Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Levels Associated with COVID-19 Protection in Outpatients Tested for SARS-CoV-2, US Flu VE Network, October 2021-June 2022.

BACKGROUND: We assessed associations between binding antibody (bAb) concentration <5 days of symptom onset and testing positive for COVID-19 among patients in a test-negative study. METHODS: From October 2021─June 2022, study sites in seven states enrolled patients aged ≥6 months presenting with acute respiratory illness. Respiratory specimens were tested for SARS-CoV-2. In blood specimens, we measured concentrations of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies against the ancestral strain spike protein receptor binding domain (RBD) and nucleocapsid (N) antigens in standardized binding antibody units (BAU/mL). Percent change in odds of COVID-19 by increasing anti-RBD bAb was estimated using logistic regression as (1-adjusted odds ratio of COVID-19)x100, adjusting for COVID-19 mRNA vaccine doses, age, site, and high-risk exposure. RESULTS: Out of 2,018 symptomatic patients, 662 (33%) tested positive for acute SARS-CoV-2 infection. Geometric mean RBD bAb were lower among COVID-19 cases than SARS-CoV-2 test-negative patients during both the Delta-predominant (112 vs. 498 BAU/mL) and Omicron-predominant (823 vs. 1,189 BAU/mL) periods. Acute phase ancestral spike RBD bAb associated with 50% lower odds of COVID-19 were 1,968 BAU/mL against Delta and 3,375 BAU/mL against Omicron; thresholds may differ in other laboratories. CONCLUSION: During acute illness, antibody concentrations against ancestral spike RBD were associated with protection against COVID-19.

SARS-CoV-2 incidence, seroprevalence, and antibody dynamics in a rural, population-based cohort: March 2020 - July 2022.

Studies of SARS-CoV-2 incidence are important for response to continued transmission and future pandemics. We followed a rural community cohort with broad age representation with active surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 identification from November 2020 through July 2022. Participants provided serum specimens at regular intervals and following SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination. We estimated the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection identified by study RT-PCR, electronic health record documentation or self-report of a positive test, or serology. We also estimated the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 spike and nucleocapsid antibodies measured by ELISA. Overall, 65% of the cohort had ≥1 SARS-CoV-2 infection by July 2022, and 19% of those with primary infection were reinfected. Infection and vaccination contributed to high seroprevalence, 98% (95% CI: 95%, 99%) of participants were spike or nucleocapsid seropositive at the end of follow-up. Among those seropositive, 82% were vaccinated. Participants were more likely to be seropositive to spike than nucleocapsid following infection. Infection among seropositive individuals could be identified by increases in nucleocapsid, but not spike, ELISA optical density values. Nucleocapsid antibodies waned more quickly after infection than spike antibodies. High levels of SARS-CoV-2 population immunity, as found in this study, are leading to changing epidemiology necessitating ongoing surveillance and policy evaluation.

Post-recovery health domain scores among outpatients by SARS-CoV-2 testing status during the pre-Delta period.

BACKGROUND: Symptoms of COVID-19 including fatigue and dyspnea, may persist for weeks to months after SARS-CoV-2 infection. This study compared self-reported disability among SARS-CoV-2-positive and negative persons with mild to moderate COVID-19-like illness who presented for outpatient care before widespread COVID-19 vaccination. METHODS: Unvaccinated adults with COVID-19-like illness enrolled within 10 days of illness onset at three US Flu Vaccine Effectiveness Network sites were tested for SARS-CoV-2 by molecular assay. Enrollees completed an enrollment questionnaire and two follow-up surveys (7-24 days and 2-7 months after illness onset) online or by phone to assess illness characteristics and health status. The second follow-up survey included questions measuring global health, physical function, fatigue, and dyspnea. Scores in the four domains were compared by participants' SARS-CoV-2 test results in univariate analysis and multivariable Gamma regression. RESULTS: During September 22, 2020 - February 13, 2021, 2712 eligible adults were enrolled, 1541 completed the first follow-up survey, and 650 completed the second follow-up survey. SARS-CoV-2-positive participants were more likely to report fever at acute illness but were otherwise comparable to SARS-CoV-2-negative participants. At first follow-up, SARS-CoV-2-positive participants were less likely to have reported fully or mostly recovered from their illness compared to SARS-CoV-2-negative participants. At second follow-up, no differences by SARS-CoV-2 test results were detected in the four domains in the multivariable model. CONCLUSION: Self-reported disability was similar among outpatient SARS-CoV-2-positive and -negative adults 2-7 months after illness onset.

Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Against Influenza A(H3N2)-Related Illness in the United States During the 2021-2022 Influenza Season.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, influenza activity during the 2021-2022 season was modest and sufficient enough to estimate influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) for the first time since the beginning of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. We estimated influenza VE against laboratory-confirmed outpatient acute illness caused by predominant A(H3N2) viruses. METHODS: Between October 2021 and April 2022, research staff across 7 sites enrolled patients aged ≥6 months seeking outpatient care for acute respiratory illness with cough. Using a test-negative design, we assessed VE against influenza A(H3N2). Due to strong correlation between influenza and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination, participants who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 were excluded from VE estimations. Estimates were adjusted for site, age, month of illness, race/ethnicity, and general health status. RESULTS: Among 6260 participants, 468 (7%) tested positive for influenza only, including 440 (94%) for A(H3N2). All 206 sequenced A(H3N2) viruses were characterized as belonging to genetic group 3C.2a1b subclade 2a.2, which has antigenic differences from the 2021-2022 season A(H3N2) vaccine component that belongs to clade 3C.2a1b subclade 2a.1. After excluding 1948 SARS-CoV-2-positive patients, 4312 patients were included in analyses of influenza VE; 2463 (57%) were vaccinated against influenza. Effectiveness against A(H3N2) for all ages was 36% (95% confidence interval, 20%-49%) overall. CONCLUSIONS: Influenza vaccination in 2021-2022 provided protection against influenza A(H3N2)-related outpatient visits among young persons.

Symptoms, viral loads, and rebound among COVID-19 outpatients treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir compared to propensity score matched untreated individuals.

BACKGROUND: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (N/R) reduces severe outcomes among patients with COVID-19; however, rebound after treatment has been reported. We compared symptom and viral dynamics in community-based individuals with COVID-19 who completed N/R and similar untreated individuals. METHODS: We identified symptomatic participants who tested SARS-CoV-2 positive and were N/R eligible from a COVID-19 household transmission study: index cases from ambulatory settings and their households were enrolled, collecting daily symptoms, medication use, and respiratory specimens for quantitative PCR for 10 days, March 2022-May 2023. Participants who completed N/R (treated) were propensity score matched to untreated participants. We compared symptom rebound, viral load (VL) rebound, average daily symptoms, and average daily VL by treatment status measured after N/R completion or, if untreated, seven days after symptom onset. RESULTS: Treated (n=130) and untreated participants (n=241) had similar baseline characteristics. After treatment completion, treated participants had greater occurrence of symptom rebound (32% vs 20%; p=0.009) and VL rebound (27% vs 7%; p<0.001). Average daily symptoms were lower among treated participants compared to untreated participants without symptom rebound (1.0 vs 1.6; p<0.01), but not statistically lower with symptom rebound (3.0 vs 3.4; p=0.5). Treated participants had lower average daily VLs without VL rebound (0.9 vs 2.6; p<0.01), but not statistically lower with VL rebound (4.8 vs 5.1; p=0.7). CONCLUSIONS: Individuals who completed N/R experienced fewer symptoms and lower VL but were more likely to have rebound compared to untreated individuals. Providers should still prescribe N/R, when indicated, and communicate possible increased rebound risk to patients.

Active Postlicensure Safety Surveillance for Recombinant Zoster Vaccine Using Electronic Health Record Data.

Recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) (Shingrix; GlaxoSmithKline, Brentford, United Kingdom) is an adjuvanted glycoprotein vaccine that was licensed in 2017 to prevent herpes zoster (shingles) and its complications in older adults. In this prospective, postlicensure Vaccine Safety Datalink study using electronic health records, we sequentially monitored a real-world population of adults aged ≥50 years who received care in multiple US Vaccine Safety Datalink health systems to identify potentially increased risks of 10 prespecified health outcomes, including stroke, anaphylaxis, and Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). Among 647,833 RZV doses administered from January 2018 through December 2019, we did not detect a sustained increased risk of any monitored outcome for RZV recipients relative to either historical (2013-2017) recipients of zoster vaccine live, a live attenuated virus vaccine (Zostavax; Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, New Jersey), or contemporary non-RZV vaccine recipients who had an annual well-person visit during the 2018-2019 study period. We confirmed prelicensure trial findings of increased risks of systemic and local reactions following RZV. Our study provides additional reassurance about the overall safety of RZV. Despite a large sample, uncertainty remains regarding potential associations with GBS due to the limited number of confirmed GBS cases that were observed.

Interim Estimates of 2022-23 Seasonal Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness - Wisconsin, October 2022-February 2023.

In the United States, 2022-23 influenza activity began earlier than usual, increasing in October 2022, and has been associated with high rates of hospitalizations among children* (1). Influenza A(H3N2) represented most influenza viruses detected and subtyped during this period, but A(H1N1)pdm09 viruses cocirculated as well. Most viruses characterized were in the same genetic subclade as and antigenically similar to the viruses included in the 2022-23 Northern Hemisphere influenza vaccine (1,2). Effectiveness of influenza vaccine varies by season, influenza virus subtype, and antigenic match with circulating viruses. This interim report used data from two concurrent studies conducted at Marshfield Clinic Health System (MCHS) in Wisconsin during October 23, 2022-February 10, 2023, to estimate influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE). Overall, VE was 54% against medically attended outpatient acute respiratory illness (ARI) associated with laboratory-confirmed influenza A among patients aged 6 months-64 years. In a community cohort of children and adolescents aged <18 years, VE was 71% against symptomatic laboratory-confirmed influenza A virus infection. These interim analyses indicate that influenza vaccination substantially reduced the risk for medically attended influenza among persons aged <65 years and for symptomatic influenza in children and adolescents. Annual influenza vaccination is the best strategy for preventing influenza and its complications. CDC recommends that health care providers continue to administer annual influenza vaccine to persons aged ≥6 months as long as influenza viruses are circulating (2).

Household Transmission of Influenza A Viruses in 2021-2022.

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

Role of Age in the Spread of Influenza, 2011-2019: Data From the US Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network.

Intraseason timing of influenza infection among persons of different ages could reflect relative contributions to propagation of seasonal epidemics and has not been examined among ambulatory patients. Using data from the US Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network, we calculated risk ratios derived from comparing weekly numbers of influenza cases prepeak with those postpeak during the 2010-2011 through 2018-2019 influenza seasons. We sought to determine age-specific differences during the ascent versus descent of an influenza season by influenza virus type and subtype. We estimated 95% credible intervals around the risk ratios using Bayesian joint posterior sampling of weekly cases. Our population consisted of ambulatory patients with laboratory-confirmed influenza who enrolled in an influenza vaccine effectiveness study at 5 US sites during 9 influenza seasons after the 2009 influenza A virus subtype H1N1 (H1N1) pandemic. We observed that young children aged <5 years tended to more often be infected with H1N1 during the prepeak period, while adults aged ≥65 years tended to more often be infected with H1N1 during the postpeak period. However, for influenza A virus subtype H3N2, children aged <5 years were more often infected during the postpeak period. These results may reflect a contribution of different age groups to seasonal spread, which may differ by influenza virus type and subtype.

Interim Estimates of 2021-22 Seasonal Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness - United States, February 2022.

In the United States, annual vaccination against seasonal influenza is recommended for all persons aged ≥6 months except when contraindicated (1). Currently available influenza vaccines are designed to protect against four influenza viruses: A(H1N1)pdm09 (the 2009 pandemic virus), A(H3N2), B/Victoria lineage, and B/Yamagata lineage. Most influenza viruses detected this season have been A(H3N2) (2). With the exception of the 2020-21 season, when data were insufficient to generate an estimate, CDC has estimated the effectiveness of seasonal influenza vaccine at preventing laboratory-confirmed, mild/moderate (outpatient) medically attended acute respiratory infection (ARI) each season since 2004-05. This interim report uses data from 3,636 children and adults with ARI enrolled in the U.S. Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network during October 4, 2021-February 12, 2022. Overall, vaccine effectiveness (VE) against medically attended outpatient ARI associated with influenza A(H3N2) virus was 16% (95% CI = -16% to 39%), which is considered not statistically significant. This analysis indicates that influenza vaccination did not reduce the risk for outpatient medically attended illness with influenza A(H3N2) viruses that predominated so far this season. Enrollment was insufficient to generate reliable VE estimates by age group or by type of influenza vaccine product (1). CDC recommends influenza antiviral medications as an adjunct to vaccination; the potential public health benefit of antiviral medications is magnified in the context of reduced influenza VE. CDC routinely recommends that health care providers continue to administer influenza vaccine to persons aged ≥6 months as long as influenza viruses are circulating, even when VE against one virus is reduced, because vaccine can prevent serious outcomes (e.g., hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, or death) that are associated with influenza A(H3N2) virus infection and might protect against other influenza viruses that could circulate later in the season.

Human papillomavirus vaccine beliefs and practice characteristics in rural and urban adolescent care providers.

BACKGROUND: The human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine is recommended for all adolescents age 11-12 years. HPV vaccine coverage remains suboptimal in the United States though, particularly in rural areas. We surveyed adolescent immunization providers in two Midwestern states to assess rural vs. urban differences in HPV vaccine resources, practices, and attitudes. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was sent to all licensed adolescent care providers in a subset of urban and rural counties in Minnesota and Wisconsin during 2019. Multivariable regression was used to identify attitudes and practices that differentiated rural vs. urban providers. RESULTS: There were 437 survey respondents (31% rural). Significantly fewer rural providers had evening/weekend adolescent vaccination appointments available (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 0.21 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.12, 0.36]), had prior experience with adolescent vaccine quality improvement projects (aOR = 0.52 [95% CI: 0.28, 0.98]), and routinely recommended HPV vaccine during urgent/acute care visits (aOR = 0.37 [95% CI: 0.18, 0.79]). Significantly more rural providers had standing orders to administer all recommended adolescent vaccines (aOR = 2.81 [95% CI: 1.61, 4.91]) and reported giving HPV vaccine information to their patients/families before it is due (aOR = 3.10 [95% CI: 1.68, 5.71]). CONCLUSIONS: Rural vs. urban differences in provider practices were mixed in that rural providers do not implement some practices that may promote HPV vaccination, but do implement other practices that promote HPV vaccination. It remains unclear how the observed differences would affect HPV vaccine attitudes or adolescent vaccination decisions for parents in rural areas.

Impact of Immune Priming, Vaccination, and Infection on Influenza A(H3N2) Antibody Landscapes in Children.

BACKGROUND: Preexisting antibodies to influenza, shaped by early infection and subsequent exposures, may impact responses to influenza vaccination. METHODS: We enrolled 72 children (aged 7-17 years) in 2015-2016; all received inactivated influenza vaccines. Forty-one were also vaccinated in 2014-2015, with 12 becoming infected with A(H3N2) in 2014-2015. Thirty-one children did not have documented influenza exposures in the prior 5 seasons. Sera were collected pre- and postvaccination in both seasons. We constructed antibody landscapes using hemagglutination inhibition antibody titers against 16 A(H3N2) viruses representative of major antigenic clusters that circulated between 1968 and 2015. RESULTS: The breadth of the antibody landscapes increased with age. Vaccine-induced antibody responses correlated with boosting of titers to previously encountered antigens. Postvaccination titers were the highest against vaccine antigens rather than the historic A(H3N2) viruses previously encountered. Prevaccination titers to the vaccine were the strongest predictors of postvaccination titers. Responses to vaccine antigens did not differ by likely priming virus. Influenza A(H3N2)-infected children in 2014-2015 had narrower antibody landscapes than those uninfected, but prior season infection status had little effect on antibody landscapes following 2015-2016 vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: A(H3N2) antibody landscapes in children were largely determined by age-related immune priming, rather than recent vaccination or infection.

Messenger RNA Vaccine Effectiveness Against Coronavirus Disease 2019 Among Symptomatic Outpatients Aged ≥16 Years in the United States, February-May 2021.

Evaluations of vaccine effectiveness (VE) are important to monitor as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines are introduced in the general population. Research staff enrolled symptomatic participants seeking outpatient medical care for COVID-19-like illness or severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing from a multisite network. VE was evaluated using the test-negative design. Among 236 SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification test-positive and 576 test-negative participants aged ≥16 years, the VE of messenger RNA vaccines against COVID-19 was 91% (95% confidence interval, 83%-95%) for full vaccination and 75% (55%-87%) for partial vaccination. Vaccination was associated with prevention of most COVID-19 cases among people seeking outpatient medical care.

Effects of Prior Season Vaccination on Current Season Vaccine Effectiveness in the United States Flu Vaccine Effectiveness Network, 2012-2013 Through 2017-2018.

BACKGROUND: We compared effects of prior vaccination and added or lost protection from current season vaccination among those previously vaccinated. METHODS: Our analysis included data from the US Flu Vaccine Effectiveness Network among participants ≥9 years old with acute respiratory illness from 2012-2013 through 2017-2018. Vaccine protection was estimated using multivariate logistic regression with an interaction term for effect of prior season vaccination on current season vaccine effectiveness. Models were adjusted for age, calendar time, high-risk status, site, and season for combined estimates. We estimated protection by combinations of current and prior vaccination compared to unvaccinated in both seasons or current vaccination among prior vaccinated. RESULTS: A total of 31 819 participants were included. Vaccine protection against any influenza averaged 42% (95% confidence interval [CI], 38%-47%) among those vaccinated only the current season, 37% (95% CI, 33-40) among those vaccinated both seasons, and 26% (95% CI, 18%-32%) among those vaccinated only the prior season, compared with participants vaccinated neither season. Current season vaccination reduced the odds of any influenza among patients unvaccinated the prior season by 42% (95% CI, 37%-46%), including 57%, 27%, and 55% against A(H1N1), A(H3N2), and influenza B, respectively. Among participants vaccinated the prior season, current season vaccination further reduced the odds of any influenza by 15% (95% CI, 7%-23%), including 29% against A(H1N1) and 26% against B viruses, but not against A(H3N2). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendations for annual influenza vaccination. Benefits of current season vaccination varied among participants with and without prior season vaccination, by virus type/subtype and season.

Effectiveness of Trivalent and Quadrivalent Inactivated Vaccines Against Influenza B in the United States, 2011-2012 to 2016-2017.

BACKGROUND: Since 2013, quadrivalent influenza vaccines containing 2 B viruses gradually replaced trivalent vaccines in the United States. We compared the vaccine effectiveness of quadrivalent to trivalent inactivated vaccines (IIV4 to IIV3, respectively) against illness due to influenza B during the transition, when IIV4 use increased rapidly. METHODS: The US Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness (Flu VE) Network analyzed 25 019 of 42 600 outpatients aged ≥6 months who enrolled within 7 days of illness onset during 6 seasons from 2011-2012. Upper respiratory specimens were tested for the influenza virus type and B lineage. Using logistic regression, we estimated IIV4 or IIV3 effectiveness by comparing the odds of an influenza B infection overall and the odds of B lineage among vaccinated versus unvaccinated participants. Over 4 seasons from 2013-2014, we compared the relative odds of an influenza B infection among IIV4 versus IIV3 recipients. RESULTS: Trivalent vaccines included the predominantly circulating B lineage in 4 of 6 seasons. During 4 influenza seasons when both IIV4 and IIV3 were widely used, the overall effectiveness against any influenza B was 53% (95% confidence interval [CI], 45-59) for IIV4 versus 45% (95% CI, 34-54) for IIV3. IIV4 was more effective than IIV3 against the B lineage not included in IIV3, but comparative effectiveness against illnesses related to any influenza B favored neither vaccine valency. CONCLUSIONS: The uptake of quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccines was not associated with increased protection against any influenza B illness, despite the higher effectiveness of quadrivalent vaccines against the added B virus lineage. Public health impact and cost-benefit analyses are needed globally.

Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness in Inpatient and Outpatient Settings in the United States, 2015-2018.

BACKGROUND: Demonstration of influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) against hospitalized illness in addition to milder outpatient illness may strengthen vaccination messaging. Our objective was to compare patient characteristics and VE between United States (US) inpatient and outpatient VE networks. METHODS: We tested adults with acute respiratory illness (ARI) for influenza within 1 outpatient-based and 1 hospital-based VE network from 2015 through 2018. We compared age, sex, and high-risk conditions. The test-negative design was used to compare vaccination odds in influenza-positive cases vs influenza-negative controls. We estimated VE using logistic regression adjusting for site, age, sex, race/ethnicity, peak influenza activity, time to testing from, season (overall VE), and underlying conditions. VE differences (ΔVE) were assessed with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) determined through bootstrapping with significance defined as excluding the null. RESULTS: The networks enrolled 14 573 (4144 influenza-positive) outpatients and 6769 (1452 influenza-positive) inpatients. Inpatients were older (median, 62 years vs 49 years) and had more high-risk conditions (median, 4 vs 1). Overall VE across seasons was 31% (95% CI, 26%-37%) among outpatients and 36% (95% CI, 27%-44%) among inpatients. Strain-specific VE (95% CI) among outpatients vs inpatients was 37% (25%-47%) vs 53% (37%-64%) against H1N1pdm09; 19% (9%-27%) vs 23% (8%-35%) against H3N2; and 46% (38%-53%) vs 46% (31%-58%) against B viruses. ΔVE was not significant for any comparison across all sites. CONCLUSIONS: Inpatients and outpatients with ARI represent distinct populations. Despite comparatively poor health among inpatients, influenza vaccination was effective in preventing influenza-associated hospitalizations.

Effect of Antigenic Drift on Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness in the United States-2019-2020.

BACKGROUND: At the start of the 2019-2020 influenza season, concern arose that circulating B/Victoria viruses of the globally emerging clade V1A.3 were antigenically drifted from the strain included in the vaccine. Intense B/Victoria activity was followed by circulation of genetically diverse A(H1N1)pdm09 viruses that were also antigenically drifted. We measured vaccine effectiveness (VE) in the United States against illness from these emerging viruses. METHODS: We enrolled outpatients aged ≥6 months with acute respiratory illness at 5 sites. Respiratory specimens were tested for influenza by reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Using the test-negative design, we determined influenza VE by virus subtype/lineage and genetic subclades by comparing odds of vaccination in influenza cases versus test-negative controls. RESULTS: Among 8845 enrollees, 2722 (31%) tested positive for influenza, including 1209 (44%) for B/Victoria and 1405 (51%) for A(H1N1)pdm09. Effectiveness against any influenza illness was 39% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 32-44), 45% (95% CI: 37-52) against B/Victoria and 30% (95% CI: 21-39) against A(H1N1)pdm09-associated illness. Vaccination offered no protection against A(H1N1)pdm09 viruses with antigenically drifted clade 6B.1A 183P-5A+156K HA genes (VE 7%; 95% CI: -14 to 23%) which predominated after January. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccination provided protection against influenza illness, mainly due to infections from B/Victoria viruses. Vaccine protection against illness from A(H1N1)pdm09 was lower than historically observed effectiveness of 40%-60%, due to late-season vaccine mismatch following emergence of antigenically drifted viruses. The effect of drift on vaccine protection is not easy to predict and, even in drifted years, significant protection can be observed.

Implications of Shortened Quarantine Among Household Contacts of Index Patients with Confirmed SARS-CoV-2 Infection - Tennessee and Wisconsin, April-September 2020.

To prevent further transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), CDC currently recommends that persons who have been in close contact with someone with SARS-CoV-2 infection should quarantine (stay away from other persons) for 14 days after the last known contact.* However, quarantine might be difficult to maintain for a prolonged period. A shorter quarantine might improve compliance, and CDC recommends two options to reduce the duration of quarantine for close contacts without symptoms, based on local circumstances and availability of testing: 1) quarantine can end on day 10 without a test or 2) quarantine can end on day 7 after receiving a negative test result.† However, shorter quarantine might permit ongoing disease transmission from persons who develop symptoms or become infectious near the end of the recommended 14-day period. Interim data from an ongoing study of household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 were analyzed to understand the proportion of household contacts that had detectable virus after a shortened quarantine period. Persons who were household contacts of index patients completed a daily symptom diary and self-collected respiratory specimens for 14 days. Specimens were tested for SARS-CoV-2 using reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Among 185 household contacts enrolled, 109 (59%) had detectable SARS-CoV-2 at any time; 76% (83/109) of test results were positive within 7 days, and 86% (94 of 109) were positive within 10 days after the index patient's illness onset date. Among household contacts who received negative SARS-CoV-2 test results and were asymptomatic through day 7, there was an 81% chance (95% confidence interval [CI] = 67%-90%) of remaining asymptomatic and receiving negative RT-PCR test results through day 14; this increased to 93% (95% CI = 78%-98%) for household members who were asymptomatic with negative RT-PCR test results through day 10. Although SARS-CoV-2 quarantine periods shorter than 14 days might be easier to adhere to, there is a potential for onward transmission from household contacts released before day 14.

Spread of Antigenically Drifted Influenza A(H3N2) Viruses and Vaccine Effectiveness in the United States During the 2018-2019 Season.

BACKGROUND: Increased illness due to antigenically drifted A(H3N2) clade 3C.3a influenza viruses prompted concerns about vaccine effectiveness (VE) and vaccine strain selection. We used US virologic surveillance and US Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness (Flu VE) Network data to evaluate consequences of this clade. METHODS: Distribution of influenza viruses was described using virologic surveillance data. The Flu VE Network enrolled ambulatory care patients aged ≥6 months with acute respiratory illness at 5 sites. Respiratory specimens were tested for influenza by means of reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction and were sequenced. Using a test-negative design, we estimated VE, comparing the odds of influenza among vaccinated versus unvaccinated participants. RESULTS: During the 2018-2019 influenza season, A(H3N2) clade 3C.3a viruses caused an increasing proportion of influenza cases. Among 2763 Flu VE Network case patients, 1325 (48%) were infected with A(H1N1)pdm09 and 1350 (49%) with A(H3N2); clade 3C.3a accounted for 977 (93%) of 1054 sequenced A(H3N2) viruses. VE was 44% (95% confidence interval, 37%-51%) against A(H1N1)pdm09 and 9% (-4% to 20%) against A(H3N2); VE was 5% (-10% to 19%) against A(H3N2) clade 3C.3a viruses. CONCLUSIONS: The predominance of A(H3N2) clade 3C.3a viruses during the latter part of the 2018-2019 season was associated with decreased VE, supporting the A(H3N2) vaccine component update for 2019-2020 northern hemisphere influenza vaccines.

Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness in the United States during the 2015-2016 Season.

BACKGROUND: The A(H1N1)pdm09 virus strain used in the live attenuated influenza vaccine was changed for the 2015-2016 influenza season because of its lack of effectiveness in young children in 2013-2014. The Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network evaluated the effect of this change as part of its estimates of influenza vaccine effectiveness in 2015-2016. METHODS: We enrolled patients 6 months of age or older who presented with acute respiratory illness at ambulatory care clinics in geographically diverse U.S. sites. Using a test-negative design, we estimated vaccine effectiveness as (1-OR)×100, in which OR is the odds ratio for testing positive for influenza virus among vaccinated versus unvaccinated participants. Separate estimates were calculated for the inactivated vaccines and the live attenuated vaccine. RESULTS: Among 6879 eligible participants, 1309 (19%) tested positive for influenza virus, predominantly for A(H1N1)pdm09 (11%) and influenza B (7%). The effectiveness of the influenza vaccine against any influenza illness was 48% (95% confidence interval [CI], 41 to 55; P<0.001). Among children 2 to 17 years of age, the inactivated influenza vaccine was 60% effective (95% CI, 47 to 70; P<0.001), and the live attenuated vaccine was not observed to be effective (vaccine effectiveness, 5%; 95% CI, -47 to 39; P=0.80). Vaccine effectiveness against A(H1N1)pdm09 among children was 63% (95% CI, 45 to 75; P<0.001) for the inactivated vaccine, as compared with -19% (95% CI, -113 to 33; P=0.55) for the live attenuated vaccine. CONCLUSIONS: Influenza vaccines reduced the risk of influenza illness in 2015-2016. However, the live attenuated vaccine was found to be ineffective among children in a year with substantial inactivated vaccine effectiveness. Because the 2016-2017 A(H1N1)pdm09 strain used in the live attenuated vaccine was unchanged from 2015-2016, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices made an interim recommendation not to use the live attenuated influenza vaccine for the 2016-2017 influenza season. (Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health.).