Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 16 de 16
Filter
1.
Influenza Other Respir Viruses ; 17(5): e13143, 2023 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-20231202

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: We estimated combined protection conferred by prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination against COVID-19-associated acute respiratory illness (ARI). METHODS: During SARS-CoV-2 Delta (B.1.617.2) and Omicron (B.1.1.529) variant circulation between October 2021 and April 2022, prospectively enrolled adult patients with outpatient ARI had respiratory and filter paper blood specimens collected for SARS-CoV-2 molecular testing and serology. Dried blood spots were tested for immunoglobulin-G antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (NP) and spike protein receptor binding domain antigen using a validated multiplex bead assay. Evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection also included documented or self-reported laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. We used documented COVID-19 vaccination status to estimate vaccine effectiveness (VE) by multivariable logistic regression by prior infection status. RESULTS: Four hundred fifty-five (29%) of 1577 participants tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection at enrollment; 209 (46%) case-patients and 637 (57%) test-negative patients were NP seropositive, had documented previous laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, or self-reported prior infection. Among previously uninfected patients, three-dose VE was 97% (95% confidence interval [CI], 60%-99%) against Delta, but not statistically significant against Omicron. Among previously infected patients, three-dose VE was 57% (CI, 20%-76%) against Omicron; VE against Delta could not be estimated. CONCLUSIONS: Three mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses provided additional protection against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant-associated illness among previously infected participants.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Influenza Vaccines , Adult , Humans , COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Outpatients , Vaccine Efficacy
2.
JAMA ; 329(6): 482-489, 2023 02 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2310661

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Influenza A Virus, H3N2 Subtype , Influenza Vaccines , Influenza, Human , Adolescent , Adult , Child , Female , Humans , Male , COVID-19/epidemiology , Influenza A Virus, H3N2 Subtype/isolation & purification , Influenza Vaccines/therapeutic use , Influenza, Human/diagnosis , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , Influenza, Human/transmission , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pandemics/statistics & numerical data , Prospective Studies , Seasons , Family Characteristics , United States/epidemiology , Contact Tracing/statistics & numerical data , Self-Testing
3.
Clin Infect Dis ; 76(8): 1358-1363, 2023 04 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2302049

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Influenza Vaccines , Influenza, Human , Humans , United States/epidemiology , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , Influenza A Virus, H3N2 Subtype , Seasons , Vaccine Efficacy , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination , Influenza B virus
4.
Influenza and other respiratory viruses ; 17(3), 2023.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-2276321

ABSTRACT

Background US recommendations for COVID‐19 vaccine boosters have expanded in terms of age groups covered and numbers of doses recommended, whereas evolution of Omicron sublineages raises questions about ongoing vaccine effectiveness. Methods We estimated effectiveness of monovalent COVID‐19 mRNA booster vaccination versus two‐dose primary series during a period of Omicron variant virus circulation in a community cohort with active illness surveillance. Hazard ratios comparing SARS‐CoV‐2 infection between booster versus primary series vaccinated individuals were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models with time‐varying booster status. Models were adjusted for age and prior SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. The effectiveness of a second booster among adults ≥50 years of age was similarly estimated. Results The analysis included 883 participants ranging in age, from 5 to >90 years. Relative effectiveness was 51% (95% CI: 34%, 64%) favoring the booster compared with primary series vaccination and did not vary by prior infection status. Relative effectiveness was 74% (95% CI: 57%, 84%) at 15 to 90 days after booster receipt, but declined to 42% (95% CI: 16%, 61%) after 91 to 180 days, and to 36% (95% CI: 3%, 58%) after 180 days. The relative effectiveness of a second booster compared to a single booster was 24% (95% CI: −40% to 61%). Conclusions An mRNA vaccine booster dose added significant protection against SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, but protection decreased over time. A second booster did not add significant protection for adults ≥50 years of age. Uptake of recommended bivalent boosters should be encouraged to increase protection against Omicron BA.4/BA.5 sublineages.

5.
Influenza Other Respir Viruses ; 17(3): e13104, 2023 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2276322

ABSTRACT

Background: US recommendations for COVID-19 vaccine boosters have expanded in terms of age groups covered and numbers of doses recommended, whereas evolution of Omicron sublineages raises questions about ongoing vaccine effectiveness. Methods: We estimated effectiveness of monovalent COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccination versus two-dose primary series during a period of Omicron variant virus circulation in a community cohort with active illness surveillance. Hazard ratios comparing SARS-CoV-2 infection between booster versus primary series vaccinated individuals were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models with time-varying booster status. Models were adjusted for age and prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. The effectiveness of a second booster among adults ≥50 years of age was similarly estimated. Results: The analysis included 883 participants ranging in age, from 5 to >90 years. Relative effectiveness was 51% (95% CI: 34%, 64%) favoring the booster compared with primary series vaccination and did not vary by prior infection status. Relative effectiveness was 74% (95% CI: 57%, 84%) at 15 to 90 days after booster receipt, but declined to 42% (95% CI: 16%, 61%) after 91 to 180 days, and to 36% (95% CI: 3%, 58%) after 180 days. The relative effectiveness of a second booster compared to a single booster was 24% (95% CI: -40% to 61%). Conclusions: An mRNA vaccine booster dose added significant protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection, but protection decreased over time. A second booster did not add significant protection for adults ≥50 years of age. Uptake of recommended bivalent boosters should be encouraged to increase protection against Omicron BA.4/BA.5 sublineages.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Adult , Humans , Aged, 80 and over , SARS-CoV-2 , RNA, Messenger
6.
Influenza Other Respir Viruses ; 16(6): 975-985, 2022 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1968142

ABSTRACT

Background: We estimated SARS-CoV-2 Delta- and Omicron-specific effectiveness of two and three mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses in adults against symptomatic illness in US outpatient settings. Methods: Between October 1, 2021, and February 12, 2022, research staff consented and enrolled eligible participants who had fever, cough, or loss of taste or smell and sought outpatient medical care or clinical SARS-CoV-2 testing within 10 days of illness onset. Using the test-negative design, we compared the odds of receiving two or three mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses among SARS-CoV-2 cases versus controls using logistic regression. Regression models were adjusted for study site, age, onset week, and prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. Vaccine effectiveness (VE) was calculated as (1 - adjusted odds ratio) × 100%. Results: Among 3847 participants included for analysis, 574 (32%) of 1775 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during the Delta predominant period and 1006 (56%) of 1794 participants tested positive during the Omicron predominant period. When Delta predominated, VE against symptomatic illness in outpatient settings was 63% (95% CI: 51% to 72%) among mRNA two-dose recipients and 96% (95% CI: 93% to 98%) for three-dose recipients. When Omicron predominated, VE was 21% (95% CI: -6% to 41%) among two-dose recipients and 62% (95% CI: 48% to 72%) among three-dose recipients. Conclusions: In this adult population, three mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses provided substantial protection against symptomatic illness in outpatient settings when the Omicron variant became the predominant cause of COVID-19 in the United States. These findings support the recommendation for a third mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Outpatients , Adult , Humans , COVID-19 Testing , COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , RNA, Messenger/genetics
7.
Pediatrics ; 149(3)2022 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1703643

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Examine age differences in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission risk from primary cases and infection risk among household contacts and symptoms among those with SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: People with SARS-CoV-2 infection in Nashville, Tennessee and central and western Wisconsin and their household contacts were followed daily for 14 days to ascertain symptoms and secondary transmission events. Households were enrolled between April 2020 and April 2021. Secondary infection risks (SIR) by age of the primary case and contacts were estimated using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: The 226 primary cases were followed by 198 (49%) secondary SARS-CoV-2 infections among 404 household contacts. Age group-specific SIR among contacts ranged from 36% to 53%, with no differences by age. SIR was lower in primary cases age 12 to 17 years than from primary cases 18 to 49 years (risk ratio [RR] 0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.19-0.91). SIR was 55% and 45%, respectively, among primary case-contact pairs in the same versus different age group (RR 1.47; 95% CI 0.98-2.22). SIR was highest among primary case-contact pairs age ≥65 years (76%) and 5 to 11 years (69%). Among secondary SARS-CoV-2 infections, 19% were asymptomatic; there was no difference in the frequency of asymptomatic infections by age group. CONCLUSIONS: Both children and adults can transmit and are susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection. SIR did not vary by age, but further research is needed to understand age-related differences in probability of transmission from primary cases by age.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/transmission , Contact Tracing , Family Characteristics , Adolescent , Adult , Age Factors , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Asymptomatic Infections , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Child , Child, Preschool , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Risk Factors , Tennessee/epidemiology , Wisconsin/epidemiology , Young Adult
8.
Influenza Other Respir Viruses ; 16(4): 607-612, 2022 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1703642

ABSTRACT

Reduced COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) has been observed with increasing predominance of SARS-CoV-2 Delta (B.1.617.2) variant. Two-dose VE against laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (symptomatic and asymptomatic) was estimated using Cox proportional hazards models with time-varying vaccination status in a prospective rural community cohort of 1266 participants aged ≥12 years. Between November 3, 2020 and December 7, 2021, VE was 56% for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines overall, 65% for Moderna, and 50% for Pfizer-BioNTech. VE when Delta predominated (June to December 2021) was 54% for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines overall, 59% for Moderna, and 52% for Pfizer-BioNTech.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Humans , Prospective Studies , RNA, Messenger , Rural Population , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Vaccine Efficacy , Wisconsin/epidemiology
9.
Influenza Other Respir Viruses ; 16(4): 673-679, 2022 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1685328

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Individuals in contact with persons with COVID-19 are at high risk of developing COVID-19; protection offered by COVID-19 vaccines in the context of known exposure is poorly understood. METHODS: Symptomatic outpatients aged ≥12 years reporting acute onset of COVID-19-like illness and tested for SARS-CoV-2 between February 1 and September 30, 2021 were enrolled. Participants were stratified by self-report of having known contact with a COVID-19 case in the 14 days prior to illness onset. Vaccine effectiveness was evaluated using the test-negative study design and multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 2229 participants, 283/451 (63%) of those reporting contact and 331/1778 (19%) without known contact tested SARS-CoV-2-positive. Adjusted vaccine effectiveness was 71% (95% confidence interval [CI], 49%-83%) among fully vaccinated participants reporting a known contact versus 80% (95% CI, 72%-86%) among those with no known contact (p-value for interaction = 0.2). CONCLUSIONS: This study contributes to growing evidence of the benefits of vaccinations in preventing COVID-19 and support vaccination recommendations and the importance of efforts to increase vaccination coverage.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination , Vaccine Efficacy
10.
J Infect Dis ; 224(10): 1694-1698, 2021 11 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1634069

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , Humans , Outpatients , RNA, Messenger , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , United States/epidemiology , Vaccines, Synthetic , mRNA Vaccines
11.
Influenza Other Respir Viruses ; 15(6): 697-700, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1281998

ABSTRACT

The association of influenza vaccine and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection was assessed by test-negative design using data collected for a study of outpatient COVID-19-like illness with onset dates from June to September 2020. Multivariable logistic regression models examined the association between receipt of 2019-2020 influenza vaccine and PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 with adjustment for potential confounders. Receipt of influenza vaccine during the 2019-2020 influenza season was not associated with increased odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection in adults (aOR 0.83, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.10) or children (aOR 0.92, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.80).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Influenza, Human , Adult , Child , Humans , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Seasons , Vaccination
12.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 69(5152): 1633-1637, 2021 Jan 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1005170

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/prevention & control , Contact Tracing , Family Characteristics , Quarantine/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Tennessee/epidemiology , Time Factors , Wisconsin/epidemiology
13.
Open Forum Infect Dis ; 8(1): ofaa576, 2021 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-944372

ABSTRACT

We compared symptoms and characteristics of 4961 ambulatory patients with and without laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. Findings indicate that clinical symptoms alone would be insufficient to distinguish between coronavirus disease 2019 and other respiratory infections (eg, influenza) and/or to evaluate the effects of preventive interventions (eg, vaccinations).

14.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 69(44): 1631-1634, 2020 Nov 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-911205

ABSTRACT

Improved understanding of transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), within households could aid control measures. However, few studies have systematically characterized the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in U.S. households (1). Previously reported transmission rates vary widely, and data on transmission rates from children are limited. To assess household transmission, a case-ascertained study was conducted in Nashville, Tennessee, and Marshfield, Wisconsin, commencing in April 2020. In this study, index patients were defined as the first household members with COVID-19-compatible symptoms who received a positive SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test result, and who lived with at least one other household member. After enrollment, index patients and household members were trained remotely by study staff members to complete symptom diaries and obtain self-collected specimens, nasal swabs only or nasal swabs and saliva samples, daily for 14 days. For this analysis, specimens from the first 7 days were tested for SARS-CoV-2 using CDC RT-PCR protocols.† A total of 191 enrolled household contacts of 101 index patients reported having no symptoms on the day of the associated index patient's illness onset, and among these 191 contacts, 102 had SARS-CoV-2 detected in either nasal or saliva specimens during follow-up, for a secondary infection rate of 53% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 46%-60%). Among fourteen households in which the index patient was aged <18 years, the secondary infection rate from index patients aged <12 years was 53% (95% CI = 31%-74%) and from index patients aged 12-17 years was 38% (95% CI = 23%-56%). Approximately 75% of secondary infections were identified within 5 days of the index patient's illness onset, and substantial transmission occurred whether the index patient was an adult or a child. Because household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is common and can occur rapidly after the index patient's illness onset, persons should self-isolate immediately at the onset of COVID-like symptoms, at the time of testing as a result of a high risk exposure, or at the time of a positive test result, whichever comes first. Concurrent to isolation, all members of the household should wear a mask when in shared spaces in the household.§.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Family Characteristics , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Child , Child, Preschool , Clinical Laboratory Techniques , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Tennessee/epidemiology , Wisconsin/epidemiology , Young Adult
15.
2020.
Non-conventional in English | Homeland Security Digital Library | ID: grc-740882

ABSTRACT

From the Introduction: Effective surveillance of an emerging infectious disease such as COVID-19 [coronavirus disease 2019] poses unique challenges. Public health agencies have had to significantly increase their disease surveillance capacities to be able to rapidly identify new COVID-19 patients, follow up with their contacts, monitor disease trends over time, and identify hot spots of disease transmission, often with limited testing. Despite this increase in COVID-19 surveillance capacities, gaps remain. It's essential, therefore, to outline the main goals of COVID-19 surveillance and address key challenges to its effective implementation.COVID-19 (Disease);Public health surveillance;Epidemiology

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL