High Influenza Incidence and Disease Severity Among Children and Adolescents Aged <18 Years - United States, 2022-23 Season.

During the 2022-23 influenza season, early increases in influenza activity, co-circulation of influenza with other respiratory viruses, and high influenza-associated hospitalization rates, particularly among children and adolescents, were observed. This report describes the 2022-23 influenza season among children and adolescents aged <18 years, including the seasonal severity assessment; estimates of U.S. influenza-associated medical visits, hospitalizations, and deaths; and characteristics of influenza-associated hospitalizations. The 2022-23 influenza season had high severity among children and adolescents compared with thresholds based on previous seasons' influenza-associated outpatient visits, hospitalization rates, and deaths. Nationally, the incidences of influenza-associated outpatient visits and hospitalization for the 2022-23 season were similar for children aged <5 years and higher for children and adolescents aged 5-17 years compared with previous seasons. Peak influenza-associated outpatient and hospitalization activity occurred in late November and early December. Among children and adolescents hospitalized with influenza during the 2022-23 season in hospitals participating in the Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network, a lower proportion were vaccinated (18.3%) compared with previous seasons (35.8%-41.8%). Early influenza circulation, before many children and adolescents had been vaccinated, might have contributed to the high hospitalization rates during the 2022-23 season. Among symptomatic hospitalized patients, receipt of influenza antiviral treatment (64.9%) was lower than during pre-COVID-19 pandemic seasons (80.8%-87.1%). CDC recommends that all persons aged ≥6 months without contraindications should receive the annual influenza vaccine, ideally by the end of October.

Early and Increased Influenza Activity Among Children - Tennessee, 2022-23 Influenza Season.

Influenza seasons typically begin in October and peak between December and February (1); however, the 2022-23 influenza season in Tennessee began in late September and was characterized by high pediatric hospitalization rates during November. This report describes a field investigation conducted in Tennessee during November 2022, following reports of increasing influenza hospitalizations. Data from surveillance networks, patient surveys, and whole genome sequencing of influenza virus specimens were analyzed to assess influenza activity and secondary illness risk. Influenza activity increased earlier than usual among all age groups, and rates of influenza-associated hospitalization among children were high in November, reaching 12.6 per 100,000 in children aged <5 years, comparable to peak levels typically seen in high-severity seasons. Circulating influenza viruses were genetically similar to vaccine components. Among persons who received testing for influenza at outpatient clinics, children were twice as likely to receive a positive influenza test result as were adults. Among household contacts exposed to someone with influenza, children were more than twice as likely to become ill compared with adults. As the influenza season continues, it is important for all persons, especially those at higher risk for severe disease, to protect themselves from influenza. To prevent influenza and severe influenza complications, all persons aged ≥6 months should get vaccinated, avoid contact with ill persons, and take influenza antivirals if recommended and prescribed.

Reduced Risk for Mpox After Receipt of 1 or 2 Doses of JYNNEOS Vaccine Compared with Risk Among Unvaccinated Persons - 43 U.S. Jurisdictions, July 31-October 1, 2022.

As of October 28, 2022, a total of 28,244* monkeypox (mpox) cases have been reported in the United States during an outbreak that has disproportionately affected gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) (1). JYNNEOS vaccine (Modified Vaccinia Ankara vaccine, Bavarian Nordic), administered subcutaneously as a 2-dose (0.5 mL per dose) series (with doses administered 4 weeks apart), was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2019 to prevent smallpox and mpox disease (2); an FDA Emergency Use Authorization issued on August 9, 2022, authorized intradermal administration of 0.1 mL per dose, increasing the number of persons who could be vaccinated with the available vaccine supply† (3). A previous comparison of mpox incidence during July 31-September 3, 2022, among unvaccinated, but vaccine-eligible men aged 18-49 years and those who had received ≥1 JYNNEOS vaccine dose in 32 U.S. jurisdictions, found that incidence among unvaccinated persons was 14 times that among vaccinated persons (95% CI = 5.0-41.0) (4). During September 4-October 1, 2022, a total of 205,504 persons received JYNNEOS vaccine dose 2 in the United States.§ To further examine mpox incidence among persons who were unvaccinated and those who had received either 1 or 2 JYNNEOS doses, investigators analyzed data on 9,544 reported mpox cases among men¶ aged 18-49 years during July 31-October 1, 2022, from 43 U.S. jurisdictions,** by vaccination status. During this study period, mpox incidence (cases per 100,000 population at risk) among unvaccinated persons was 7.4 (95% CI = 6.0-9.1) times that among persons who received only 1 dose of JYNNEOS vaccine ≥14 days earlier and 9.6 (95% CI = 6.9-13.2) times that among persons who received dose 2 ≥14 days earlier. The observed distribution of subcutaneous and intradermal routes of administration of dose 1 among vaccinated persons with mpox was not different from the expected distribution. This report provides additional data suggesting JYNNEOS vaccine provides protection against mpox, irrespective of whether the vaccine is administered intradermally or subcutaneously. The degree and durability of such protection remains unclear. Persons eligible for mpox vaccination should receive the complete 2-dose series to optimize strength of protection†† (5).

Incidence of Monkeypox Among Unvaccinated Persons Compared with Persons Receiving ≥1 JYNNEOS Vaccine Dose - 32 U.S. Jurisdictions, July 31-September 3, 2022.

Human monkeypox is caused by Monkeypox virus (MPXV), an Orthopoxvirus, previously rare in the United States (1). The first U.S. case of monkeypox during the current outbreak was identified on May 17, 2022 (2). As of September 28, 2022, a total of 25,341 monkeypox cases have been reported in the United States.* The outbreak has disproportionately affected gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) (3). JYNNEOS vaccine (Modified Vaccinia Ankara vaccine, Bavarian Nordic), administered subcutaneously as a 2-dose (0.5 mL per dose) series with doses administered 4 weeks apart, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2019 to prevent smallpox and monkeypox infection (4). U.S. distribution of JYNNEOS vaccine as postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) for persons with known exposures to MPXV began in May 2022. A U.S. national vaccination strategy† for expanded PEP, announced on June 28, 2022, recommended subcutaneous vaccination of persons with known or presumed exposure to MPXV, broadening vaccination eligibility. FDA emergency use authorization (EUA) of intradermal administration of 0.1 mL of JYNNEOS on August 9, 2022, increased vaccine supply (5). As of September 28, 2022, most vaccine has been administered as PEP or expanded PEP. Because of the limited amount of time that has elapsed since administration of initial vaccine doses, as of September 28, 2022, relatively few persons in the current outbreak have completed the recommended 2-dose series.§ To examine the incidence of monkeypox among persons who were unvaccinated and those who had received ≥1 JYNNEOS vaccine dose, 5,402 reported monkeypox cases occurring among males¶ aged 18-49 years during July 31-September 3, 2022, were analyzed by vaccination status across 32 U.S. jurisdictions.** Average monkeypox incidence (cases per 100,000) among unvaccinated persons was 14.3 (95% CI = 5.0-41.0) times that among persons who received 1 dose of JYNNEOS vaccine ≥14 days earlier. Monitoring monkeypox incidence by vaccination status in timely surveillance data might provide early indications of vaccine-related protection that can be confirmed through other well-controlled vaccine effectiveness studies. This early finding suggests that a single dose of JYNNEOS vaccine provides some protection against monkeypox infection. The degree and durability of such protection is unknown, and it is recommended that people who are eligible for monkeypox vaccination receive the complete 2-dose series.

Is aggregated surveillance data a reliable method for constructing tuberculosis care cascades? A secondary data analysis from Uganda.

To accelerate tuberculosis (TB) control and elimination, reliable data is needed to improve the quality of TB care. We assessed agreement between a surveillance dataset routinely collected for Uganda's national TB program and a high-fidelity dataset collected from the same source documents for a research study from 32 health facilities in 2017 and 2019 for six measurements: 1) Smear-positive and 2) GeneXpert-positive diagnoses, 3) bacteriologically confirmed and 4) clinically diagnosed treatment initiations, and the number of people initiating TB treatment who were also 5) living with HIV or 6) taking antiretroviral therapy. We measured agreement as the average difference between the two methods, expressed as the average ratio of the surveillance counts to the research data counts, its 95% limits of agreement (LOA), and the concordance correlation coefficient. We used linear mixed models to investigate whether agreement changed over time or was associated with facility characteristics. We found good overall agreement with some variation in the expected facility-level agreement for the number of smear positive diagnoses (average ratio [95% LOA]: 1.04 [0.38-2.82]; CCC: 0.78), bacteriologically confirmed treatment initiations (1.07 [0.67-1.70]; 0.82), and people living with HIV (1.11 [0.51-2.41]; 0.82). Agreement was poor for Xpert positives, with surveillance data undercounting relative to research data (0.45 [0.099-2.07]; 0.36). Although surveillance data overcounted relative to research data for clinically diagnosed treatment initiations (1.52 [0.71-3.26]) and number of people taking antiretroviral therapy (1.71 [0.71-4.12]), their agreement as assessed by CCC was not poor (0.82 and 0.62, respectively). Average agreement was similar across study years for all six measurements, but facility-level agreement varied from year to year and was not explained by facility characteristics. In conclusion, the agreement of TB surveillance data with high-fidelity research data was highly variable across measurements and facilities. To advance the use of routine TB data as a quality improvement tool, future research should elucidate and address reasons for variability in its quality.

Multiple Transmission Chains within COVID-19 Cluster, Connecticut, USA, 20201.

In fall 2020, a coronavirus disease cluster comprising 16 cases occurred in Connecticut, USA. Epidemiologic and genomic evidence supported transmission among persons at a school and fitness center but not a workplace. The multiple transmission chains identified within this cluster highlight the necessity of a combined investigatory approach.

Health Care Utilization Before and After the "Muslim Ban" Executive Order Among People Born in Muslim-Majority Countries and Living in the US.

Importance: The health effects of restrictive immigration and refugee policies targeting individuals from Muslim-majority countries are largely unknown. Objective: To analyze whether President Trump's 2017 executive order 13769, "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States" (known as the "Muslim ban" executive order) was associated with changes in health care utilization by people born in targeted nations living in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included adult patients treated at Minneapolis-St. Paul HealthPartners primary care clinics or emergency departments (EDs) between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2017. Patients were categorized as (1) born in Muslim ban-targeted nations, (2) born in Muslim-majority nations not listed in the executive order, or (3) non-Latinx and born in the US. Data were analyzed from October 1, 2019, to May 12, 2021. Exposures: Executive order 13769, "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States." Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes included the number of (1) primary care clinic visits, (2) missed primary care appointments, (3) primary care stress-responsive diagnoses, (4) ED visits, and (5) ED stress-responsive diagnoses. Visit trends were evaluated before and after the Muslim ban issuance using linear regression, and differences between the study groups after the executive order issuance were evaluated using difference-in-difference analyses. Results: A total of 252 594 patients were included in the analysis: 5667 in group 1 (3367 women [59.4%]; 5233 Black individuals [92.3%]), 1254 in group 2 (627 women [50%]; 391 White individuals [31.2%]), and 245 673 in group 3 (133 882 women [54.5%]; 203 342 White individuals [82.8%]). Group 1 was predominantly born in Somalia (5231 of 5667 [92.3%]) and insured by Medicare or Medicaid (4428 [78.1%]). Before the Muslim ban, primary care visits and stress-responsive diagnoses were increasing for individuals from Muslim-majority nations (groups 1 and 2). In the year after the ban, there were approximately 101 additional missed primary care appointments among people from Muslim-majority countries not named in the ban (point estimate [SE], 6.73 [2.90]; P = .02) and approximately 232 additional ED visits by individuals from Muslim ban-targeted nations (point estimate [SE], 3.41 [1.53]; P = .03). Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this cohort study suggest that after issuance of the Muslim ban executive order, missed primary care appointments and ED visits increased among people from Muslim-majority countries living in Minneapolis-St. Paul.

Tracking smell loss to identify healthcare workers with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

INTRODUCTION: Healthcare workers (HCW) treating COVID-19 patients are at high risk for infection and may also spread infection through their contact with vulnerable patients. Smell loss has been associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, but it is unknown whether monitoring for smell loss can be used to identify asymptomatic infection among high risk individuals. In this study we sought to determine if tracking smell sensitivity and loss using an at-home assessment could identify SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCW. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We performed a prospective cohort study tracking 473 HCW across three months to determine if smell loss could predict SARS-CoV-2 infection in this high-risk group. HCW subjects completed a longitudinal, behavioral at-home assessment of olfaction with household items, as well as detailed symptom surveys that included a parosmia screening questionnaire, and real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction testing to identify SARS-CoV-2 infection. Our main measures were the prevalence of smell loss in SARS-CoV-2-positive HCW versus SARS-CoV-2-negative HCW, and timing of smell loss relative to SARS-CoV-2 test positivity. SARS-CoV-2 was identified in 17 (3.6%) of 473 HCW. HCW with SARS-CoV-2 infection were more likely to report smell loss than SARS-CoV-2-negative HCW on both the at-home assessment and the screening questionnaire (9/17, 53% vs 105/456, 23%, P < .01). 6/9 (67%) of SARS-CoV-2-positive HCW reporting smell loss reported smell loss prior to having a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and smell loss was reported a median of two days before testing positive. Neurological symptoms were reported more frequently among SARS-CoV-2-positive HCW who reported smell loss compared to those without smell loss (9/9, 100% vs 3/8, 38%, P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective study of HCW, self-reported changes in smell using two different measures were predictive of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Smell loss frequently preceded a positive test and was associated with neurological symptoms.

Tracking Smell Loss to Identify Healthcare Workers with SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers (HCW) treating COVID-19 patients are at high risk for infection and may also spread infection through their contact with vulnerable patients. Smell loss has been associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, but it is unknown whether monitoring for smell loss can be used to identify asymptomatic infection among high risk individuals, like HCW. METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort study, tracking 473 HCW across three months to determine if smell loss could predict SARS-CoV-2 infection in this high-risk group. HCW subjects completed a longitudinal, novel behavioral at-home assessment of smell function with household items, as well as detailed symptom surveys that included a parosmia screening questionnaire, and RT-qPCR testing to identify SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: SARS-CoV-2 was identified in 17 (3.6%) of 473 HCW. Among the 17 infected HCW, 53% reported smell loss, and were more likely to report smell loss than COVID-negative HCW on both the at-home assessment and the screening questionnaire (P < .01). 67% reported smell loss prior to having a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and smell loss was reported a median of two days before testing positive. Neurological symptoms were reported more frequently among COVID-positive HCW who reported smell loss (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective study of HCW, self-reported changes in smell using two different measures were predictive of COVID-19 infection. Smell loss frequently preceded a positive test and was associated with neurological symptoms.

Analytical sensitivity and efficiency comparisons of SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR primer-probe sets.

The recent spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) exemplifies the critical need for accurate and rapid diagnostic assays to prompt clinical and public health interventions. Currently, several quantitative reverse transcription-PCR (RT-qPCR) assays are being used by clinical, research and public health laboratories. However, it is currently unclear whether results from different tests are comparable. Our goal was to make independent evaluations of primer-probe sets used in four common SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic assays. From our comparisons of RT-qPCR analytical efficiency and sensitivity, we show that all primer-probe sets can be used to detect SARS-CoV-2 at 500 viral RNA copies per reaction. The exception for this is the RdRp-SARSr (Charité) confirmatory primer-probe set which has low sensitivity, probably due to a mismatch to circulating SARS-CoV-2 in the reverse primer. We did not find evidence for background amplification with pre-COVID-19 samples or recent SARS-CoV-2 evolution decreasing sensitivity. Our recommendation for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic testing is to select an assay with high sensitivity and that is regionally used, to ease comparability between outcomes.

Feasibility, Acceptability, and Adoption of Digital Fingerprinting During Contact Investigation for Tuberculosis in Kampala, Uganda: A Parallel-Convergent Mixed-Methods Analysis.

BACKGROUND: In resource-constrained settings, challenges with unique patient identification may limit continuity of care, monitoring and evaluation, and data integrity. Biometrics offers an appealing but understudied potential solution. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this mixed-methods study was to understand the feasibility, acceptability, and adoption of digital fingerprinting for patient identification in a study of household tuberculosis contact investigation in Kampala, Uganda. METHODS: Digital fingerprinting was performed using multispectral fingerprint scanners. We tested associations between demographic, clinical, and temporal characteristics and failure to capture a digital fingerprint. We used generalized estimating equations and a robust covariance estimator to account for clustering. In addition, we evaluated the clustering of outcomes by household and community health workers (CHWs) by calculating intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). To understand the determinants of intended and actual use of fingerprinting technology, we conducted 15 in-depth interviews with CHWs and applied a widely used conceptual framework, the Technology Acceptance Model 2 (TAM2). RESULTS: Digital fingerprints were captured for 75.5% (694/919) of participants, with extensive clustering by household (ICC=.99) arising from software (108/179, 60.3%) and hardware (65/179, 36.3%) failures. Clinical and demographic characteristics were not markedly associated with fingerprint capture. CHWs successfully fingerprinted all contacts in 70.1% (213/304) of households, with modest clustering of outcomes by CHWs (ICC=.18). The proportion of households in which all members were successfully fingerprinted declined over time (ρ=.30, P<.001). In interviews, CHWs reported that fingerprinting failures lowered their perceptions of the quality of the technology, threatened their social image as competent health workers, and made the technology more difficult to use. CONCLUSIONS: We found that digital fingerprinting was feasible and acceptable for individual identification, but problems implementing the hardware and software lead to a high failure rate. Although CHWs found fingerprinting to be acceptable in principle, their intention to use the technology was tempered by perceptions that it was inconsistent and of questionable value. TAM2 provided a valuable framework for understanding the motivations behind CHWs' intentions to use the technology. We emphasize the need for routine process evaluation of biometrics and other digital technologies in resource-constrained settings to assess implementation effectiveness and guide improvement of delivery.