Search

Background Antiviral chemoprophylaxis is recommended for use during influenza outbreaks in nursing homes to prevent transmission and severe disease among non-ill residents. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance recommends prophylaxis be initiated for all non-ill residents once an influenza outbreak is detected and be continued for at least 14 days and until 7 days after the last laboratory-confirmed influenza case is identified. However, not all facilities strictly adhere to this guidance and the impact of such partial adherence is not fully understood. Methods We developed a stochastic compartmental framework to model influenza transmission within an average-sized US nursing home. We compared the number of symptomatic illnesses and hospitalizations under varying prophylaxis implementation strategies, in addition to different levels of prophylaxis uptake and adherence by residents and healthcare personnel (HCP). Results Prophylaxis implemented according to current guidance reduced total symptomatic illnesses and hospitalizations among residents by a median of 12% and 36%, respectively, compared with no prophylaxis. We did not find evidence that alternative implementations of prophylaxis were more effective: compared to full adoption of current guidance, partial adoption resulted in increased symptomatic illnesses and/or hospitalizations, and longer or earlier adoption offered no additional improvements. In addition, increasing uptake and adherence among nursing home residents was effective in reducing resident illnesses and hospitalizations, but increasing HCP uptake had minimal indirect impacts for residents. Conclusions The greatest benefits of influenza prophylaxis during nursing home outbreaks will likely be achieved through increasing uptake and adherence among residents and following current CDC guidance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Asymptomatic influenza virus infection occurs but may vary by factors such as age, vaccination status, or season. We examined the frequency of influenza virus infection and symptoms using data from two case-ascertained household transmission studies (2017-2023) with prospective, systematic collection of respiratory specimens and symptoms. From the 426 influenza virus infected household contacts that met our inclusion criteria, 8% were asymptomatic, 6% had non-respiratory symptoms, 23% had acute respiratory symptoms, and 62% had influenza-like illness symptoms. Understanding the prevalence of asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic influenza cases is important for implementing effective influenza prevention strategies and enhancing symptom-based surveillance systems., (Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America 2024.)

As part of the response to the highly pathogenic avian influenza A(H5N1) virus outbreak in U.S. cattle and poultry and the associated human cases, CDC and partners are monitoring influenza A virus levels and detection of the H5 subtype in wastewater. Among 48 states and the District of Columbia that performed influenza A testing of wastewater during May 12-July 13, 2024, a weekly average of 309 sites in 38 states had sufficient data for analysis, and 11 sites in four states reported high levels of influenza A virus. H5 subtype testing was conducted at 203 sites in 41 states, with H5 detections at 24 sites in nine states. For each detection or high level, CDC and state and local health departments evaluated data from other influenza surveillance systems and partnered with wastewater utilities and agriculture departments to investigate potential sources. Among the four states with high influenza A virus levels detected in wastewater, three states had corresponding evidence of human influenza activity from other influenza surveillance systems. Among the 24 sites with H5 detections, 15 identified animal sources within the sewershed or adjacent county, including eight milk-processing inputs. Data from these early investigations can help health officials optimize the use of wastewater surveillance during the upcoming respiratory illness season., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. John Anderson reports support from the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) for travel to the 2023 Advanced Molecular Detection Days and the 2024 Advanced Molecular Detection Academy. Alexandria B. Boehm reports institutional support from the Sergey Brin Family Foundation and grant support from the U.S. National Science Foundation for research coordination network for wastewater-based epidemiology and from the Sloan Foundation for public health partnerships and wastewater-based epidemiology, and membership on the state of California wastewater-based epidemiology committee of the State Water Board. Ruth Lynfield reports support from the Infectious Diseases Society of America, CSTE, the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases, and the American Academy of Pediatrics to attend state epidemiology meetings, ID Week, CSTE Board meetings and CSTE annual conference, National Foundation for Infectious Diseases meeting, and the Committee on Infectious Diseases meeting. Marlene K. Wolfe reports a subaward gift to Stanford University, a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation for implementation of wastewater-based epidemiology in Bangladesh and Ghana and a subaward from Ceres Nanosciences (subaward from National Institutes of Health funding) for wastewater monitoring research, and support from the American Society of Microbiology for an invited talk at a conference. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Understanding whether influenza vaccine promotion strategies produce community-wide indirect effects is important for establishing vaccine coverage targets and optimizing vaccine delivery. Empirical epidemiologic studies and mathematical models have been used to estimate indirect effects of vaccines but rarely for the same estimand in the same dataset. Using these approaches together could be a powerful tool for triangulation in infectious disease epidemiology because each approach is subject to distinct sources of bias. We triangulated evidence about indirect effects from a school-located influenza vaccination program using two approaches: a difference-in-difference (DID) analysis, and an age-structured, deterministic, compartmental model. The estimated indirect effect was substantially lower in the mathematical model than in the DID analysis (2.1% (95% Bayesian credible intervals 0.4 - 4.4%) vs. 22.3% (95% CI 7.6% - 37.1%)). To explore reasons for differing estimates, we used sensitivity analyses and probabilistic bias analyses. When we constrained model parameters such that projections matched the DID analysis, results only aligned with the DID analysis with substantially lower pre-existing immunity among school-age children and older adults. Conversely, DID estimates corrected for potential bias only aligned with mathematical model estimates under differential outcome misclassification. We discuss how triangulation using empirical and mathematical modelling approaches could strengthen future studies., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.)

Isolation of symptomatic infectious persons can reduce influenza transmission. However, virus shedding that occurs without symptoms will be unaffected by such measures. Identifying effective isolation strategies for influenza requires understanding the interplay between individual virus shedding and symptom presentation. From 2017 to 2020, we conducted a case-ascertained household transmission study using influenza real-time RT-qPCR testing of nasal swabs and daily symptom diary reporting for up to 7 days after enrolment (≤14 days after index onset). We assumed real-time RT-qPCR cycle threshold (Ct) values were indicators of quantitative virus shedding and used symptom diaries to create a score that tracked influenza-like illness (ILI) symptoms (fever, cough, or sore throat). We fit phenomenological nonlinear mixed-effects models stratified by age and vaccination status and estimated two quantities influencing isolation effectiveness: shedding before symptom onset and shedding that might occur once isolation ends. We considered different isolation end points (including 24 h after fever resolution or 5 days after symptom onset) and assumptions about the infectiousness of Ct shedding trajectories. Of the 116 household contacts with ≥2 positive tests for longitudinal analyses, 105 (91%) experienced ≥1 ILI symptom. On average, children <5 years experienced greater peak shedding, longer durations of shedding, and elevated ILI symptom scores compared with other age groups. Most individuals (63/105) shed <10% of their total shed virus before symptom onset, and shedding after isolation varied substantially across individuals, isolation end points, and infectiousness assumptions. Our results can inform strategies to reduce transmission from symptomatic individuals infected with influenza., (Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of National Academy of Sciences 2024.)

The generation time, representing the interval between infections in primary and secondary cases, is essential for understanding and predicting the transmission dynamics of seasonal influenza, including the real-time effective reproduction number (Rt). However, comprehensive generation time estimates for seasonal influenza, especially post the 2009 influenza pandemic, are lacking. We estimated the generation time utilizing data from a 7-site case-ascertained household study in the United States over two influenza seasons, 2021/2022 and 2022/2023. More than 200 individuals who tested positive for influenza and their household contacts were enrolled within 7 days of the first illness in the household. All participants were prospectively followed for 10 days completing daily symptom diaries and collecting nasal swabs, which were tested for influenza via RT-PCR. We analyzed these data by modifying a previously published Bayesian data augmentation approach that imputes infection times of cases to obtain both intrinsic (assuming no susceptible depletion) and realized (observed within household) generation times. We assessed the robustness of the generation time estimate by varying the incubation period, and generated estimates of the proportion of transmission before symptomatic onset, infectious period, and latent period. We estimated a mean intrinsic generation time of 3.2 (95% credible interval, CrI: 2.9-3.6) days, with a realized household generation time of 2.8 (95% CrI: 2.7-3.0) days. The generation time exhibited limited sensitivity to incubation period variation. Estimates of the proportion of transmission that occurred before symptom onset, the infectious period, and the latent period were sensitive to variation in incubation periods. Our study contributes to the ongoing efforts to refine estimates of the generation time for influenza. Our estimates, derived from recent data following the COVID-19 pandemic, are consistent with previous pre-pandemic estimates, and will be incorporated into real-time Rt estimation efforts., Competing Interests: Declaration of interest • M. S. S. reports a leadership role as Associate Director of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ Pediatric Research in Office Settings (PROS), paid to Trustees of Columbia University. All other authors report no potential conflicts. • N. M.B. reports grant/contracts from NIH to the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, and North Carolina Collaboratory; participation on a DSMB or advisory board for the Snowball Study Technical Interchange; a leadership or fiduciary role on the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene Scientific Committee; and other financial or nonfinancial interests with the COVID-19 Equity Evidence Academy (RADx-UP CDCC) Steering Committee and North Carolina Occupational Safety and Health Education Research Center. • E. A. reports serving as a former consultant for Hillevax and Moderna, presenting a Merck-supported lecture at the Latin American Vaccine Summit, and receipt of grant/research support from Pfizer for pneumococcal pneumonia studies. • S. R. reports grant support from BioFire. • H. Q. N. reports grant/research support from CSL Seqirus, GSK, and ModernaTX, and honorarium for participating in a consultancy group for ModernaTX outside the submitted work. • S. H. M. reports grants/contracts from NIH, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation. • E. S. reports grants or contracts to institution from Vanderbilt University Medical Center (originating at CDC #75D30121C11656). • H. K. T. has received research funding from the CDC. • C. G. G. reports participation on an advisory board for Merck, and receipt of grant/research support from AHRQ, CDC, US Food and Drug Administration, NIH, and Syneos Health. • All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed.

Accurate forecasts can enable more effective public health responses during seasonal influenza epidemics. For the 2021-22 and 2022-23 influenza seasons, 26 forecasting teams provided national and jurisdiction-specific probabilistic predictions of weekly confirmed influenza hospital admissions for one-to-four weeks ahead. Forecast skill is evaluated using the Weighted Interval Score (WIS), relative WIS, and coverage. Six out of 23 models outperform the baseline model across forecast weeks and locations in 2021-22 and 12 out of 18 models in 2022-23. Averaging across all forecast targets, the FluSight ensemble is the 2 nd most accurate model measured by WIS in 2021-22 and the 5 th most accurate in the 2022-23 season. Forecast skill and 95% coverage for the FluSight ensemble and most component models degrade over longer forecast horizons. In this work we demonstrate that while the FluSight ensemble was a robust predictor, even ensembles face challenges during periods of rapid change., (© 2024. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.)

Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, forecasting COVID-19 trends to support planning and response was a priority for scientists and decision makers alike. In the United States, COVID-19 forecasting was coordinated by a large group of universities, companies, and government entities led by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the US COVID-19 Forecast Hub (https://covid19forecasthub.org). We evaluated approximately 9.7 million forecasts of weekly state-level COVID-19 cases for predictions 1-4 weeks into the future submitted by 24 teams from August 2020 to December 2021. We assessed coverage of central prediction intervals and weighted interval scores (WIS), adjusting for missing forecasts relative to a baseline forecast, and used a Gaussian generalized estimating equation (GEE) model to evaluate differences in skill across epidemic phases that were defined by the effective reproduction number. Overall, we found high variation in skill across individual models, with ensemble-based forecasts outperforming other approaches. Forecast skill relative to the baseline was generally higher for larger jurisdictions (e.g., states compared to counties). Over time, forecasts generally performed worst in periods of rapid changes in reported cases (either in increasing or decreasing epidemic phases) with 95% prediction interval coverage dropping below 50% during the growth phases of the winter 2020, Delta, and Omicron waves. Ideally, case forecasts could serve as a leading indicator of changes in transmission dynamics. However, while most COVID-19 case forecasts outperformed a naïve baseline model, even the most accurate case forecasts were unreliable in key phases. Further research could improve forecasts of leading indicators, like COVID-19 cases, by leveraging additional real-time data, addressing performance across phases, improving the characterization of forecast confidence, and ensuring that forecasts were coherent across spatial scales. In the meantime, it is critical for forecast users to appreciate current limitations and use a broad set of indicators to inform pandemic-related decision making., Competing Interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: APP report grants from Metabiota Inc outside the submitted work. J.S. and Columbia University declare partial ownership of SK Analytics. No other authors have competing interests to declare., (Copyright: This is an open access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.)

We reviewed the tools that have been developed to characterize and communicate seasonal influenza activity in the United States. Here we focus on systematic surveillance and applied analytics, including seasonal burden and disease severity estimation, short-term forecasting, and longer-term modeling efforts. For each set of activities, we describe the challenges and opportunities that have arisen because of the COVID-19 pandemic. In conclusion, we highlight how collaboration and communication have been and will continue to be key components of reliable and actionable influenza monitoring, forecasting, and modeling activities., (©Rebecca K Borchering, Matthew Biggerstaff, Lynnette Brammer, Alicia Budd, Shikha Garg, Alicia M Fry, A Danielle Iuliano, Carrie Reed. Originally published in JMIR Public Health and Surveillance (https://publichealth.jmir.org), 08.04.2024.)