Search

Monovalent COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, designed against the ancestral strain of SARS-CoV-2, successfully reduced COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality in the United States and globally (1,2). However, vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19-associated hospitalization has declined over time, likely related to a combination of factors, including waning immunity and, with the emergence of the Omicron variant and its sublineages, immune evasion (3). To address these factors, on September 1, 2022, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended a bivalent COVID-19 mRNA booster (bivalent booster) dose, developed against the spike protein from ancestral SARS-CoV-2 and Omicron BA.4/BA.5 sublineages, for persons who had completed at least a primary COVID-19 vaccination series (with or without monovalent booster doses) ≥2 months earlier (4). Data on the effectiveness of a bivalent booster dose against COVID-19 hospitalization in the United States are lacking, including among older adults, who are at highest risk for severe COVID-19-associated illness. During September 8-November 30, 2022, the Investigating Respiratory Viruses in the Acutely Ill (IVY) Network§ assessed effectiveness of a bivalent booster dose received after ≥2 doses of monovalent mRNA vaccine against COVID-19-associated hospitalization among immunocompetent adults aged ≥65 years. When compared with unvaccinated persons, VE of a bivalent booster dose received ≥7 days before illness onset (median = 29 days) against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was 84%. Compared with persons who received ≥2 monovalent-only mRNA vaccine doses, relative VE of a bivalent booster dose was 73%. These early findings show that a bivalent booster dose provided strong protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalization in older adults and additional protection among persons with previous monovalent-only mRNA vaccination. All eligible persons, especially adults aged ≥65 years, should receive a bivalent booster dose to maximize protection against COVID-19 hospitalization this winter season. Additional strategies to prevent respiratory illness, such as masking in indoor public spaces, should also be considered, especially in areas where COVID-19 community levels are high (4,5).

COVID-19 mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2 [Pfizer-BioNTech] and mRNA-1273 [Moderna]) provide protection against infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and are highly effective against COVID-19-associated hospitalization among eligible persons who receive 2 doses (1,2). However, vaccine effectiveness (VE) among persons with immunocompromising conditions* is lower than that among immunocompetent persons (2), and VE declines after several months among all persons (3). On August 12, 2021, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for a third mRNA vaccine dose as part of a primary series ≥28 days after dose 2 for persons aged ≥12 years with immunocompromising conditions, and, on November 19, 2021, as a booster dose for all adults aged ≥18 years at least 6 months after dose 2, changed to ≥5 months after dose 2 on January 3, 2022 (4,5,6). Among 2,952 adults (including 1,385 COVID-19 case-patients and 1,567 COVID-19-negative controls) hospitalized at 21 U.S. hospitals during August 19-December 15, 2021, effectiveness of mRNA vaccines against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was compared between adults eligible for but who had not received a third vaccine dose (1,251) and vaccine-eligible adults who received a third dose ≥7 days before illness onset (312). Among 1,875 adults without immunocompromising conditions (including 1,065 [57%] unvaccinated, 679 [36%] 2-dose recipients, and 131 [7%] 3-dose [booster] recipients), VE against COVID-19 hospitalization was higher among those who received a booster dose (97%; 95% CI = 95%-99%) compared with that among 2-dose recipients (82%; 95% CI = 77%-86%) (p

COVID-19 mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2 [Pfizer-BioNTech] and mRNA-1273 [Moderna]) are effective at preventing COVID-19-associated hospitalization (1-3). However, how well mRNA vaccines protect against the most severe outcomes of these hospitalizations, including invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or death is uncertain. Using a case-control design, mRNA vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19-associated IMV and in-hospital death was evaluated among adults aged ≥18 years hospitalized at 21 U.S. medical centers during March 11, 2021-January 24, 2022. During this period, the most commonly circulating variants of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, were B.1.1.7 (Alpha), B.1.617.2 (Delta), and B.1.1.529 (Omicron). Previous vaccination (2 or 3 versus 0 vaccine doses before illness onset) in prospectively enrolled COVID-19 case-patients who received IMV or died within 28 days of hospitalization was compared with that among hospitalized control patients without COVID-19. Among 1,440 COVID-19 case-patients who received IMV or died, 307 (21%) had received 2 or 3 vaccine doses before illness onset. Among 6,104 control-patients, 4,020 (66%) had received 2 or 3 vaccine doses. Among the 1,440 case-patients who received IMV or died, those who were vaccinated were older (median age = 69 years), more likely to be immunocompromised* (40%), and had more chronic medical conditions compared with unvaccinated case-patients (median age = 55 years; immunocompromised = 10%; p

Real-world evaluations have demonstrated high effectiveness of vaccines against COVID-19-associated hospitalizations (1-4) measured shortly after vaccination; longer follow-up is needed to assess durability of protection. In an evaluation at 21 hospitals in 18 states, the duration of mRNA vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna) effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19-associated hospitalizations was assessed among adults aged ≥18 years. Among 3,089 hospitalized adults (including 1,194 COVID-19 case-patients and 1,895 non-COVID-19 control-patients), the median age was 59 years, 48.7% were female, and 21.1% had an immunocompromising condition. Overall, 141 (11.8%) case-patients and 988 (52.1%) controls were fully vaccinated (defined as receipt of the second dose of Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines ≥14 days before illness onset), with a median interval of 65 days (range = 14-166 days) after receipt of second dose. VE against COVID-19-associated hospitalization during the full surveillance period was 86% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 82%-88%) overall and 90% (95% CI = 87%-92%) among adults without immunocompromising conditions. VE against COVID-19- associated hospitalization was 86% (95% CI = 82%-90%) 2-12 weeks and 84% (95% CI = 77%-90%) 13-24 weeks from receipt of the second vaccine dose, with no significant change between these periods (p = 0.854). Whole genome sequencing of 454 case-patient specimens found that 242 (53.3%) belonged to the B.1.1.7 (Alpha) lineage and 74 (16.3%) to the B.1.617.2 (Delta) lineage. Effectiveness of mRNA vaccines against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was sustained over a 24-week period, including among groups at higher risk for severe COVID-19; ongoing monitoring is needed as new SARS-CoV-2 variants emerge. To reduce their risk for hospitalization, all eligible persons should be offered COVID-19 vaccination.

Adults aged ≥65 years are at increased risk for severe outcomes from COVID-19 and were identified as a priority group to receive the first COVID-19 vaccines approved for use under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) in the United States (1-3). In an evaluation at 24 hospitals in 14 states,* the effectiveness of partial or full vaccination† with Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccines against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was assessed among adults aged ≥65 years. Among 417 hospitalized adults aged ≥65 years (including 187 case-patients and 230 controls), the median age was 73 years, 48% were female, 73% were non-Hispanic White, 17% were non-Hispanic Black, 6% were Hispanic, and 4% lived in a long-term care facility. Adjusted vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19-associated hospitalization among adults aged ≥65 years was estimated to be 94% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 49%-99%) for full vaccination and 64% (95% CI = 28%-82%) for partial vaccination. These findings are consistent with efficacy determined from clinical trials in the subgroup of adults aged ≥65 years (4,5). This multisite U.S. evaluation under real-world conditions suggests that vaccination provided protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalization among adults aged ≥65 years. Vaccination is a critical tool for reducing severe COVID-19 in groups at high risk.

Three COVID-19 vaccines are authorized or approved for use among adults in the United States (1,2). Two 2-dose mRNA vaccines, mRNA-1273 from Moderna and BNT162b2 from Pfizer-BioNTech, received Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in December 2020 for persons aged ≥18 years and aged ≥16 years, respectively. A 1-dose viral vector vaccine (Ad26.COV2 from Janssen [Johnson & Johnson]) received EUA in February 2021 for persons aged ≥18 years (3). The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine received FDA approval for persons aged ≥16 years on August 23, 2021 (4). Current guidelines from FDA and CDC recommend vaccination of eligible persons with one of these three products, without preference for any specific vaccine (4,5). To assess vaccine effectiveness (VE) of these three products in preventing COVID-19 hospitalization, CDC and collaborators conducted a case-control analysis among 3,689 adults aged ≥18 years who were hospitalized at 21 U.S. hospitals across 18 states during March 11-August 15, 2021. An additional analysis compared serum antibody levels (anti-spike immunoglobulin G [IgG] and anti-receptor binding domain [RBD] IgG) to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, among 100 healthy volunteers enrolled at three hospitals 2-6 weeks after full vaccination with the Moderna, Pfizer-BioNTech, or Janssen COVID-19 vaccine. Patients with immunocompromising conditions were excluded. VE against COVID-19 hospitalizations was higher for the Moderna vaccine (93%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 91%-95%) than for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (88%; 95% CI = 85%-91%) (p = 0.011); VE for both mRNA vaccines was higher than that for the Janssen vaccine (71%; 95% CI = 56%-81%) (all p

Prolonged symptom duration and disability are common in adults hospitalized with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Characterizing return to baseline health among outpatients with milder COVID-19 illness is important for understanding the full spectrum of COVID-19-associated illness and tailoring public health messaging, interventions, and policy. During April 15-June 25, 2020, telephone interviews were conducted with a random sample of adults aged ≥18 years who had a first positive reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, at an outpatient visit at one of 14 U.S. academic health care systems in 13 states. Interviews were conducted 14-21 days after the test date. Respondents were asked about demographic characteristics, baseline chronic medical conditions, symptoms present at the time of testing, whether those symptoms had resolved by the interview date, and whether they had returned to their usual state of health at the time of interview. Among 292 respondents, 94% (274) reported experiencing one or more symptoms at the time of testing; 35% of these symptomatic respondents reported not having returned to their usual state of health by the date of the interview (median = 16 days from testing date), including 26% among those aged 18-34 years, 32% among those aged 35-49 years, and 47% among those aged ≥50 years. Among respondents reporting cough, fatigue, or shortness of breath at the time of testing, 43%, 35%, and 29%, respectively, continued to experience these symptoms at the time of the interview. These findings indicate that COVID-19 can result in prolonged illness even among persons with milder outpatient illness, including young adults. Effective public health messaging targeting these groups is warranted. Preventative measures, including social distancing, frequent handwashing, and the consistent and correct use of face coverings in public, should be strongly encouraged to slow the spread of SARS-CoV-2.

Health care personnel (HCP) caring for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) might be at high risk for contracting SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Understanding the prevalence of and factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection among frontline HCP who care for COVID-19 patients are important for protecting both HCP and their patients. During April 3-June 19, 2020, serum specimens were collected from a convenience sample of frontline HCP who worked with COVID-19 patients at 13 geographically diverse academic medical centers in the United States, and specimens were tested for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2. Participants were asked about potential symptoms of COVID-19 experienced since February 1, 2020, previous testing for acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, and their use of personal protective equipment (PPE) in the past week. Among 3,248 participants, 194 (6.0%) had positive test results for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Seroprevalence by hospital ranged from 0.8% to 31.2% (median = 3.6%). Among the 194 seropositive participants, 56 (29%) reported no symptoms since February 1, 2020, 86 (44%) did not believe that they previously had COVID-19, and 133 (69%) did not report a previous COVID-19 diagnosis. Seroprevalence was lower among personnel who reported always wearing a face covering (defined in this study as a surgical mask, N95 respirator, or powered air purifying respirator [PAPR]) while caring for patients (5.6%), compared with that among those who did not (9.0%) (p = 0.012). Consistent with persons in the general population with SARS-CoV-2 infection, many frontline HCP with SARS-CoV-2 infection might be asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic during infection, and infection might be unrecognized. Enhanced screening, including frequent testing of frontline HCP, and universal use of face coverings in hospitals are two strategies that could reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

In September 2023, CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended updated 2023-2024 (monovalent XBB.1.5) COVID-19 vaccination for all persons aged ≥6 months to prevent COVID-19, including severe disease. However, few estimates of updated vaccine effectiveness (VE) against medically attended illness are available. This analysis evaluated VE of an updated COVID-19 vaccine dose against COVID-19-associated emergency department (ED) or urgent care (UC) encounters and hospitalization among immunocompetent adults aged ≥18 years during September 2023-January 2024 using a test-negative, case-control design with data from two CDC VE networks. VE against COVID-19-associated ED/UC encounters was 51% (95% CI = 47%-54%) during the first 7-59 days after an updated dose and 39% (95% CI = 33%-45%) during the 60-119 days after an updated dose. VE estimates against COVID-19-associated hospitalization from two CDC VE networks were 52% (95% CI = 47%-57%) and 43% (95% CI = 27%-56%), with a median interval from updated dose of 42 and 47 days, respectively. Updated COVID-19 vaccine provided increased protection against COVID-19-associated ED/UC encounters and hospitalization among immunocompetent adults. These results support CDC recommendations for updated 2023-2024 COVID-19 vaccination. All persons aged ≥6 months should receive updated 2023-2024 COVID-19 vaccine., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Steven Y. Chang reports consulting fees from PureTech Health and Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, and participation on the data safety monitoring board for an unrelated, local study at Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, outside the submitted work. Manjusha Gaglani reports serving as the Texas Pediatric Society, Texas Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics co-chair of the ID and Immunization Committee, outside the submitted work. Adit A. Ginde reports support from Biomeme and Seastar, outside the submitted work. Carlos G. Grijalva reports other funding from Merck, contracts from Syneos Health and the Food and Drug Administration, and grants from National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Agency for Health Care Research and Quality, outside the submitted work. Akram Khan reports grant funding from 4DMedical, Dompe Pharmaceuticals, Ely Lilly, and Roche Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. Adam S. Lauring reports research support from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, Burroughs Wellcome Fund, Flu Lab, and consulting fees from Roche, outside the submitted work. Christopher Mallow reports medical legal consulting, outside the submitted work. Emily T. Martin reports research funding from Merck, outside the submitted work. Ithan D. Peltan reports grant support from NIH, Intermountain Research and Medical Foundation, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and funding to his institution from Bluejay Diagnostics and Regeneron, outside the submitted work. Karthik Natarajan reports institutional support from NIH, Office of the Director, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Brian E. Dixon reports Institutional support from NIH, National Library of Medicine in the form of a T15 training grant in biomedical informatics, salary support from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, royalties from Elsevier, Inc. for a book on health information technology and from Springer Nature for a book on health information technology. Nicola P. Klein reports support from GSK, Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi Pasteur, and Seqirus for work unrelated to this report. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

On June 21, 2023, CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccination for adults aged ≥60 years, offered to individual adults using shared clinical decision-making. Informed use of these vaccines requires an understanding of RSV disease severity. To characterize RSV-associated severity, 5,784 adults aged ≥60 years hospitalized with acute respiratory illness and laboratory-confirmed RSV, SARS-CoV-2, or influenza infection were prospectively enrolled from 25 hospitals in 20 U.S. states during February 1, 2022-May 31, 2023. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare RSV disease severity with COVID-19 and influenza severity on the basis of the following outcomes: 1) standard flow (<30 L/minute) oxygen therapy, 2) high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) or noninvasive ventilation (NIV), 3) intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and 4) invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or death. Overall, 304 (5.3%) enrolled adults were hospitalized with RSV, 4,734 (81.8%) with COVID-19 and 746 (12.9%) with influenza. Patients hospitalized with RSV were more likely to receive standard flow oxygen, HFNC or NIV, and ICU admission than were those hospitalized with COVID-19 or influenza. Patients hospitalized with RSV were more likely to receive IMV or die compared with patients hospitalized with influenza (adjusted odds ratio = 2.08; 95% CI = 1.33-3.26). Among hospitalized older adults, RSV was less common, but was associated with more severe disease than COVID-19 or influenza. High disease severity in older adults hospitalized with RSV is important to consider in shared clinical decision-making regarding RSV vaccination., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Samuel M. Brown reports that ReddyPort pays royalties on his invention of an airway device, outside the submitted work. Jonathan D. Casey reports a travel grant from Fisher and Paykel, outside the submitted work. Steven Y. Chang reports consulting fees from PureTech Health and Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals and participation as a data safety monitoring board member for a study at University of California, Los Angeles outside the submitted work. James D. Chappell reports participating as a coinvestigator for a Merck investigator studies program, where he supported surveillance of respiratory syncytial virus infection among hospitalized children in Jordan, outside the submitted work. Manjusha Gaglani reports grants from Abt Associates and Westat, having served as cochair of the Infectious Diseases and Immunization Committee for the Texas Pediatric Society (TPS), and receiving an honorarium for serving as a TPS Project Firstline webinar speaker panelist for Respiratory Virus Review: Clinical Considerations and IPC Guidance, outside the submitted work. Adit A. Ginde reports receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Defense, AbbVie, and Faron Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. Michelle N. Gong reports a grant from NIH outside the submitted work. Carlos G. Grijalva reports grants from NIH, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Food and Drug Administration, and Syneos Health, and receipt of compensation for participation in an advisory board for Merck outside the submitted work. Natasha Halasa reports receiving grants from Sanofi, Merck, and Quidel outside the submitted work. Akram Khan reports receiving grants from United Therapeutics, Johnson & Johnson, 4D Medical, Eli Lily, Dompe Pharmaceuticals, and GSK outside the submitted work. Adam S. Lauring reports receiving grants from FluLab, NIH/National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and Burroughs Wellcome Fund and fees from Sanofi and Roche for consulting on oseltamivir and baloxavir respectively, outside the submitted work. Emily T. Martin reports a grant from Merck outside the submitted work. Christopher Mallow reports medical legal consulting outside the submitted work. Ithan D. Peltan reports grants from NIH and Janssen Pharmaceuticals and institutional support from Asahi Kasei Pharma and Regeneron outside the submitted work. Mayur Ramesh reports participating in a nonbranded speaker program supported by AstraZeneca and serving on an advisory board for Moderna outside the submitted work. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

As of April 2023, the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in 1.1 million deaths in the United States, with approximately 75% of deaths occurring among adults aged ≥65 years (1). Data on the durability of protection provided by monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccination against critical outcomes of COVID-19 are limited beyond the Omicron BA.1 lineage period (December 26, 2021-March 26, 2022). In this case-control analysis, the effectiveness of 2-4 monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses was evaluated against COVID-19-associated invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and in-hospital death among immunocompetent adults aged ≥18 years during February 1, 2022-January 31, 2023. Vaccine effectiveness (VE) against IMV and in-hospital death was 62% among adults aged ≥18 years and 69% among those aged ≥65 years. When stratified by time since last dose, VE was 76% at 7-179 days, 54% at 180-364 days, and 56% at ≥365 days. Monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccination provided substantial, durable protection against IMV and in-hospital death among adults during the Omicron variant period. All adults should remain up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccination to prevent critical COVID-19-associated outcomes., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Jonathan D. Casey reports grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), and a travel grant from Fisher and Paykel, outside the submitted work. Steven Y. Chang reports consulting fees from PureTech Health and Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, and participation as a Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) member for a study at UCLA, outside the submitted work. Abhijit Duggal reports grants from NIH/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), and consulting fees from Alung Technologies, outside the submitted work. David J. Douin reports a grant from NIH/National Institute of General Medical Sciences, outside the submitted work. Matthew C. Exline reports grants from NIH and Regeneron, honoria for speaking at the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition conference from Abbott Labs, and payment for testimony as a medical legal expert witness, outside the submitted work. D. Clark Files reports receiving a grant from NIH and participating on the Medpace DSMB, outside the submitted work. Manjusha Gaglani reports having served as co-chair of the Infectious Diseases and Immunization Committee for the Texas Pediatric Society, outside the submitted work. Kevin W. Gibbs reports grants from NIH and DoD, as well as support for travel to the 2022 Military Health System Research Symposium from DoD, outside the submitted work. Adit A. Ginde reports receiving grants from NIH, DoD, AbbVie, and Faron Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. Michelle N. Gong reports grants from NHLBI, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), speaking at medicine grand rounds at Yale and Westchester Medical College, travel support from the American Thoracic Society (ATS) and serving on the ATS board, DSMB membership fees from Regeneron and the Replenish Trial, and participating on the scientific advisory panel for Endpoint, outside the submitted work. Carlos G. Grijalva reports grants from NIH, AHRQ, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Campbell Alliance/Syneos Health; receipt of consulting fees from and participation on a DSMB for Merck, outside the submitted work. David N. Hager reports receiving grants from NIH, outside the submitted work. Natasha Halasa reports receiving grants from Sanofi and Quidel, outside the submitted work. Akram Khan reports receiving grants from United Therapeutics, Johnson & Johnson, 4D Medical, Eli Lily, Dompe Pharmaceuticals, and GlaxoSmithKline; and serves on the guidelines committee for Chest, outside the submitted work. Adam S. Lauring reports receiving grants from FluLab, NIH/National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and Burroughs Wellcome Fund, and consulting fees from Sanofi and Roche for consulting on oseltamivir and baloxavir respectively, outside the submitted work. Emily T. Martin reports grants from Merck and NIH, outside the submitted work. Tresa McNeal reports receiving a one-time payment for participating as a virtual webinar panelist for Clinical Updates in Heart Failure, and being a Practice Management Committee member for Society of Hospital Medicine, outside the submitted work. Arnold S. Monto reports a grant from NIH/NIAID, support for travel from the International Society for Influenza and other Respiratory Diseases, and participation on an advisory board for FDA, outside the submitted work. Ithan D. Peltan reports grants from NIH and Janssen Pharmaceuticals and institutional support from Asahi Kasei Pharma and Regeneron, outside the submitted work. Jay S. Steingrub reports a grant from NHLBI, outside the submitted work. Jennifer G. Wilson reports grants from NHLBI, outside the submitted work. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

The SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant (B.1.1.529 or BA.1) became predominant in the United States by late December 2021 (1). BA.1 has since been replaced by emerging lineages BA.2 (including BA.2.12.1) in March 2022, followed by BA.4 and BA.5, which have accounted for a majority of SARS-CoV-2 infections since late June 2022 (1). Data on the effectiveness of monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccines against BA.4/BA.5-associated hospitalizations are limited, and their interpretation is complicated by waning of vaccine-induced immunity (2-5). Further, infections with earlier Omicron lineages, including BA.1 and BA.2, reduce vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates because certain persons in the referent unvaccinated group have protection from infection-induced immunity. The IVY Network † assessed effectiveness of 2, 3, and 4 doses of monovalent mRNA vaccines compared with no vaccination against COVID-19-associated hospitalization among immunocompetent adults aged ≥18 years during December 26, 2021-August 31, 2022. During the BA.1/BA.2 period, VE 14-150 days after a second dose was 63% and decreased to 34% after 150 days. Similarly, VE 7-120 days after a third dose was 79% and decreased to 41% after 120 days. VE 7-120 days after a fourth dose was 61%. During the BA.4/BA.5 period, similar trends were observed, although CIs for VE estimates between categories of time since the last dose overlapped. VE 14-150 days and >150 days after a second dose was 83% and 37%, respectively. VE 7-120 days and >120 days after a third dose was 60%and 29%, respectively. VE 7-120 days after the fourth dose was 61%. Protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalization waned even after a third dose. The newly authorized bivalent COVID-19 vaccines include mRNA from the ancestral SARS-CoV-2 strain and from shared mRNA components between BA.4 and BA.5 lineages and are expected to be more immunogenic against BA.4/BA.5 than monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (6-8). All eligible adults aged ≥18 years § should receive a booster dose, which currently consists of a bivalent mRNA vaccine, to maximize protection against BA.4/BA.5 and prevent COVID-19-associated hospitalization., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Samuel M. Brown reports personal fees from Hamilton Ventilators outside the submitted work. Jonathan D. Casey reports grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), outside the submitted work. Steven Y. Chang reports consulting for PureTech Health in 2020 and Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals and membership on the safety monitoring board (DSMB) for an investigator-initiated study at UCLA. James D. Chappell reports grants from NIH and DoD during the conduct of the study. David J. Douin reports grants received from NIH and National Institute of General Medical Sciences, outside the submitted work. Abhijit Duggal reports grants from NIH and participation on a steering committee for ALung technologies, outside the submitted work. Matthew C. Exline reports grants from the NIH and Regeneron, as well as support from Abbott Labs for sponsored talks, outside the submitted work. D. Clark Files reports personal consultant fees from Cytovale and membership on DSMB from Medpace, outside the submitted work. Anne P. Frosch reports grants from NIH, outside the submitted work. Manjusha Gaglani reports grants from Abt Associates, Westat, Janssen, and participation as co-chair on the Infection Diseases and Immunizations Committee for the Texas Pediatric Society, outside the submitted work. Kevin W. Gibbs reports grants from NIH and DoD, and DoD funds for Military Health System Research Symposium travel in 2022, outside the submitted work. Adit A. Ginde reports grants from NIH, DoD, AbbVie, and Faron Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. Michelle N. Gong reports grants from NIH, speaking at medicine grand rounds at New York Medical College, travel support for the American Thoracic Society executive meeting, DSMB membership fees from Regeneron, and participation on the scientific advisory panel for Endpoint, outside the submitted work. Carlos G. Grijalva reports consultancy fees from Pfizer, Merck, and Sanofi-Pasteur; grants from Campbell Alliance/Syneos Health, NIH, the Food and Drug Administration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and Sanofi, outside the submitted work. David N. Hager grants from NIH, outside the submitted work. Natasha Halasa reports grants and nonfinancial support from Sanofi, and grants from Quidel outside the submitted work. Nicholas J. Johnson reports grants from the NIH, DoD, University of Washington, and Medic One Foundation, outside the submitted work. Akram Khan reports grants from United Therapeutics, Johnson & Johnson, Ely Lilly, 4D Medical, Dompe Pharmaceuticals, and GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. Jennie H. Kwon reports grants from National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), outside the submitted work. Adam S. Lauring reports personal fees from Sanofi and Roche and grants from NIAID, Burroughs Wellcome Fund, Flu Lab, outside the submitted work. Emily T. Martin reports grants from Merck, outside the submitted work. Tresa McNeal reports participation as a webinar invited panelist and a Practice Management Committee member for Society of Hospital Medicine, outside the submitted work. Ithan D. Peltan reports grants from NIH, Janssen Pharmaceuticals and institutional support from Asahi Kasei Pharma and Regeneron, outside the submitted work. Todd W. Rice reports grants from Abbvie Inc, and personal fees from Cumberland Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Cytovale, Inc., and Sanofi, Inc., outside the submitted work. William B. Stubblefield reports grants from NIH, outside the submitted work. Jennifer G. Wilson reports grants from NIH, and personal funds from the American College of Emergency Physicians and American Board of Internal Medicine, outside the submitted work. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Most persons infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), develop virus-specific antibodies within several weeks, but antibody titers might decline over time. Understanding the timeline of antibody decline is important for interpreting SARS-CoV-2 serology results. Serum specimens were collected from a convenience sample of frontline health care personnel at 13 hospitals and tested for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 during April 3-June 19, 2020, and again approximately 60 days later to assess this timeline. The percentage of participants who experienced seroreversion, defined as an antibody signal-to-threshold ratio >1.0 at baseline and <1.0 at the follow-up visit, was assessed. Overall, 194 (6.0%) of 3,248 participants had detectable antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 at baseline (1). Upon repeat testing approximately 60 days later (range = 50-91 days), 146 (93.6%) of 156 participants experienced a decline in antibody response indicated by a lower signal-to-threshold ratio at the follow-up visit, compared with the baseline visit, and 44 (28.2%) experienced seroreversion. Participants with higher initial antibody responses were more likely to have antibodies detected at the follow-up test than were those who had a lower initial antibody response. Whether decay in these antibodies increases risk for reinfection and disease remains unanswered. However, these results suggest that serology testing at a single time point is likely to underestimate the number of persons with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and a negative serologic test result might not reliably exclude prior infection., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Christopher J. Lindsell reports grants from National Institutes of Health, grants from Department of Defense, Marcus Foundation, Endpoint Health, Entegrion, bioMerieux, and Bioscape Digital, outside the submitted work. Daniel J. Henning reports personal fees from CytoVale and grants from Baxter, outside the submitted work. Akram Khan reports grants from United Therapeutics, Actelion Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron, and Reata Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. Samuel M. Brown reports grants from National Institutes of Health, Department of Defense, Intermountain Research and Medical Foundation, and Janssen; consulting fees paid to his employer from Faron and Sedana, all outside the submitted work. Ithan D. Peltan reports grants from the National Institutes of Health and, outside the submitted work, grants from Asahi Kasei Pharma, Immunexpress Inc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Regeneron. Carlos Grijalva reports other from Pfizer, other from Merck, other from Sanofi-Pasteur, grants from Campbell Alliance, the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality, outside the submitted work. Todd W. Rice reports consulting work for Cumberland Pharmaceuticals, Inc, outside the submitted work. H. Keipp Talbot has served on a data safety and monitoring board for Seqirus. Natasha Halasa receives grant support from Quidel and Sanofi, donation of vaccines and hemagglutination inhibition/microneutralization titers performed by Sanofi, and speaker fees by an educational grant supported by Genentech, outside the submitted work. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Since March 2020, large-scale efforts to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), have continued. Mitigation measures to reduce workplace exposures have included work site policies to support flexible work site options, including telework, whereby employees work remotely without commuting to a central place of work.* Opportunities to telework have varied across industries among U.S. jobs where telework options are feasible (1). However, little is known about the impact of telework on risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection. A case-control investigation was conducted to compare telework between eligible symptomatic persons who received positive SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test results (case-patients, 153) and symptomatic persons with negative test results (control-participants, 161). Eligible participants were identified in outpatient health care facilities during July 2020. Among employed participants who reported on their telework status during the 2 weeks preceding illness onset (248), the percentage who were able to telework on a full- or part-time basis was lower among case-patients (35%; 42 of 120) than among control-participants (53%; 68 of 128) (p<0.01). Case-patients were more likely than were control-participants to have reported going exclusively to an office or school setting (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.8; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.2-2.7) in the 2 weeks before illness onset. The association was also observed when further restricting to the 175 participants who reported working in a profession outside the critical infrastructure † (aOR = 2.1; 95% CI = 1.3-3.6). Providing the option to work from home or telework when possible, is an important consideration for reducing the risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection. In industries where telework options are not available, worker safety measures should continue to be scaled up to reduce possible worksite exposures., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Carlos G. Grijalva reports grants from Campbell Alliance, the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality, and Sanofi, and consultation fees from Pfizer, Merck, and Sanofi-Pasteur. Christopher J. Lindsell reports grants from National Institutes of Health and the Department of Defense and other support from Marcus Foundation, Endpoint Health, Entegrion, bioMerieux, and Bioscape Digital, outside the submitted work. Nathan I. Shapiro reports grants from the National Institutes of Health, Rapid Pathogen Screening, Inflammatix, and Baxter, outside the submitted work. Daniel J. Henning reports personal fees from CytoVale and grants from Baxter, outside the submitted work. Samuel M. Brown reports grants from National Institutes of Health, Department of Defense, Intermountain Research and Medical Foundation, and Janssen and consulting fees paid to his employer from Faron and Sedana, outside the submitted work. Ithan D. Peltan reports grants from the National Institutes of Health, Asahi Kasei Pharma, Immunexpress Inc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Regeneron, outside the submitted work. Todd W. Rice reports personal fees from Cumberland Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Cytovale, Inc., and Avisa, LLC, outside the submitted work. Adit A. Ginde reports grants from the National Institutes of Health and Department of Defense, outside the submitted work. H. Keipp Talbot reports serving on the Data Safety Monitoring Board for Seqirus. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Community and close contact exposures continue to drive the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. CDC and other public health authorities recommend community mitigation strategies to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 (1,2). Characterization of community exposures can be difficult to assess when widespread transmission is occurring, especially from asymptomatic persons within inherently interconnected communities. Potential exposures, such as close contact with a person with confirmed COVID-19, have primarily been assessed among COVID-19 cases, without a non-COVID-19 comparison group (3,4). To assess community and close contact exposures associated with COVID-19, exposures reported by case-patients (154) were compared with exposures reported by control-participants (160). Case-patients were symptomatic adults (persons aged ≥18 years) with SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing. Control-participants were symptomatic outpatient adults from the same health care facilities who had negative SARS-CoV-2 test results. Close contact with a person with known COVID-19 was more commonly reported among case-patients (42%) than among control-participants (14%). Case-patients were more likely to have reported dining at a restaurant (any area designated by the restaurant, including indoor, patio, and outdoor seating) in the 2 weeks preceding illness onset than were control-participants (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.5-3.8). Restricting the analysis to participants without known close contact with a person with confirmed COVID-19, case-patients were more likely to report dining at a restaurant (aOR = 2.8, 95% CI = 1.9-4.3) or going to a bar/coffee shop (aOR = 3.9, 95% CI = 1.5-10.1) than were control-participants. Exposures and activities where mask use and social distancing are difficult to maintain, including going to places that offer on-site eating or drinking, might be important risk factors for acquiring COVID-19. As communities reopen, efforts to reduce possible exposures at locations that offer on-site eating and drinking options should be considered to protect customers, employees, and communities., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Carlos G. Grijalva reports grants from Campbell Alliance, the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality and Sanofi-Pasteur, and consultation fees from Pfizer, Merck, and Sanofi-Pasteur. Christopher J. Lindsell reports grants from National Institutes of Health and the Department of Defense and other support from Marcus Foundation, Endpoint Health, Entegrion, bioMerieux, and Bioscape Digital, outside the submitted work. Nathan I. Shapiro reports grants from the National Institutes of Health, Rapid Pathogen Screening, Inflammatix, and Baxter, outside the submitted work. Daniel J. Henning reports personal fees from CytoVale and grants from Baxter, outside the submitted work. Samuel M. Brown reports grants from National Institutes of Health, Department of Defense, Intermountain Research and Medical Foundation, and Janssen and consulting fees paid to his employer from Faron and Sedana, outside the submitted work. Ithan D. Peltan reports grants from the National Institutes of Health, Asahi Kasei Pharma, Immunexpress Inc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Regeneron, outside the submitted work. Todd W. Rice reports personal fees from Cumberland Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Cytovale, Inc, and Avisa, LLC, outside the submitted work. Adit A. Ginde reports grants from the National Institutes of Health and Department of Defense, outside the submitted work. H. Keipp Talbot reports serving on the Data Safety Monitoring Board for Seqirus. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.