 influenza seasons (2018-2019, 2019-2020). METHODS: In the second trial season, newly and re-enrolled HCPs who received SD-IIV4 in season 1 were randomized to receive RIV4, ccIIV4, or SD-IIV4 or were enrolled in an off-label, nonrandomized arm to receive HD-IIV3. Prevaccination and 1-month-postvaccination sera were tested by hemagglutination inhibition (HI) assay against 4 cell culture propagated vaccine reference viruses. Primary outcomes, adjusted for study site and baseline HI titer, were seroconversion rate (SCR), geometric mean titers (GMTs), mean fold rise (MFR), and GMT ratios that compared vaccine groups to SD-IIV4. RESULTS: Among 390 HCP in the per-protocol population, 79 received HD-IIV3, 103 RIV4, 106 ccIIV4, and 102 SD-IIV4. HD-IIV3 recipients had similar postvaccination antibody titers compared with SD-IIV4 recipients, whereas RIV4 recipients had significantly higher 1-month-postvaccination antibody titers against vaccine reference viruses for all outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: HD-IIV3 did not induce higher antibody responses than SD-IIV4, but, consistent with previous studies, RIV4 was associated with higher postvaccination antibody titers. These findings suggest that recombinant vaccines rather than vaccines with higher egg-based antigen doses may provide improved antibody responses in highly vaccinated populations.

Messenger RNA (mRNA) BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna) COVID-19 vaccines have been shown to be effective in preventing symptomatic COVID-19 in randomized placebo-controlled Phase III trials (1,2); however, the benefits of these vaccines for preventing asymptomatic and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) infection, particularly when administered in real-world conditions, is less well understood. Using prospective cohorts of health care personnel, first responders, and other essential and frontline workers* in eight U.S. locations during December 14, 2020-March 13, 2021, CDC routinely tested for SARS-CoV-2 infections every week regardless of symptom status and at the onset of symptoms consistent with COVID-19-associated illness. Among 3,950 participants with no previous laboratory documentation of SARS-CoV-2 infection, 2,479 (62.8%) received both recommended mRNA doses and 477 (12.1%) received only one dose of mRNA vaccine.(†) Among unvaccinated participants, 1.38 SARS-CoV-2 infections were confirmed by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) per 1,000 person-days.(§) In contrast, among fully immunized (≥14 days after second dose) persons, 0.04 infections per 1,000 person-days were reported, and among partially immunized (≥14 days after first dose and before second dose) persons, 0.19 infections per 1,000 person-days were reported. Estimated mRNA vaccine effectiveness for prevention of infection, adjusted for study site, was 90% for full immunization and 80% for partial immunization. These findings indicate that authorized mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are effective for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection, regardless of symptom status, among working-age adults in real-world conditions. COVID-19 vaccination is recommended for all eligible persons.

In a cohort of essential workers in the United States previously infected with SARS-CoV-2, risk factors for reinfection included being unvaccinated, infrequent mask use, time since first infection, and being non-Hispanic Black. Protecting workers from reinfection requires a multipronged approach including up-to-date vaccination, mask use as recommended, and reduction in underlying health disparities.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have examined influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) among women during pregnancy in middle-income countries. We used data from a prospective cohort of women who were pregnant in Peru to estimate effectiveness of the 2018 Southern Hemisphere influenza vaccine. METHODS: Women at <28 weeks gestation were enrolled from 4 tertiary level hospitals in Lima, Peru at the start of the 2018 influenza season and followed until the end of their pregnancies. Participants had mid-turbinate nasal swabs collected and tested for influenza by reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) with onset of ≥1 of myalgia, cough, runny nose or nasal congestion, sore throat, or difficulty breathing. Time-varying Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to estimate the risk of RT-PCR-confirmed influenza infection after adjusting for inverse probability treatment weight. RESULTS: We followed 1896 women for a median of 127 days (interquartile range [IQR], 86-174). Participants had a median age of 29 years (IQR, 24-34). Among the 1896 women, 49% were vaccinated with the 2018 influenza vaccine and 1039 (55%) developed influenza-like illness, 76 (7%) of whom had RT-PCR-confirmed influenza. Incidence rates of RT-PCR-confirmed influenza were 36.6 and 15.3 per 100 000 person-days among women who were unvaccinated and vaccinated, respectively. Adjusted influenza VE was 22% (95% confidence interval, -64.1% to 62.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Participants vaccinated against influenza had more than 50% lower incidence of RT-PCR-confirmed influenza illness. Although the VE estimated through propensity weight-adjusted time-varying Cox regression did not reach statistical significance, our findings provide additional evidence about the value of maternal influenza vaccination in middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Three doses of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines produce robust antibody responses, but data are limited among individuals previously infected with SARS-CoV-2. From a cohort of health care personnel (75.5%), first responders (4.6%), and other frontline workers (19.8%) in 6 US states, we longitudinally assessed antibody waning after dose-2, and response to dose-3, according to SARS-CoV-2 infection history. METHODS: Participants submitted sera every three months, after SARS-CoV-2 infection, and after each COVID-19 vaccine dose. Sera were tested for antibodies and reported quantitatively as area under the serial dilution curve (AUC). Changes in the AUC values over time were compared as fold-changes using a linear mixed model. RESULTS: Analysis included 388 participants who received dose-3 by November 2021. Three comparison groups: (1) vaccine only with no known prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (n = 224); (2) infection prior to dose-1 (n = 123); and (3) infection after dose 2 and before dose-3 (n = 41). The interval from dose 2 and dose 3 was approximately 8-months. After dose-3, antibody levels rose 2.5-fold (95%CI = 2.2-3.0) in group 2, and 2.9-fold (95%CI = 2.6-3.3) in group 1. Those infected within 90 days before dose-3 (and median 233 days (IQR = 213-246) after dose-2) did not increase significantly after dose-3. CONCLUSIONS: A third dose of mRNA vaccine typically elicited a robust humoral immune response among those with primary vaccination regardless of SARS-CoV-2 infection >3 months prior to boosting. Those with infection < 3 months prior to boosting did not have a significant increase in antibody concentrations in response to a booster.

IMPORTANCE: Data on the epidemiology of mild to moderately severe COVID-19 are needed to inform public health guidance. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate associations between 2 or 3 doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine and attenuation of symptoms and viral RNA load across SARS-CoV-2 viral lineages. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A prospective cohort study of essential and frontline workers in Arizona, Florida, Minnesota, Oregon, Texas, and Utah with COVID-19 infection confirmed by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction testing and lineage classified by whole genome sequencing of specimens self-collected weekly and at COVID-19 illness symptom onset. This analysis was conducted among 1199 participants with SARS-CoV-2 from December 14, 2020, to April 19, 2022, with follow-up until May 9, 2022, reported. EXPOSURES: SARS-CoV-2 lineage (origin strain, Delta variant, Omicron variant) and COVID-19 vaccination status. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Clinical outcomes included presence of symptoms, specific symptoms (including fever or chills), illness duration, and medical care seeking. Virologic outcomes included viral load by quantitative reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction testing along with viral viability. RESULTS: Among 1199 participants with COVID-19 infection (714 [59.5%] women; median age, 41 years), 14.0% were infected with the origin strain, 24.0% with the Delta variant, and 62.0% with the Omicron variant. Participants vaccinated with the second vaccine dose 14 to 149 days before Delta infection were significantly less likely to be symptomatic compared with unvaccinated participants (21/27 [77.8%] vs 74/77 [96.1%]; OR, 0.13 [95% CI, 0-0.6]) and, when symptomatic, those vaccinated with the third dose 7 to 149 days before infection were significantly less likely to report fever or chills (5/13 [38.5%] vs 62/73 [84.9%]; OR, 0.07 [95% CI, 0.0-0.3]) and reported significantly fewer days of symptoms (10.2 vs 16.4; difference, -6.1 [95% CI, -11.8 to -0.4] days). Among those with Omicron infection, the risk of symptomatic infection did not differ significantly for the 2-dose vaccination status vs unvaccinated status and was significantly higher for the 3-dose recipients vs those who were unvaccinated (327/370 [88.4%] vs 85/107 [79.4%]; OR, 2.0 [95% CI, 1.1-3.5]). Among symptomatic Omicron infections, those vaccinated with the third dose 7 to 149 days before infection compared with those who were unvaccinated were significantly less likely to report fever or chills (160/311 [51.5%] vs 64/81 [79.0%]; OR, 0.25 [95% CI, 0.1-0.5]) or seek medical care (45/308 [14.6%] vs 20/81 [24.7%]; OR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.2-0.9]). Participants with Delta and Omicron infections who received the second dose 14 to 149 days before infection had a significantly lower mean viral load compared with unvaccinated participants (3 vs 4.1 log10 copies/L; difference, -1.0 [95% CI, -1.7 to -0.2] for Delta and 2.8 vs 3.5 log10 copies/L, difference, -1.0 [95% CI, -1.7 to -0.3] for Omicron). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In a cohort of US essential and frontline workers with SARS-CoV-2 infections, recent vaccination with 2 or 3 mRNA vaccine doses less than 150 days before infection with Delta or Omicron variants, compared with being unvaccinated, was associated with attenuated symptoms, duration of illness, medical care seeking, or viral load for some comparisons, although the precision and statistical significance of specific estimates varied.

BACKGROUND: Antibody responses to non-egg-based standard-dose cell-culture influenza vaccine (containing 15 µg hemagglutinin (HA)/component) and recombinant vaccine (containing 45 µg HA/component) during consecutive seasons have not been studied in the United States. METHODS: In a randomized trial of immunogenicity of quadrivalent influenza vaccines among healthcare personnel (HCP) aged 18-64 years over two consecutive seasons, HCP who received recombinant-hemagglutinin (RIV) or cell-culture-based vaccine (ccIIV) during the first season (Y1) were re-randomized the second season of 2019-2020 (Y2) to receive ccIIV or RIV, resulting in four ccIIV-RIV combinations. In Y2, hemagglutination inhibition (HI) antibody titers against reference cell-grown vaccine viruses were compared in each ccIIV-RIV group with titers among HCP randomized both seasons to receive egg-based, standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV), using geometric mean titer (GMT) ratios of Y2-post-vaccination titers. RESULTS: Y2 data from 414 HCPs were analyzed per-protocol. Compared to 60 IIV/IIV recipients, 74 RIV/RIV and 106 ccIIV/RIV recipients showed significantly elevated GMT ratios (Bonferroni corrected P <.007) against all components except A (H3N2). Post-vaccination GMT ratios for ccIIV/ccIIV and RIV/ccIIV were not significantly elevated compared to IIV/IIV except for RIV/ccIIV against A(H1N1)pdm09. CONCLUSIONS: In adult HCPs, receipt of RIV two consecutive seasons or the second season was more immunogenic than consecutive egg-based IIV for three of the four components of quadrivalent vaccine. Immunogenicity of ccIIV/ccIIV was similar to that of IIV/IIV. Differences in hemagglutinin antigen content may play a role in immunogenicity of influenza vaccination in consecutive seasons.

Respiratory specimen collection materials shortages hampers severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing. We compared specimen alternatives and evaluated SARS-CoV-2 RNA stability under simulated shipping conditions. We compared concordance of RT-PCR detection of SARS-CoV-2 from flocked midturbinate swabs (MTS) in viral transport media (VTM), foam MTS without VTM, and saliva. Specimens were collected between August 2020 and April 2021 from three prospective cohorts. We compared RT-PCR cycle quantification (C(q)) for Spike (S), Nucleocapsid (N), and the Open Reading Frame 1ab (ORF) genes for flocked MTS and saliva specimens tested before and after exposure to a range of storage temperatures (4-30C) and times (2, 3, and 7days). Of 1,900 illnesses with 2 specimen types tested, 335 (18%) had SARS-CoV-2 detected in 1 specimen; 304 (91%) were concordant across specimen types. Among illnesses with SARS-CoV-2 detection, 97% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 94-98%) were positive on flocked MTS, 99% (95% CI: 97-100%) on saliva, and 89% (95% CI: 84-93%) on foam MTS. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in flocked MTS and saliva stored up to 30C for 7days. All specimen types provided highly concordant SARS-CoV-2 results. These findings support a range of viable options for specimen types, collection, and transport methods that may facilitate SARS-CoV-2 testing during supply and personnel shortages. IMPORTANCE Findings from this analysis indicate that (1) self-collection of flocked and foam MTS and saliva samples is feasible in both adults and children, (2) foam MTS with VTM and saliva are both viable and reasonable alternatives to traditional flocked MTS in VTM for SARS-CoV-2 detection, and (3) these sample types may be stored and transported at ambient temperatures for up to 7days without compromising sample quality. These findings support methods of sample collection for SARS-CoV-2 detection that may facilitate widespread community testing in the setting of supply and personnel shortages during the current pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Assessing the real-world effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines and understanding the incidence and severity of SARS-CoV-2 illness in children is essential to inform policy and guide healthcare professionals advising parents and caregivers of children who test positive for SARS-CoV-2. OBJECTIVE: This report describes the objectives and methods for conducting the Pediatric Research Observing Trends and Exposures in COVID-19 Timelines (PROTECT) study. PROTECT is a longitudinal prospective pediatric cohort study designed to estimate SARS-CoV-2 incidence and COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) against infection among children aged 6 months to 17 years as well as differences in SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccine response between children and adolescents. METHODS: The PROTECT multisite network was initiated in July 2021 and aims to enroll approximately 2,305 children across four U.S. locations and collect data over a two-year surveillance period; the enrollment target was based on prospective power calculations and account for expected attrition and nonresponse. Study sites recruit parents and legal guardians (PLGs) of age-eligible children participating in the existing HEROES-RECOVER network as well as from surrounding communities. Child demographics, medical history, COVID-19 exposure, vaccination history, and PLGs' knowledge and attitudes about COVID-19 are collected at baseline and throughout the study. Mid-turbinate nasal specimens are self- or PLG-collected weekly, regardless of symptoms, for SARS-CoV-2 and influenza testing via reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay, and the presence of COVID-like-illness (CLI) is reported. Children who test positive for SARS-CoV-2 or influenza or report CLI are monitored weekly by online surveys to report exposure and medical utilization until no longer ill. Children, with their PLG's permission, may elect to contribute blood at enrollment, following SARS-CoV-2 infection, following COVID-19 vaccination, and at the end of the study period. PROTECT uses electronic medical records (EMR) linkages where available and verifies COVID-19 and influenza vaccinations through EMR or state vaccine registries. RESULTS: Data collection began in July 2021 and is expected to continue through Spring 2023. As of 05/13/2022, 2,371 children are enrolled in PROTECT. Enrollment is ongoing at all study sites. CONCLUSIONS: As COVID-19 vaccine products are authorized for use in pediatric populations, PROTECT study data will provide real-world estimates of VE in preventing infection. In addition, this prospective cohort provides a unique opportunity to further understand SARS-CoV-2 incidence, clinical course, and key knowledge gaps that may inform public health.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare personnel (HCP) are a priority group for annual influenza vaccination. Few studies have assessed the validity of recall of prior influenza vaccination status among HCP, especially for more than one preceding season. METHODS: Using data from a randomized controlled trial of influenza vaccination among 947 HCP from two US healthcare systems, we assessed agreement between participant self-report and administrative record documentation of influenza vaccination status during the preceding five influenza seasons; kappa coefficients and sensitivity values were calculated. Administrative record documentation was considered the gold standard. Documented vaccination sources included electronic medical records, employee health records, outside immunization providers, and the state immunization information system. RESULTS: Among 683 HCP with prior influenza immunization information, 89.7% (95% CI: 87.2%, 91.9%) of HCP were able to self-report their vaccination status for the season preceding the survey. By the fifth preceding season, 82.6% (95% CI: 79.5%, 85.3%) of HCP were able to self-report. Among HCP who self-reported their vaccination status, agreement between self-report and documented vaccination status ranged from 81.9% (95% CI: 77.2%, 86.7%) for the fifth season to 90.5% (95% CI: 87.2%, 93.9%) for the season preceding interview. HCP who received vaccine for only some of the preceding five seasons (18.3%) more commonly had 2 errors in their recall compared with those vaccinated all five preceding seasons (55.7% vs. 4.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported vaccination status is a reliable source for historical influenza vaccination information among HCP who are consistently vaccinated but less reliable for those with a history of inconsistent vaccination.

BACKGROUND: We sought to evaluate the impact of changes in estimates of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness on the incidence of laboratory-confirmed infection among frontline workers at high risk for SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: We analyzed data from a prospective frontline worker cohort to estimate the incidence of COVID-19 by month as well as the association of COVID-19 vaccination, occupation, demographics, physical distancing, and mask use with infection risk. Participants completed baseline and quarterly surveys, and each week self-collected mid-turbinate nasal swabs and reported symptoms. RESULTS: Among 1018 unvaccinated and 3531 fully vaccinated workers, the monthly incidence of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in January 2021 was 13.9 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 10.4-17.4), declining to 0.5 (95% CI -0.4-1.4) per 1000 person-weeks in June. By September 2021, when the Delta variant predominated, incidence had once again risen to 13.6 (95% CI 7.8-19.4) per 1000 person-weeks. In contrast, there was no reportable incidence among fully vaccinated participants at the end of January 2021, and incidence remained low until September 2021 when it rose modestly to 4.1 (95% CI 1.9-3.8) per 1000. Below average facemask use was associated with a higher risk of infection for unvaccinated participants during exposure to persons who may have COVID-19 and vaccinated participants during hours in the community. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccination was significantly associated with a lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection despite Delta variant predominance. Our data demonstrate the added protective benefit of facemask use among both unvaccinated and vaccinated frontline workers.

BACKGROUND: Data on the development of neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 after SARS-CoV-2 infection and after vaccination with messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccines are limited. METHODS: From a prospective cohort of 3,975 adult essential and frontline workers tested weekly from August 2020 to March 2021 for SARS-CoV-2 infection by Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) assay irrespective of symptoms, 497 participants had sera drawn after infection (170), vaccination (327), and after both infection and vaccination (50 from the infection population). Serum was collected after infection and each vaccine dose. Serum-neutralizing antibody titers against USA-WA1/2020-spike pseudotype virus were determined by the 50% inhibitory dilution. Geometric mean titers (GMTs) and corresponding fold increases were calculated using t-tests and linear mixed effects models. RESULTS: Among 170 unvaccinated participants with SARS-CoV-2 infection, 158 (93%) developed neutralizing antibodies (nAb) with a GMT of 1,003 (95% CI=766-1,315). Among 139 previously uninfected participants, 138 (99%) developed nAb after mRNA vaccine dose-2 with a GMT of 3,257 (95% CI = 2,596-4,052). GMT was higher among those receiving mRNA-1273 vaccine (GMT =4,698, 95%CI= 3,186-6,926) compared to BNT162b2 vaccine (GMT=2,309, 95%CI=1,825-2,919). Among 32 participants with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, GMT was 21,655 (95%CI=14,766-31,756) after mRNA vaccine dose-1, without further increase after dose-2. CONCLUSIONS: A single dose of mRNA vaccine after SARS-CoV-2 infection resulted in the highest observed nAb response. Two doses of mRNA vaccine in previously uninfected participants resulted in higher nAb to SARS-CoV-2 than after one dose of vaccine or SARS-CoV-2 infection alone. Neutralizing antibody response also differed by mRNA vaccine product.

BACKGROUND: Workers critical to emergency response and continuity of essential services during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic are at a disproportionally high risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Prospective cohort studies are needed to enhance understanding the incidence of symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, identifying risk factors, assessing clinical outcomes, and determining the effectiveness of vaccination. OBJECTIVE: The Research on the Epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 in Essential Response personnel (RECOVER) prospective cohort study was designed to estimate the incidence of symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, examine risk factors for infection and clinical spectrum of illness, and assess effectiveness of vaccination among essential workers. METHODS: The RECOVER multi-site network was initiated in August 2020 and aims to enroll 3,000 healthcare personnel (HCP), first responders, and other essential and frontline workers (EFW) in six U.S. locations. Data on participant demographics, medical history, and vaccination history are collected at baseline and throughout the study. Active surveillance for symptoms of COVID-19-like illness (CLI), accessing medical care, and symptom duration are ascertained by text messages, e-mails, and direct participant or medical record reports. Participants self-collect a mid-turbinate nasal swab weekly, regardless of symptoms, and two additional respiratory specimens at the onset of CLI. Blood is collected upon enrollment, every three months, approximately 28 days after a reverse-transcription-polymerase-chain-reaction (RT-PCR)-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, and 14-28 days after a dose of any COVID-19 vaccine. Beginning in February 2021, household members of RT-PCR-confirmed participants self-collect mid-turbinate nasal swabs daily for ten days. RESULTS: The study observation period began in August 2020 and is currently expected to continue through spring 2022. There are 2,623 actively enrolled RECOVER participants, including 252 participants who were found to be positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR. Enrollment is ongoing at three of six study site locations. CONCLUSIONS: Data collected through the cohort are expected to provide important public health information for essential workers at high risk for occupational exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and allow early evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT: DERR1-10.2196/31574.

BACKGROUND: RIV4 and cell-culture based inactivated influenza vaccine (ccIIV4) have not been compared to egg-based IIV4 in healthcare personnel, a population with frequent influenza vaccination that may blunt vaccine immune responses over time. We conducted a randomized trial among HCP aged 18-64 years to compare humoral immune responses to ccIIV4 and RIV4 to IIV4. METHODS: During the 2018-2019 season, participants were randomized to receive ccIIV4, RIV4, or IIV4 and had sera collected pre-vaccination, 1 and 6 months post-vaccination. Sera were tested by hemagglutination inhibition (HI) for influenza A/H1N1, B/Yamagata, and B/Victoria and microneutralization (MN) for A/H3N2 against cell-grown vaccine reference viruses. Primary outcomes at 1 month were seroconversion rate (SCR), geometric mean titers (GMT), GMT ratio, and mean fold rise (MFR) in the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: 727 participants were included (283 ccIIV4, 202 RIV4, and 242 IIV4). At 1 month, responses to ccIIV4 were similar to IIV4 by SCR, GMT, GMT ratio, and MFR. RIV4 induced higher SCRs, GMTs, and MFRs than IIV4 against A/H1N1, A/H3N2, and B/Yamagata. The GMT ratio of RIV4 to egg-based vaccines was 1.5 (95%CI 1.2-1.9) for A/H1N1, 3.0 (95%CI 2.4-3.7) for A/H3N2, 1.1 (95%CI 0.9-1.4) for B/Yamagata, and 1.1 (95%CI 0.9-1.3) for B/Victoria. At 6 months, ccIIV4 recipients had similar GMTs to IIV4, whereas RIV4 recipients had higher GMTs against A/H3N2 and B/Yamagata. CONCLUSION: RIV4 resulted in improved antibody responses by HI and MN compared to egg-based vaccines against three of four cell-grown vaccine strains 1 month post-vaccination, suggesting a possible additional benefit from RIV4.

BACKGROUND: Information is limited regarding the effectiveness of the two-dose messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna) in preventing infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and in attenuating coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) when administered in real-world conditions. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study involving 3975 health care personnel, first responders, and other essential and frontline workers. From December 14, 2020, to April 10, 2021, the participants completed weekly SARS-CoV-2 testing by providing mid-turbinate nasal swabs for qualitative and quantitative reverse-transcriptase-polymerase-chain-reaction (RT-PCR) analysis. The formula for calculating vaccine effectiveness was 100% × (1 - hazard ratio for SARS-CoV-2 infection in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated participants), with adjustments for the propensity to be vaccinated, study site, occupation, and local viral circulation. RESULTS: SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 204 participants (5%), of whom 5 were fully vaccinated (≥14 days after dose 2), 11 partially vaccinated (≥14 days after dose 1 and <14 days after dose 2), and 156 unvaccinated; the 32 participants with indeterminate vaccination status (<14 days after dose 1) were excluded. Adjusted vaccine effectiveness was 91% (95% confidence interval [CI], 76 to 97) with full vaccination and 81% (95% CI, 64 to 90) with partial vaccination. Among participants with SARS-CoV-2 infection, the mean viral RNA load was 40% lower (95% CI, 16 to 57) in partially or fully vaccinated participants than in unvaccinated participants. In addition, the risk of febrile symptoms was 58% lower (relative risk, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.98) and the duration of illness was shorter, with 2.3 fewer days spent sick in bed (95% CI, 0.8 to 3.7). CONCLUSIONS: Authorized mRNA vaccines were highly effective among working-age adults in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection when administered in real-world conditions, and the vaccines attenuated the viral RNA load, risk of febrile symptoms, and duration of illness among those who had breakthrough infection despite vaccination. (Funded by the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.).

We conducted a cross-sectional study of pregnant women with acute respiratory illness during delivery hospitalizations in influenza season to describe clinical testing for respiratory viruses and infection prevention practices. Women had nasal swabs tested for influenza and other respiratory viruses. Among 91 enrolled women, 22 (24%) had clinical testing for influenza. Based on clinical and study testing combined, 41/91 (45%) women had samples positive for respiratory viruses. The most common virus was influenza (17/91, 19%); 53% (9/17) of influenza virus infections were identified through study testing alone. Only 16% of women were on droplet precautions. Peripartum respiratory infections may be underrecognized.

Introduction: We evaluated knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) related to influenza and influenza vaccination among pregnant women in three selected countries. Methods: During 2017, pregnant women seeking antenatal care at hospitals at participating sites were enrolled. We described characteristics and responses to KAP questions. We also evaluated predictors associated with influenza vaccination during pregnancy at sites with substantial influenza vaccine uptake by multivariable logistic regression. Results: Overall, 4,648 pregnant women completed the survey. There were substantial differences among the three survey populations; only 8% of the women in Nagpur had heard of influenza, compared to 90% in Lima and 96% in Bangkok (p-value<0.01). Despite significant differences in sociodemographic characteristics in the three populations, most participants across sites who were aware of influenza prior to study enrollment believe they and their infants are at risk of influenza and related complications and believe influenza vaccination is safe and effective. Half of women in Lima had verified receipt of influenza vaccine compared to <5% in Bangkok and Nagpur (p < .05). For further analysis conducted among women in Lima only, household income above the poverty line (aOR: 1.38; 95%CI: 1.01, 1.88), having 8+ antenatal visits, compared to 0-4 (aOR: 2.41; 95%CI: 1.39, 2.87, respectively), having 0 children, compared to 2+ (aOR: 1.96; 95%CIs: 1.23, 3.12), and vaccination recommended by a health-care provider (aOR: 8.25; 95%CI: 6.11, 11.14) were strongly associated with receipt of influenza vaccine during pregnancy. Conclusions: Our findings identify opportunities for targeted interventions to improve influenza vaccine uptake among pregnant women in these settings.

BACKGROUND: Influenza vaccination during pregnancy prevents influenza among women and their infants but remains underused among pregnant women. We aimed to quantify the risk of antenatal influenza and examine its association with perinatal outcomes. METHODS: We did a prospective cohort study in pregnant women in India, Peru, and Thailand. Before the 2017 and 2018 influenza seasons, we enrolled pregnant women aged 18 years or older with expected delivery dates 8 weeks or more after the season started. We contacted women twice weekly until the end of pregnancy to identify illnesses with symptoms of myalgia, cough, runny nose or nasal congestion, sore throat, or difficulty breathing and collected mid-turbinate nasal swabs from symptomatic women for influenza real-time RT-PCR testing. We assessed the association of antenatal influenza with preterm birth, late pregnancy loss (≥13 weeks gestation), small for gestational age (SGA), and birthweight of term singleton infants using Cox proportional hazards models or generalised linear models to adjust for potential confounders. FINDINGS: Between March 13, 2017, and Aug 3, 2018, we enrolled 11 277 women with a median age of 26 years (IQR 23-31) and gestational age of 19 weeks (14-24). 1474 (13%) received influenza vaccines. 310 participants (3%) had influenza (270 [87%] influenza A and 40 [13%] influenza B). Influenza incidences weighted by the population of women of childbearing age in each study country were 88·7 per 10 000 pregnant woman-months (95% CI 68·6 to 114·8) during the 2017 season and 69·6 per 10 000 pregnant woman-months (53·8 to 90·2) during the 2018 season. Antenatal influenza was not associated with preterm birth (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1·4, 95% CI 0·9 to 2·0; p=0·096) or having an SGA infant (adjusted relative risk 1·0, 95% CI 0·8 to 1·3, p=0·97), but was associated with late pregnancy loss (aHR 10·7, 95% CI 4·3 to 27·0; p<0·0001) and reduction in mean birthweight of term, singleton infants (-55·3 g, 95% CI -109·3 to -1·4; p=0·0445). INTERPRETATION: Women had a 0·7-0·9% risk of influenza per month of pregnancy during the influenza season, and antenatal influenza was associated with increased risk for some adverse pregnancy outcomes. These findings support the added value of antenatal influenza vaccination to improve perinatal outcomes. FUNDING: US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. TRANSLATIONS: For the Thai, Hindi, Marathi and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends case definitions for influenza surveillance that are also used in public health research, though their performance has not been assessed in many risk groups, including pregnant women in whom influenza may manifest differently. We evaluated the performance of symptom-based definitions to detect influenza in a cohort of pregnant women in India, Peru, and Thailand. METHODS: In 2017 and 2018, we contacted 11,277 pregnant women twice weekly during the influenza season to identify illnesses with new or worsened cough, runny nose, sore throat, difficulty breathing or myalgia, and collected data on other symptoms and nasal swabs for influenza rRT-PCR testing. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of each symptom-predictor, WHO respiratory illness case definitions and a de novo definition derived from results of multivariable modelling. RESULTS: Of 5,444 eligible illness episodes among 3,965 participants, 310 (6%) were positive for influenza. In a multivariable model, measured fever ≥38° Celsius (adjusted odds ratio = 4.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.1, 6.8), myalgia (3.0, 95% CI: 2.2, 4.0), cough (2.7, 95% CI: 1.9, 3.9), and chills (1.6, 95% CI: 1.1, 2.4) were independently associated with influenza illness. A definition based on these four (measured fever, cough, chills or myalgia), was 95% sensitive and 27% specific. The WHO influenza-like illness (ILI) definition was 16% sensitive and 98% specific. CONCLUSIONS: The current WHO ILI case definition was highly specific but had low sensitivity. The intended use of case definitions should be considered when evaluating the tradeoff between sensitivity and specificity.

BACKGROUND: The Estudio Vacuna de Influenza Peru (VIP) cohort aims to describe the frequency of influenza virus infection, identify predictors of vaccine acceptance, examine the effects of repeated influenza vaccination on immunogenicity, and evaluate influenza vaccine effectiveness among HCP. METHODS: The VIP cohort prospectively followed HCP in Lima, Peru, during the 2016-2018 influenza seasons; a fourth year is ongoing. Participants contribute blood samples before and after the influenza season and after influenza vaccination (for vaccinees). Weekly surveillance is conducted to identify acute respiratory or febrile illnesses (ARFI). When an ARFI is identified, participants self-collect nasal swabs that are tested for influenza viruses by real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction. Influenza vaccination status and 5-year vaccination history are ascertained. We analyzed recruitment and enrollment results for 2016-2018 and surveillance participation for 2016-2017. RESULTS: In the first 3 years of the cohort, VIP successfully contacted 92% of potential participants, enrolled 76% of eligible HCP, and retained >90% of participants across years. About half of participants are medical assistants (54%), and most provide "hands-on" medical care (76%). Sixty-nine percent and 52% of participants completed surveillance for >70% of weeks in years 1 and 2, respectively. Fewer weeks of completed surveillance was associated with older age (>/=50 years), being a medical assistant, self-rated health of fair or poor, and not receiving the influenza vaccine during the current season (P-values < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The VIP cohort provides an opportunity to address knowledge gaps about influenza virus infection, vaccination uptake, effectiveness and immunogenicity among HCP.