this report was posted as an MMWR Early Release on the MMWR website (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr).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 * Patients were enrolled from 24 medical centers in 14 states (

IMPORTANCEAs self-collected home antigen tests become widely available, a better understanding of their performance during the course of SARS-CoV-2 infection is needed. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the diagnostic performance of home antigen tests compared with reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and viral culture by days from illness onset, as well as user acceptability. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This prospective cohort study was conducted from January to May 2021 in San Diego County, California, and metropolitan Denver, Colorado. The convenience sample included adults and children with RT-PCR-confirmed infection who used self-collected home antigen tests for 15 days and underwent at least 1 nasopharyngeal swab for RT-PCR, viral culture, and sequencing. EXPOSURES SARS-CoV-2 infection. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was the daily sensitivity of home antigen tests to detect RT-PCR-confirmed cases. Secondary outcomes included the daily percentage of antigen test, RT-PCR, and viral culture results that were positive, and antigen test sensitivity compared with same-day RT-PCR and cultures. Antigen test use errors and acceptability were assessed for a subset of participants. RESULTS This study enrolled 225 persons with RT-PCR-confirmed infection (median [range] age, 29 [1-83] years; 117 female participants [52%]; 10 [4%] Asian, 6 [3%] Black or African American, 50 [22%] Hispanic or Latino, 3 [1%] Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, 145[64%] White, and 11 [5%] multiracial individuals) who completed 3044 antigen tests and 642 nasopharyngeal swabs. Antigen test sensitivity was 50% (95% CI, 45%-55%) during the infectious period, 64% (95% CI, 56%-70%) compared with same-day RT-PCR, and 84% (95% CI, 75%-90%) compared with same-day cultures. Antigen test sensitivity peaked 4 days after illness onset at 77% (95% CI, 69%-83%). Antigen test sensitivity improved with a second antigen test 1 to 2 days later, particularly early in the infection. Six days after illness onset, antigen test result positivity was 61% (95% CI, 53%-68%). Almost all (216 [96%]) surveyed individuals reported that they would be more likely to get tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection if home antigen tests were available over the counter. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEThe results of this cohort study of home antigen tests suggest that sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 was moderate compared with RT-PCR and high compared with viral culture. The results also suggest that symptomatic individuals with an initial negative home antigen test result for SARS-CoV-2 infection should test again 1 to 2 days later because test sensitivity peaked several days after illness onset and improved with repeated testing.

SARS-CoV-2 variant B.1.617.2 (delta) is associated with higher viral loads [1] and increased transmissibility relative to other variants, as well as partial escape from polyclonal and monoclonal antibodies [2]. The emergence of the delta variant has been associated with increasing case counts and test-positivity rates, indicative of rapid community spread. Since early July 2021, SARS-CoV-2 cases in the United States have increased coincident with delta SARS-CoV-2 becoming the predominant lineage nationwide [3]. Understanding how and why the virus is spreading in settings where there is high vaccine coverage has important public health implications. It is particularly important to assess whether vaccinated individuals who become infected can transmit SARS-CoV-2 to others. In Wisconsin, a large local contract laboratory provides SARS-CoV-2 testing for multiple local health departments, providing a single standard source of data using the same assay to measure virus burdens in test-positive cases. This includes providing high-volume testing in Dane County, a county with extremely high vaccine coverage. These PCR-based tests provide semi-quantitative information about the viral load, or amount of SARS-CoV-2 RNA, in respiratory specimens. Here we use this viral load data to compare the amount of SARS-CoV-2 present in test-positive specimens from people who self-report their vaccine status and date of final immunization, during a period in which the delta variant became the predominant circulating variant in Wisconsin. We find no difference in viral loads when comparing unvaccinated individuals to those who have vaccine "breakthrough" infections. Furthermore, individuals with vaccine breakthrough infections frequently test positive with viral loads consistent with the ability to shed infectious viruses. Our results, while preliminary, suggest that if vaccinated individuals become infected with the delta variant, they may be sources of SARS-CoV-2 transmission to others.

Repeating the BinaxNOW antigen test for SARS-CoV-2 by two groups of readers within 30 minutes resulted in high concordance (98.9%) in 2,110 encounters. BinaxNOW test sensitivity was 77.2% (258/334) compared to real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction. Same day antigen testing did not significantly improve test sensitivity while specificity remained high.

Background Evidence establishing effectiveness of influenza vaccination for prevention of severe illness is limited. The US Hospitalized Adult Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network (HAIVEN) is a multiyear test-negative case-control study initiated in 2015–2016 to estimate effectiveness of vaccine in preventing influenza hospitalization among adults. Methods Adults aged ≥18 years admitted to 8 US hospitals with acute respiratory illness and testing positive for influenza by polymerase chain reaction were cases; those testing negative were controls. Vaccine effectiveness was estimated with logistic regression adjusting for age, comorbidities, and other confounding factors and stratified by frailty, 2-year vaccination history, and clinical presentation. Results We analyzed data from 236 cases and 1231 controls; mean age was 58 years. More than 90% of patients had ≥1 comorbidity elevating risk of influenza complications. Fifty percent of cases and 70% of controls were vaccinated. Vaccination was 51% (95% confidence interval [CI], 29%–65%) and 53% (95% CI, 11%–76%) effective in preventing hospitalization due to influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 and influenza B virus infection, respectively. Vaccine was protective for all age groups. Conclusions During the 2015–2016 US influenza A(H1N1)pdm09–predominant season, we found that vaccination halved the risk of influenza-association hospitalization among adults, most of whom were at increased risk of serious influenza complications due to comorbidity or age.

No abstract

S evere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes coronavirus disease (COVID-19), can spread rapidly within congregate settings, including institutions of higher education (IHEs) (1,2). During August-December 2020, as IHEs around the United States resumed in-person instruction, IHE-associated SARS-CoV-2 cases began to rise (3). By February 2021, >530,000 COVID-19 cases linked to US IHEs had been identifi ed (4). In many IHE settings populated substantially by young adults 18-24 years of age (5), susceptibility to severe COVID-19 is lower than for older populations (>65 years of age) (6). Adhering to physical distancing is also challenging for young adults, for whom interaction with peers and social networks is important (7).As students returned to in-person learning, highdensity clustering within on-campus housing may have increased transmission and resulted in commu-

Background High-frequency, rapid-turnaround SARS-CoV-2 testing continues to be proposed as a way of efficiently identifying and mitigating transmission in congregate settings. However, two SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks occurred among intercollegiate university athletic programs during the fall 2020 semester despite mandatory directly observed daily antigen testing. Methods During the fall 2020 semester, athletes and staff in both programs were tested daily using Quidel’s Sofia SARS Antigen Fluorescent Immunoassay (FIA), with positive antigen results requiring confirmatory testing with real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). We used genomic sequencing to investigate transmission dynamics in these two outbreaks. Results In Outbreak 1, 32 confirmed cases occurred within a university athletics program after the index patient attended a meeting while infectious despite a negative antigen test on the day of the meeting. Among isolates sequenced from Outbreak 1, 24 (92%) of 26 were closely related, suggesting sustained transmission following an initial introduction event. In Outbreak 2, 12 confirmed cases occurred among athletes from two university programs that faced each other in an athletic competition despite receiving negative antigen test results on the day of the competition. Sequences from both teams were closely related and distinct from viruses circulating in Team 1’s community, suggesting transmission during intercollegiate competition in Team 2’s community. Conclusions These findings suggest that antigen testing alone, even when mandated and directly observed, may not be sufficient as an intervention to prevent SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks in congregate settings, and highlight the importance of supplementing serial antigen testing with appropriate mitigation strategies to prevent SARS-CoV-2 outbreak in congregate settings.