Influenza

COVID-19 may be headed toward a springtime retreat. 

The indication comes from declining levels of SARS-CoV-2 being detected in wastewater over the past 3 weeks. Virus levels are already considered “low” throughout western U.S. states. Detections are at medium levels in the Midwest and South, while high levels persist in the Northeast, according to WastewaterSCAN.

But it’s not time to let your guard down because high levels of other viruses that cause stomach and respiratory illnesses continue to circulate widely nationwide. Wastewater data currently shows threats from flu, RSV, norovirus, and rotavirus.

The rate of positive flu tests reported to the CDC had been a downward trend since peaking around a rate of 16% in mid-January, but positive test rates are now climbing again, with the most recent weekly rate back around 15%. So far this flu season, 116 children and an estimated 20,000 adults have died from the flu, according to the CDC’s weekly flu publication, FluView.

RSV wastewater detection remains high, especially in the Midwest and Northeast, WastewaterSCAN data shows. But positive RSV test results reported to the CDC are at the lowest point of the 2023 to 2024 season, with less than 2,000 positive results listed for the week of March 9, down from a peak of more than 14,000 cases around Christmas.

Wastewater data tends to offer a real-time (and sometimes predictive) view of pathogen behavior in the general population, since sick people usually wait until symptoms worsen to seek medical care. About 12% of norovirus tests reported to the CDC in the last 3 weeks of February were positive, mirroring an upward trend observed during the same time period last year. In 2023, norovirus peaked in the U.S. in March with a positive test rate around 16%, CDC data show.

Last year, COVID also followed a downward springtime trend. Around this time last year, there were about 20,000 weekly hospital admissions due to COVID-19, compared to just over 13,000 in early March this year. All COVID metrics, including the positive test rate, hospitalizations, and ER visits, are currently trending downward, the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker indicates. The positive COVID test rate is 5%, and just 1% of ER visits in the U.S. involve a COVID-19 diagnosis.

“We’re seeing a downward trend, which is fantastic,” Marlene Wolfe, PhD, WastewaterSCAN’s program director, told USA Today. “Hopefully, that pattern continues as we enjoy some warmer weather and longer daylight.”
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

COVID-19 may be headed toward a springtime retreat. 

The indication comes from declining levels of SARS-CoV-2 being detected in wastewater over the past 3 weeks. Virus levels are already considered “low” throughout western U.S. states. Detections are at medium levels in the Midwest and South, while high levels persist in the Northeast, according to WastewaterSCAN.

But it’s not time to let your guard down because high levels of other viruses that cause stomach and respiratory illnesses continue to circulate widely nationwide. Wastewater data currently shows threats from flu, RSV, norovirus, and rotavirus.

The rate of positive flu tests reported to the CDC had been a downward trend since peaking around a rate of 16% in mid-January, but positive test rates are now climbing again, with the most recent weekly rate back around 15%. So far this flu season, 116 children and an estimated 20,000 adults have died from the flu, according to the CDC’s weekly flu publication, FluView.

RSV wastewater detection remains high, especially in the Midwest and Northeast, WastewaterSCAN data shows. But positive RSV test results reported to the CDC are at the lowest point of the 2023 to 2024 season, with less than 2,000 positive results listed for the week of March 9, down from a peak of more than 14,000 cases around Christmas.

Wastewater data tends to offer a real-time (and sometimes predictive) view of pathogen behavior in the general population, since sick people usually wait until symptoms worsen to seek medical care. About 12% of norovirus tests reported to the CDC in the last 3 weeks of February were positive, mirroring an upward trend observed during the same time period last year. In 2023, norovirus peaked in the U.S. in March with a positive test rate around 16%, CDC data show.

Last year, COVID also followed a downward springtime trend. Around this time last year, there were about 20,000 weekly hospital admissions due to COVID-19, compared to just over 13,000 in early March this year. All COVID metrics, including the positive test rate, hospitalizations, and ER visits, are currently trending downward, the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker indicates. The positive COVID test rate is 5%, and just 1% of ER visits in the U.S. involve a COVID-19 diagnosis.

“We’re seeing a downward trend, which is fantastic,” Marlene Wolfe, PhD, WastewaterSCAN’s program director, told USA Today. “Hopefully, that pattern continues as we enjoy some warmer weather and longer daylight.”
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

COVID-19 may be headed toward a springtime retreat. 

The indication comes from declining levels of SARS-CoV-2 being detected in wastewater over the past 3 weeks. Virus levels are already considered “low” throughout western U.S. states. Detections are at medium levels in the Midwest and South, while high levels persist in the Northeast, according to WastewaterSCAN.

But it’s not time to let your guard down because high levels of other viruses that cause stomach and respiratory illnesses continue to circulate widely nationwide. Wastewater data currently shows threats from flu, RSV, norovirus, and rotavirus.

The rate of positive flu tests reported to the CDC had been a downward trend since peaking around a rate of 16% in mid-January, but positive test rates are now climbing again, with the most recent weekly rate back around 15%. So far this flu season, 116 children and an estimated 20,000 adults have died from the flu, according to the CDC’s weekly flu publication, FluView.

RSV wastewater detection remains high, especially in the Midwest and Northeast, WastewaterSCAN data shows. But positive RSV test results reported to the CDC are at the lowest point of the 2023 to 2024 season, with less than 2,000 positive results listed for the week of March 9, down from a peak of more than 14,000 cases around Christmas.

Wastewater data tends to offer a real-time (and sometimes predictive) view of pathogen behavior in the general population, since sick people usually wait until symptoms worsen to seek medical care. About 12% of norovirus tests reported to the CDC in the last 3 weeks of February were positive, mirroring an upward trend observed during the same time period last year. In 2023, norovirus peaked in the U.S. in March with a positive test rate around 16%, CDC data show.

Last year, COVID also followed a downward springtime trend. Around this time last year, there were about 20,000 weekly hospital admissions due to COVID-19, compared to just over 13,000 in early March this year. All COVID metrics, including the positive test rate, hospitalizations, and ER visits, are currently trending downward, the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker indicates. The positive COVID test rate is 5%, and just 1% of ER visits in the U.S. involve a COVID-19 diagnosis.

“We’re seeing a downward trend, which is fantastic,” Marlene Wolfe, PhD, WastewaterSCAN’s program director, told USA Today. “Hopefully, that pattern continues as we enjoy some warmer weather and longer daylight.”
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Routine use of rapid respiratory virus testing in the emergency department (ED) appears to show limited benefit among patients with signs and symptoms of acute respiratory infection (ARI), according to a new study.

Rapid viral testing wasn’t associated with reduced antibiotic use, ED length of stay, or rates of ED return visits or hospitalization. However, testing was associated with a small increase in antiviral prescriptions and a small reduction in blood tests and chest x-rays.

“Our interest in studying the benefits of rapid viral testing in emergency departments comes from a commitment to diagnostic stewardship — ensuring that the right tests are administered to the right patients at the right time while also curbing overuse,” said lead author Tilmann Schober, MD, a resident in pediatric infectious disease at McGill University and Montreal Children’s Hospital.

“Following the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, we have seen a surge in the availability of rapid viral testing, including molecular multiplex panels,” he said. “However, the actual impact of these advancements on patient care in the ED remains uncertain.”

The study was published online on March 4, 2024, in JAMA Internal Medicine).
 

Rapid Viral Testing

Dr. Schober and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 randomized clinical trials to understand whether rapid testing for respiratory viruses was associated with patient treatment in the ED.

In particular, the research team looked at whether testing in patients with suspected ARI was associated with decreased antibiotic use, ancillary tests, ED length of stay, ED return visits, hospitalization, and increased influenza antiviral treatment.

Among the trials, seven studies included molecular testing, and eight used multiplex panels, including influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), influenza/RSV/adenovirus/parainfluenza, or a panel of 15 or more respiratory viruses. No study evaluated testing for SARS-CoV-2. The research team reported risk ratios (RRs) and risk difference estimates.

In general, routine rapid viral testing was associated with higher use of influenza antivirals (RR, 1.33) and lower use of chest radiography (RR, 0.88) and blood tests (RR, 0.81). However, the magnitude of these effects was small. For instance, to achieve one additional viral prescription, 70 patients would need to be tested, and to save one x-ray, 30 patients would need to be tested.

“This suggests that, while statistically significant, the practical impact of these secondary outcomes may not justify the extensive effort and resources involved in widespread testing,” Dr. Schober said.

In addition, there was no association between rapid testing and antibiotic use (RR, 0.99), urine testing (RR, 0.95), ED length of stay (0 h), return visits (RR, 0.93), or hospitalization (RR, 1.01).

Notably, there was no association between rapid viral testing and antibiotic use in any prespecified subgroup based on age, test method, publication date, number of viral targets, risk of bias, or industry funding, the authors said. They concluded that rapid virus testing should be reserved for patients for whom the testing will change treatment, such as high-risk patients or those with severe disease.

“It’s crucial to note that our study specifically evaluated the impact of systematic testing of patients with signs and symptoms of acute respiratory infection. Our findings do not advocate against rapid respiratory virus testing in general,” Dr. Schober said. “There is well-established evidence supporting the benefits of viral testing in certain contexts, such as hospitalized patients, to guide infection control practices or in specific high-risk populations.”
 

Future Research

Additional studies should look at testing among subgroups, particularly those with high-risk conditions, the study authors wrote. In addition, the research team would like to study the implementation of novel diagnostic stewardship programs as compared with well-established antibiotic stewardship programs.

“Acute respiratory tract illnesses represent one of the most common reasons for being evaluated in an acute care setting, especially in pediatrics, and these visits have traditionally resulted in excessive antibiotic prescribing, despite the etiology of the infection mostly being viral,” said Suchitra Rao, MBBS, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado School of Medicine and associate medical director of infection prevention and control at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora.

Dr. Rao, who wasn’t involved with this study, has surveyed ED providers about respiratory viral testing and changes in clinical decision-making. She and colleagues found that providers most commonly changed clinical decision-making while prescribing an antiviral if influenza was detected or withholding antivirals if influenza wasn’t detected.

“Multiplex testing for respiratory viruses and atypical bacteria is becoming more widespread, with newer-generation platforms having shorter turnaround times, and offers the potential to impact point-of-care decision-making,” she said. “However, these tests are expensive, and more studies are needed to explore whether respiratory pathogen panel testing in the acute care setting has an impact in terms of reduced antibiotic use as well as other outcomes, including ED visits, health-seeking behaviors, and hospitalization.”

For instance, more recent studies around SARS-CoV-2 with newer-generation panels may make a difference, as well as multiplex panels that include numerous viral targets, she said.

“Further RCTs are required to evaluate the impact of influenza/RSV/SARS-CoV-2 panels, as well as respiratory pathogen panel testing in conjunction with antimicrobial and diagnostic stewardship efforts, which have been associated with improved outcomes for other rapid molecular platforms, such as blood culture identification panels,” Rao said.

The study was funded by the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Center. Dr. Schober reported no disclosures, and several study authors reported grants or personal fees from companies outside of this research. Dr. Rao disclosed no relevant relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Routine use of rapid respiratory virus testing in the emergency department (ED) appears to show limited benefit among patients with signs and symptoms of acute respiratory infection (ARI), according to a new study.

Rapid viral testing wasn’t associated with reduced antibiotic use, ED length of stay, or rates of ED return visits or hospitalization. However, testing was associated with a small increase in antiviral prescriptions and a small reduction in blood tests and chest x-rays.

“Our interest in studying the benefits of rapid viral testing in emergency departments comes from a commitment to diagnostic stewardship — ensuring that the right tests are administered to the right patients at the right time while also curbing overuse,” said lead author Tilmann Schober, MD, a resident in pediatric infectious disease at McGill University and Montreal Children’s Hospital.

“Following the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, we have seen a surge in the availability of rapid viral testing, including molecular multiplex panels,” he said. “However, the actual impact of these advancements on patient care in the ED remains uncertain.”

The study was published online on March 4, 2024, in JAMA Internal Medicine).
 

Rapid Viral Testing

Dr. Schober and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 randomized clinical trials to understand whether rapid testing for respiratory viruses was associated with patient treatment in the ED.

In particular, the research team looked at whether testing in patients with suspected ARI was associated with decreased antibiotic use, ancillary tests, ED length of stay, ED return visits, hospitalization, and increased influenza antiviral treatment.

Among the trials, seven studies included molecular testing, and eight used multiplex panels, including influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), influenza/RSV/adenovirus/parainfluenza, or a panel of 15 or more respiratory viruses. No study evaluated testing for SARS-CoV-2. The research team reported risk ratios (RRs) and risk difference estimates.

In general, routine rapid viral testing was associated with higher use of influenza antivirals (RR, 1.33) and lower use of chest radiography (RR, 0.88) and blood tests (RR, 0.81). However, the magnitude of these effects was small. For instance, to achieve one additional viral prescription, 70 patients would need to be tested, and to save one x-ray, 30 patients would need to be tested.

“This suggests that, while statistically significant, the practical impact of these secondary outcomes may not justify the extensive effort and resources involved in widespread testing,” Dr. Schober said.

In addition, there was no association between rapid testing and antibiotic use (RR, 0.99), urine testing (RR, 0.95), ED length of stay (0 h), return visits (RR, 0.93), or hospitalization (RR, 1.01).

Notably, there was no association between rapid viral testing and antibiotic use in any prespecified subgroup based on age, test method, publication date, number of viral targets, risk of bias, or industry funding, the authors said. They concluded that rapid virus testing should be reserved for patients for whom the testing will change treatment, such as high-risk patients or those with severe disease.

“It’s crucial to note that our study specifically evaluated the impact of systematic testing of patients with signs and symptoms of acute respiratory infection. Our findings do not advocate against rapid respiratory virus testing in general,” Dr. Schober said. “There is well-established evidence supporting the benefits of viral testing in certain contexts, such as hospitalized patients, to guide infection control practices or in specific high-risk populations.”
 

Future Research

Additional studies should look at testing among subgroups, particularly those with high-risk conditions, the study authors wrote. In addition, the research team would like to study the implementation of novel diagnostic stewardship programs as compared with well-established antibiotic stewardship programs.

“Acute respiratory tract illnesses represent one of the most common reasons for being evaluated in an acute care setting, especially in pediatrics, and these visits have traditionally resulted in excessive antibiotic prescribing, despite the etiology of the infection mostly being viral,” said Suchitra Rao, MBBS, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado School of Medicine and associate medical director of infection prevention and control at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora.

Dr. Rao, who wasn’t involved with this study, has surveyed ED providers about respiratory viral testing and changes in clinical decision-making. She and colleagues found that providers most commonly changed clinical decision-making while prescribing an antiviral if influenza was detected or withholding antivirals if influenza wasn’t detected.

“Multiplex testing for respiratory viruses and atypical bacteria is becoming more widespread, with newer-generation platforms having shorter turnaround times, and offers the potential to impact point-of-care decision-making,” she said. “However, these tests are expensive, and more studies are needed to explore whether respiratory pathogen panel testing in the acute care setting has an impact in terms of reduced antibiotic use as well as other outcomes, including ED visits, health-seeking behaviors, and hospitalization.”

For instance, more recent studies around SARS-CoV-2 with newer-generation panels may make a difference, as well as multiplex panels that include numerous viral targets, she said.

“Further RCTs are required to evaluate the impact of influenza/RSV/SARS-CoV-2 panels, as well as respiratory pathogen panel testing in conjunction with antimicrobial and diagnostic stewardship efforts, which have been associated with improved outcomes for other rapid molecular platforms, such as blood culture identification panels,” Rao said.

The study was funded by the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Center. Dr. Schober reported no disclosures, and several study authors reported grants or personal fees from companies outside of this research. Dr. Rao disclosed no relevant relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Routine use of rapid respiratory virus testing in the emergency department (ED) appears to show limited benefit among patients with signs and symptoms of acute respiratory infection (ARI), according to a new study.

Rapid viral testing wasn’t associated with reduced antibiotic use, ED length of stay, or rates of ED return visits or hospitalization. However, testing was associated with a small increase in antiviral prescriptions and a small reduction in blood tests and chest x-rays.

“Our interest in studying the benefits of rapid viral testing in emergency departments comes from a commitment to diagnostic stewardship — ensuring that the right tests are administered to the right patients at the right time while also curbing overuse,” said lead author Tilmann Schober, MD, a resident in pediatric infectious disease at McGill University and Montreal Children’s Hospital.

“Following the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, we have seen a surge in the availability of rapid viral testing, including molecular multiplex panels,” he said. “However, the actual impact of these advancements on patient care in the ED remains uncertain.”

The study was published online on March 4, 2024, in JAMA Internal Medicine).
 

Rapid Viral Testing

Dr. Schober and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 randomized clinical trials to understand whether rapid testing for respiratory viruses was associated with patient treatment in the ED.

In particular, the research team looked at whether testing in patients with suspected ARI was associated with decreased antibiotic use, ancillary tests, ED length of stay, ED return visits, hospitalization, and increased influenza antiviral treatment.

Among the trials, seven studies included molecular testing, and eight used multiplex panels, including influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), influenza/RSV/adenovirus/parainfluenza, or a panel of 15 or more respiratory viruses. No study evaluated testing for SARS-CoV-2. The research team reported risk ratios (RRs) and risk difference estimates.

In general, routine rapid viral testing was associated with higher use of influenza antivirals (RR, 1.33) and lower use of chest radiography (RR, 0.88) and blood tests (RR, 0.81). However, the magnitude of these effects was small. For instance, to achieve one additional viral prescription, 70 patients would need to be tested, and to save one x-ray, 30 patients would need to be tested.

“This suggests that, while statistically significant, the practical impact of these secondary outcomes may not justify the extensive effort and resources involved in widespread testing,” Dr. Schober said.

In addition, there was no association between rapid testing and antibiotic use (RR, 0.99), urine testing (RR, 0.95), ED length of stay (0 h), return visits (RR, 0.93), or hospitalization (RR, 1.01).

Notably, there was no association between rapid viral testing and antibiotic use in any prespecified subgroup based on age, test method, publication date, number of viral targets, risk of bias, or industry funding, the authors said. They concluded that rapid virus testing should be reserved for patients for whom the testing will change treatment, such as high-risk patients or those with severe disease.

“It’s crucial to note that our study specifically evaluated the impact of systematic testing of patients with signs and symptoms of acute respiratory infection. Our findings do not advocate against rapid respiratory virus testing in general,” Dr. Schober said. “There is well-established evidence supporting the benefits of viral testing in certain contexts, such as hospitalized patients, to guide infection control practices or in specific high-risk populations.”
 

Future Research

Additional studies should look at testing among subgroups, particularly those with high-risk conditions, the study authors wrote. In addition, the research team would like to study the implementation of novel diagnostic stewardship programs as compared with well-established antibiotic stewardship programs.

“Acute respiratory tract illnesses represent one of the most common reasons for being evaluated in an acute care setting, especially in pediatrics, and these visits have traditionally resulted in excessive antibiotic prescribing, despite the etiology of the infection mostly being viral,” said Suchitra Rao, MBBS, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado School of Medicine and associate medical director of infection prevention and control at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora.

Dr. Rao, who wasn’t involved with this study, has surveyed ED providers about respiratory viral testing and changes in clinical decision-making. She and colleagues found that providers most commonly changed clinical decision-making while prescribing an antiviral if influenza was detected or withholding antivirals if influenza wasn’t detected.

“Multiplex testing for respiratory viruses and atypical bacteria is becoming more widespread, with newer-generation platforms having shorter turnaround times, and offers the potential to impact point-of-care decision-making,” she said. “However, these tests are expensive, and more studies are needed to explore whether respiratory pathogen panel testing in the acute care setting has an impact in terms of reduced antibiotic use as well as other outcomes, including ED visits, health-seeking behaviors, and hospitalization.”

For instance, more recent studies around SARS-CoV-2 with newer-generation panels may make a difference, as well as multiplex panels that include numerous viral targets, she said.

“Further RCTs are required to evaluate the impact of influenza/RSV/SARS-CoV-2 panels, as well as respiratory pathogen panel testing in conjunction with antimicrobial and diagnostic stewardship efforts, which have been associated with improved outcomes for other rapid molecular platforms, such as blood culture identification panels,” Rao said.

The study was funded by the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Center. Dr. Schober reported no disclosures, and several study authors reported grants or personal fees from companies outside of this research. Dr. Rao disclosed no relevant relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

An FDA advisory committee has recommended that the United States switch from a quadrivalent to trivalent influenza vaccine for the next flu season.

The flu vaccine currently in use targets two A strains and two B strains. But the Yamagata/B subtype, which was already in decline, has not been detected worldwide since March 2020, the FDA said. Social distancing and other precautions used to avoid COVID apparently finished it off. 

In response to that change, the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) voted on March 5 to recommend the three-strain flu shot.

VRBPAC recommended the egg-based flu vaccines contain an A/Victoria/4897/2022 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus, an A/Thailand/8/2022 (H3N2)-like virus; and a B/Austria/1359417/2021 (B/Victoria lineage)-like virus.

The committee recommended the cell- or recombinant-based flu vaccines contain an A/Wisconsin/67/2022 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus; an A/Massachusetts/18/2022 (H3N2)-like virus; and a B/Austria/1359417/2021 (B/Victoria lineage)-like virus.

The move is no surprise. The World Health Organization and FDA experts had been recommending the change since last year. 

Jerry Weir, MD, director of the FDA’s Division of Viral Products, said companies that make flu vaccines should have the trivalent shot ready for the 2024-2025  flu season.

“Each of the U.S. influenza vaccine manufacturers have submitted updated regulatory files related to a trivalent influenza vaccine, and approval of all the necessary regulatory submissions is on track for 2024-25,” he said during the advisory committee’s meeting, according to CNN.

“FDA anticipates that there will be an adequate and diverse supply of approved trivalent seasonal influenza vaccines for the United States in the coming season,” the agency said.

U.S. flu vaccine manufacturers will still make a four-strain vaccine for distribution to overseas markets, CNN said.
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

An FDA advisory committee has recommended that the United States switch from a quadrivalent to trivalent influenza vaccine for the next flu season.

The flu vaccine currently in use targets two A strains and two B strains. But the Yamagata/B subtype, which was already in decline, has not been detected worldwide since March 2020, the FDA said. Social distancing and other precautions used to avoid COVID apparently finished it off. 

In response to that change, the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) voted on March 5 to recommend the three-strain flu shot.

VRBPAC recommended the egg-based flu vaccines contain an A/Victoria/4897/2022 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus, an A/Thailand/8/2022 (H3N2)-like virus; and a B/Austria/1359417/2021 (B/Victoria lineage)-like virus.

The committee recommended the cell- or recombinant-based flu vaccines contain an A/Wisconsin/67/2022 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus; an A/Massachusetts/18/2022 (H3N2)-like virus; and a B/Austria/1359417/2021 (B/Victoria lineage)-like virus.

The move is no surprise. The World Health Organization and FDA experts had been recommending the change since last year. 

Jerry Weir, MD, director of the FDA’s Division of Viral Products, said companies that make flu vaccines should have the trivalent shot ready for the 2024-2025  flu season.

“Each of the U.S. influenza vaccine manufacturers have submitted updated regulatory files related to a trivalent influenza vaccine, and approval of all the necessary regulatory submissions is on track for 2024-25,” he said during the advisory committee’s meeting, according to CNN.

“FDA anticipates that there will be an adequate and diverse supply of approved trivalent seasonal influenza vaccines for the United States in the coming season,” the agency said.

U.S. flu vaccine manufacturers will still make a four-strain vaccine for distribution to overseas markets, CNN said.
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

An FDA advisory committee has recommended that the United States switch from a quadrivalent to trivalent influenza vaccine for the next flu season.

The flu vaccine currently in use targets two A strains and two B strains. But the Yamagata/B subtype, which was already in decline, has not been detected worldwide since March 2020, the FDA said. Social distancing and other precautions used to avoid COVID apparently finished it off. 

In response to that change, the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) voted on March 5 to recommend the three-strain flu shot.

VRBPAC recommended the egg-based flu vaccines contain an A/Victoria/4897/2022 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus, an A/Thailand/8/2022 (H3N2)-like virus; and a B/Austria/1359417/2021 (B/Victoria lineage)-like virus.

The committee recommended the cell- or recombinant-based flu vaccines contain an A/Wisconsin/67/2022 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus; an A/Massachusetts/18/2022 (H3N2)-like virus; and a B/Austria/1359417/2021 (B/Victoria lineage)-like virus.

The move is no surprise. The World Health Organization and FDA experts had been recommending the change since last year. 

Jerry Weir, MD, director of the FDA’s Division of Viral Products, said companies that make flu vaccines should have the trivalent shot ready for the 2024-2025  flu season.

“Each of the U.S. influenza vaccine manufacturers have submitted updated regulatory files related to a trivalent influenza vaccine, and approval of all the necessary regulatory submissions is on track for 2024-25,” he said during the advisory committee’s meeting, according to CNN.

“FDA anticipates that there will be an adequate and diverse supply of approved trivalent seasonal influenza vaccines for the United States in the coming season,” the agency said.

U.S. flu vaccine manufacturers will still make a four-strain vaccine for distribution to overseas markets, CNN said.
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan, at the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine.

Very recently, a homeopathic midwife in New York was fined $300,000 for giving out phony injections for kids who were looking to get immunized in order to go to school. She gave pellets, which are sometimes called nosodes, I believe, with homeopathic ingredients, meaning next to nothing in them, and then basically certified that these children — and there were over 1500 of them — were compliant with New York State requirements to be vaccinated to go to school.

However, homeopathy is straight-up bunk. We have seen it again and again discredited as just something that doesn’t work. It has a tradition, but it’s basically nonsense. It certainly doesn’t work as a way to vaccinate anybody.

This midwife basically lied and gave phony certification to the parents of these kids. I’m not talking about the COVID-19 vaccine. I’m talking measles, mumps, rubella, flu, and polio — the childhood immunization schedule. For whatever reason, they put their faith in her and she went along with this fraud.

I think the fine is appropriate, but I think she should be penalized further. Why? When you send 1500 kids to school, mostly in Long Island, New York, but to schools all over the place, you are setting up conditions to bring back epidemic diseases like measles.

We’re already seeing measles outbreaks. At least five states have them. There’s a significant measles outbreak in Philadelphia. Although I can’t say for sure, I believe those outbreaks are directly linked to parents, post–COVID-19, becoming vaccine hesitant and either not vaccinating and lying or going to alternative practitioners like this midwife and claiming that they have been vaccinated.

You’re doing harm not only to the children who you allow to go to school under phony pretenses, but also you’re putting their classmates at risk. We all know that measles is very, very contagious. You’re risking the return of a disease that leads to hospitalization and sometimes even death. That is basically unconscionable.

I think her license should be taken away and she should not be practicing anymore. I believe that anyone who is involved in this kind of phony, dangerous, fraudulent practice ought to be severely punished.

Pre–COVID-19, we had just about gotten rid of measles and mumps. We didn’t see these diseases. Sometimes parents got a bit lazy in childhood vaccination basically because we had used immunization to get rid of the diseases.

Going to alternative healers and allowing people to get away with fraudulent nonsense risks bringing back disabling and deadly killers is not fair to you, me, and other people who are put at risk. It’s not fair to the kids who go to school with other kids who they think are vaccinated but aren’t.

I’m Art Caplan, at the Division of Medical Ethics at the New York University Grossman School of Medicine. Thanks for watching.

Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position); serves as a contributing author and adviser for Medscape.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan, at the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine.

Very recently, a homeopathic midwife in New York was fined $300,000 for giving out phony injections for kids who were looking to get immunized in order to go to school. She gave pellets, which are sometimes called nosodes, I believe, with homeopathic ingredients, meaning next to nothing in them, and then basically certified that these children — and there were over 1500 of them — were compliant with New York State requirements to be vaccinated to go to school.

However, homeopathy is straight-up bunk. We have seen it again and again discredited as just something that doesn’t work. It has a tradition, but it’s basically nonsense. It certainly doesn’t work as a way to vaccinate anybody.

This midwife basically lied and gave phony certification to the parents of these kids. I’m not talking about the COVID-19 vaccine. I’m talking measles, mumps, rubella, flu, and polio — the childhood immunization schedule. For whatever reason, they put their faith in her and she went along with this fraud.

I think the fine is appropriate, but I think she should be penalized further. Why? When you send 1500 kids to school, mostly in Long Island, New York, but to schools all over the place, you are setting up conditions to bring back epidemic diseases like measles.

We’re already seeing measles outbreaks. At least five states have them. There’s a significant measles outbreak in Philadelphia. Although I can’t say for sure, I believe those outbreaks are directly linked to parents, post–COVID-19, becoming vaccine hesitant and either not vaccinating and lying or going to alternative practitioners like this midwife and claiming that they have been vaccinated.

You’re doing harm not only to the children who you allow to go to school under phony pretenses, but also you’re putting their classmates at risk. We all know that measles is very, very contagious. You’re risking the return of a disease that leads to hospitalization and sometimes even death. That is basically unconscionable.

I think her license should be taken away and she should not be practicing anymore. I believe that anyone who is involved in this kind of phony, dangerous, fraudulent practice ought to be severely punished.

Pre–COVID-19, we had just about gotten rid of measles and mumps. We didn’t see these diseases. Sometimes parents got a bit lazy in childhood vaccination basically because we had used immunization to get rid of the diseases.

Going to alternative healers and allowing people to get away with fraudulent nonsense risks bringing back disabling and deadly killers is not fair to you, me, and other people who are put at risk. It’s not fair to the kids who go to school with other kids who they think are vaccinated but aren’t.

I’m Art Caplan, at the Division of Medical Ethics at the New York University Grossman School of Medicine. Thanks for watching.

Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position); serves as a contributing author and adviser for Medscape.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan, at the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine.

Very recently, a homeopathic midwife in New York was fined $300,000 for giving out phony injections for kids who were looking to get immunized in order to go to school. She gave pellets, which are sometimes called nosodes, I believe, with homeopathic ingredients, meaning next to nothing in them, and then basically certified that these children — and there were over 1500 of them — were compliant with New York State requirements to be vaccinated to go to school.

However, homeopathy is straight-up bunk. We have seen it again and again discredited as just something that doesn’t work. It has a tradition, but it’s basically nonsense. It certainly doesn’t work as a way to vaccinate anybody.

This midwife basically lied and gave phony certification to the parents of these kids. I’m not talking about the COVID-19 vaccine. I’m talking measles, mumps, rubella, flu, and polio — the childhood immunization schedule. For whatever reason, they put their faith in her and she went along with this fraud.

I think the fine is appropriate, but I think she should be penalized further. Why? When you send 1500 kids to school, mostly in Long Island, New York, but to schools all over the place, you are setting up conditions to bring back epidemic diseases like measles.

We’re already seeing measles outbreaks. At least five states have them. There’s a significant measles outbreak in Philadelphia. Although I can’t say for sure, I believe those outbreaks are directly linked to parents, post–COVID-19, becoming vaccine hesitant and either not vaccinating and lying or going to alternative practitioners like this midwife and claiming that they have been vaccinated.

You’re doing harm not only to the children who you allow to go to school under phony pretenses, but also you’re putting their classmates at risk. We all know that measles is very, very contagious. You’re risking the return of a disease that leads to hospitalization and sometimes even death. That is basically unconscionable.

I think her license should be taken away and she should not be practicing anymore. I believe that anyone who is involved in this kind of phony, dangerous, fraudulent practice ought to be severely punished.

Pre–COVID-19, we had just about gotten rid of measles and mumps. We didn’t see these diseases. Sometimes parents got a bit lazy in childhood vaccination basically because we had used immunization to get rid of the diseases.

Going to alternative healers and allowing people to get away with fraudulent nonsense risks bringing back disabling and deadly killers is not fair to you, me, and other people who are put at risk. It’s not fair to the kids who go to school with other kids who they think are vaccinated but aren’t.

I’m Art Caplan, at the Division of Medical Ethics at the New York University Grossman School of Medicine. Thanks for watching.

Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position); serves as a contributing author and adviser for Medscape.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A new study shows young children with October birthdays may have better protection against flu. Children tend to receive vaccinations at regular preventive visits the month they were born, and October happens to be an optimal time to get the flu vaccine, the researchers said.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the MarketScan Research Database between 2011 and 2018.
• They focused on 819,223 children aged 2-5 years who were vaccinated against influenza between August 1 and January 31 and whose birthdays fell during that window.

TAKEAWAY:

• Children born in October had the lowest rate of influenza diagnosis, with an average diagnosis rate of 2.7%, whereas those born in August had a diagnosis rate of 3%.
• Compared with children born in August, the adjusted odds ratio for influenza diagnosis in children born in October was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.85-0.92).

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings support current recommendations that children be vaccinated in October preceding a typical influenza season,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

Anupam B. Jena, MD, PhD, with Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, was the corresponding author on the study. The research was published online in BMJ .

LIMITATIONS:

The availability of the influenza vaccine and the peak of seasonal flu infections vary by year and region.

DISCLOSURES:

Researchers disclosed consulting fees from pharmaceutical and healthcare companies unrelated to the study.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A new study shows young children with October birthdays may have better protection against flu. Children tend to receive vaccinations at regular preventive visits the month they were born, and October happens to be an optimal time to get the flu vaccine, the researchers said.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the MarketScan Research Database between 2011 and 2018.
• They focused on 819,223 children aged 2-5 years who were vaccinated against influenza between August 1 and January 31 and whose birthdays fell during that window.

TAKEAWAY:

• Children born in October had the lowest rate of influenza diagnosis, with an average diagnosis rate of 2.7%, whereas those born in August had a diagnosis rate of 3%.
• Compared with children born in August, the adjusted odds ratio for influenza diagnosis in children born in October was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.85-0.92).

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings support current recommendations that children be vaccinated in October preceding a typical influenza season,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

Anupam B. Jena, MD, PhD, with Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, was the corresponding author on the study. The research was published online in BMJ .

LIMITATIONS:

The availability of the influenza vaccine and the peak of seasonal flu infections vary by year and region.

DISCLOSURES:

Researchers disclosed consulting fees from pharmaceutical and healthcare companies unrelated to the study.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A new study shows young children with October birthdays may have better protection against flu. Children tend to receive vaccinations at regular preventive visits the month they were born, and October happens to be an optimal time to get the flu vaccine, the researchers said.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the MarketScan Research Database between 2011 and 2018.
• They focused on 819,223 children aged 2-5 years who were vaccinated against influenza between August 1 and January 31 and whose birthdays fell during that window.

TAKEAWAY:

• Children born in October had the lowest rate of influenza diagnosis, with an average diagnosis rate of 2.7%, whereas those born in August had a diagnosis rate of 3%.
• Compared with children born in August, the adjusted odds ratio for influenza diagnosis in children born in October was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.85-0.92).

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings support current recommendations that children be vaccinated in October preceding a typical influenza season,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

Anupam B. Jena, MD, PhD, with Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, was the corresponding author on the study. The research was published online in BMJ .

LIMITATIONS:

The availability of the influenza vaccine and the peak of seasonal flu infections vary by year and region.

DISCLOSURES:

Researchers disclosed consulting fees from pharmaceutical and healthcare companies unrelated to the study.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

You may have never heard of it, but you may have had it. More evidence points to “long flu” being a real phenomenon, with a large study showing symptoms persist at least 4 weeks or more after some people are hospitalized for the flu.

Researchers compared long flu to long COVID-19 and found long flu happened less often and was less severe overall. This difference could be because the flu mostly affects the lungs whereas COVID can affect any number of organ systems in the body.

The investigators were surprised that both long flu and long COVID were linked to a greater burden of health loss, compared to either initial infection.

“I think COVID and long COVID made us realize that infections have long-term consequences, and often the toll of those long-term consequences is much larger than the toll of acute disease,” said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, senior author of the study and chief of research and development at the VA St. Louis Health Care System.

“I know, having studied long COVID for the past 4 years, I should not be surprised. But I am in awe of what these infections can do to the long-term health of affected individuals,” said Dr. Al-Aly, who is also a clinical epidemiologist at Washington University in St. Louis.

Dr. Al-Aly and colleagues Yan Xie, PhD, and Taeyoung Choi, MS, analyzed US Department of Veterans Affairs medical records. They compared 81,280 people hospitalized with COVID to 10,985 people hospitalized with the flu before the COVID pandemic. They checked up to 18 months after initial infections to see who developed long flu or long COVID symptoms.

The study was published online in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

It’s an interesting study, said Aaron E. Glatt, MD, chairman of the Department of Medicine and a hospital epidemiologist at Mount Sinai South Nassau in Oceanside, NY, who was not part of the research.

“There is a concern with many viruses that you can have long-term consequences,” said Dr. Glatt, who is also a fellow of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. He said the possibility of long-term symptoms with the flu is not new, “but it’s nice to have more data.”

People hospitalized with COVID had a 50% higher risk of death during the study period than people hospitalized with the flu. Put another way, for every 100 people admitted to the hospital with COVID, about eight more died than those hospitalized with the flu over the following 18 months. Hospital admissions and admissions to the intensive care unit were also higher in the long COVID group — 20 more people and nine more people, respectively, for every 100 people admitted to the hospital with COVID.

More research is needed, Dr. Glatt said. “With many of these viruses, we don’t understand what they do to the body.” A prospective study to see if antiviral treatments make a difference, for example, would be useful, he noted.

Dr. Al-Aly and colleagues would like to do more studies.

“We need to more deeply understand how and why acute infections cause long-term illness,” he said, noting that he also wants to investigate ways to prevent and treat the long-term effects.

“Much remains to be done, and we are deeply committed to doing our best to develop those answers.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

You may have never heard of it, but you may have had it. More evidence points to “long flu” being a real phenomenon, with a large study showing symptoms persist at least 4 weeks or more after some people are hospitalized for the flu.

Researchers compared long flu to long COVID-19 and found long flu happened less often and was less severe overall. This difference could be because the flu mostly affects the lungs whereas COVID can affect any number of organ systems in the body.

The investigators were surprised that both long flu and long COVID were linked to a greater burden of health loss, compared to either initial infection.

“I think COVID and long COVID made us realize that infections have long-term consequences, and often the toll of those long-term consequences is much larger than the toll of acute disease,” said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, senior author of the study and chief of research and development at the VA St. Louis Health Care System.

“I know, having studied long COVID for the past 4 years, I should not be surprised. But I am in awe of what these infections can do to the long-term health of affected individuals,” said Dr. Al-Aly, who is also a clinical epidemiologist at Washington University in St. Louis.

Dr. Al-Aly and colleagues Yan Xie, PhD, and Taeyoung Choi, MS, analyzed US Department of Veterans Affairs medical records. They compared 81,280 people hospitalized with COVID to 10,985 people hospitalized with the flu before the COVID pandemic. They checked up to 18 months after initial infections to see who developed long flu or long COVID symptoms.

The study was published online in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

It’s an interesting study, said Aaron E. Glatt, MD, chairman of the Department of Medicine and a hospital epidemiologist at Mount Sinai South Nassau in Oceanside, NY, who was not part of the research.

“There is a concern with many viruses that you can have long-term consequences,” said Dr. Glatt, who is also a fellow of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. He said the possibility of long-term symptoms with the flu is not new, “but it’s nice to have more data.”

People hospitalized with COVID had a 50% higher risk of death during the study period than people hospitalized with the flu. Put another way, for every 100 people admitted to the hospital with COVID, about eight more died than those hospitalized with the flu over the following 18 months. Hospital admissions and admissions to the intensive care unit were also higher in the long COVID group — 20 more people and nine more people, respectively, for every 100 people admitted to the hospital with COVID.

More research is needed, Dr. Glatt said. “With many of these viruses, we don’t understand what they do to the body.” A prospective study to see if antiviral treatments make a difference, for example, would be useful, he noted.

Dr. Al-Aly and colleagues would like to do more studies.

“We need to more deeply understand how and why acute infections cause long-term illness,” he said, noting that he also wants to investigate ways to prevent and treat the long-term effects.

“Much remains to be done, and we are deeply committed to doing our best to develop those answers.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

You may have never heard of it, but you may have had it. More evidence points to “long flu” being a real phenomenon, with a large study showing symptoms persist at least 4 weeks or more after some people are hospitalized for the flu.

Researchers compared long flu to long COVID-19 and found long flu happened less often and was less severe overall. This difference could be because the flu mostly affects the lungs whereas COVID can affect any number of organ systems in the body.

The investigators were surprised that both long flu and long COVID were linked to a greater burden of health loss, compared to either initial infection.

“I think COVID and long COVID made us realize that infections have long-term consequences, and often the toll of those long-term consequences is much larger than the toll of acute disease,” said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, senior author of the study and chief of research and development at the VA St. Louis Health Care System.

“I know, having studied long COVID for the past 4 years, I should not be surprised. But I am in awe of what these infections can do to the long-term health of affected individuals,” said Dr. Al-Aly, who is also a clinical epidemiologist at Washington University in St. Louis.

Dr. Al-Aly and colleagues Yan Xie, PhD, and Taeyoung Choi, MS, analyzed US Department of Veterans Affairs medical records. They compared 81,280 people hospitalized with COVID to 10,985 people hospitalized with the flu before the COVID pandemic. They checked up to 18 months after initial infections to see who developed long flu or long COVID symptoms.

The study was published online in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

It’s an interesting study, said Aaron E. Glatt, MD, chairman of the Department of Medicine and a hospital epidemiologist at Mount Sinai South Nassau in Oceanside, NY, who was not part of the research.

“There is a concern with many viruses that you can have long-term consequences,” said Dr. Glatt, who is also a fellow of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. He said the possibility of long-term symptoms with the flu is not new, “but it’s nice to have more data.”

People hospitalized with COVID had a 50% higher risk of death during the study period than people hospitalized with the flu. Put another way, for every 100 people admitted to the hospital with COVID, about eight more died than those hospitalized with the flu over the following 18 months. Hospital admissions and admissions to the intensive care unit were also higher in the long COVID group — 20 more people and nine more people, respectively, for every 100 people admitted to the hospital with COVID.

More research is needed, Dr. Glatt said. “With many of these viruses, we don’t understand what they do to the body.” A prospective study to see if antiviral treatments make a difference, for example, would be useful, he noted.

Dr. Al-Aly and colleagues would like to do more studies.

“We need to more deeply understand how and why acute infections cause long-term illness,” he said, noting that he also wants to investigate ways to prevent and treat the long-term effects.

“Much remains to be done, and we are deeply committed to doing our best to develop those answers.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Wastewater monitoring can accurately gauge influenza A and B and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) at the population level, and help inform public response to common seasonal illnesses, according to new research reported at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

The analysis of wastewater in Calgary (Alta.) found a “positive correlation” between positivity rates for these three viruses in wastewater and weekly laboratory-confirmed clinical cases and test positivity rates, study investigator Kristine Du, with Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, told this news organization.

Wastewater monitoring of viral activity has become an established tool for COVID-19 pandemic monitoring, providing a leading indicator to cases and hospitalizations. However, less is known about its potential for monitoring endemic respiratory viruses.

The new study shows that wastewater-based surveillance is a “robust and adaptable” tool for community-level surveillance of seasonal respiratory viruses – “one that can complement health care clinical testing because it’s independent from testing biases, and we can actually correlate our cases very well with it,” Ms. Du said during a preconference media briefing.
 

Tracking community trends

For the study, Ms. Du and colleagues assessed the occurrence of influenza A, influenza B, and RSV RNA in all three wastewater treatment plants in Calgary between March 2022 and April 2023 and its correlation with clinical disease.

They found that viral signals in Calgary’s wastewater for influenza A and B and RSV correlated significantly with weekly confirmed clinical cases in Calgary residents.

Influenza A peaked in Calgary’s wastewater between November and December 2022; influenza B peaked between February and April 2023; and RSV between November 2022 and February 2023.

“Wastewater gives us unbiased, objective, and comprehensive data. It can be used in addition to other testing for assessing the community burden that disease may have, and it is complementary to clinical testing,” Ms. Du said.

Their team, Ms. Du said, is continuing to proactively monitor wastewater for influenza and RSV, as well as other agents of “pandemic potential to make sure we know what could affect humans – and make sure everyone is aware of that.”

Commenting on the research, briefing moderator Belinda Ostrowsky, MD, MPH, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, said, “Wastewater surveillance illustrates how understanding community levels of viral trends can identify hotspots, inform local public health decision-making, and prepare clinicians and hospitals for potential outreach. This topic is particularly timely as we head into the flu and RSV season.”

The study had no commercial funding. Ms. Du and Dr. Ostrowsky report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Wastewater monitoring can accurately gauge influenza A and B and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) at the population level, and help inform public response to common seasonal illnesses, according to new research reported at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

The analysis of wastewater in Calgary (Alta.) found a “positive correlation” between positivity rates for these three viruses in wastewater and weekly laboratory-confirmed clinical cases and test positivity rates, study investigator Kristine Du, with Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, told this news organization.

Wastewater monitoring of viral activity has become an established tool for COVID-19 pandemic monitoring, providing a leading indicator to cases and hospitalizations. However, less is known about its potential for monitoring endemic respiratory viruses.

The new study shows that wastewater-based surveillance is a “robust and adaptable” tool for community-level surveillance of seasonal respiratory viruses – “one that can complement health care clinical testing because it’s independent from testing biases, and we can actually correlate our cases very well with it,” Ms. Du said during a preconference media briefing.
 

Tracking community trends

For the study, Ms. Du and colleagues assessed the occurrence of influenza A, influenza B, and RSV RNA in all three wastewater treatment plants in Calgary between March 2022 and April 2023 and its correlation with clinical disease.

They found that viral signals in Calgary’s wastewater for influenza A and B and RSV correlated significantly with weekly confirmed clinical cases in Calgary residents.

Influenza A peaked in Calgary’s wastewater between November and December 2022; influenza B peaked between February and April 2023; and RSV between November 2022 and February 2023.

“Wastewater gives us unbiased, objective, and comprehensive data. It can be used in addition to other testing for assessing the community burden that disease may have, and it is complementary to clinical testing,” Ms. Du said.

Their team, Ms. Du said, is continuing to proactively monitor wastewater for influenza and RSV, as well as other agents of “pandemic potential to make sure we know what could affect humans – and make sure everyone is aware of that.”

Commenting on the research, briefing moderator Belinda Ostrowsky, MD, MPH, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, said, “Wastewater surveillance illustrates how understanding community levels of viral trends can identify hotspots, inform local public health decision-making, and prepare clinicians and hospitals for potential outreach. This topic is particularly timely as we head into the flu and RSV season.”

The study had no commercial funding. Ms. Du and Dr. Ostrowsky report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Wastewater monitoring can accurately gauge influenza A and B and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) at the population level, and help inform public response to common seasonal illnesses, according to new research reported at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

The analysis of wastewater in Calgary (Alta.) found a “positive correlation” between positivity rates for these three viruses in wastewater and weekly laboratory-confirmed clinical cases and test positivity rates, study investigator Kristine Du, with Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, told this news organization.

Wastewater monitoring of viral activity has become an established tool for COVID-19 pandemic monitoring, providing a leading indicator to cases and hospitalizations. However, less is known about its potential for monitoring endemic respiratory viruses.

The new study shows that wastewater-based surveillance is a “robust and adaptable” tool for community-level surveillance of seasonal respiratory viruses – “one that can complement health care clinical testing because it’s independent from testing biases, and we can actually correlate our cases very well with it,” Ms. Du said during a preconference media briefing.
 

Tracking community trends

For the study, Ms. Du and colleagues assessed the occurrence of influenza A, influenza B, and RSV RNA in all three wastewater treatment plants in Calgary between March 2022 and April 2023 and its correlation with clinical disease.

They found that viral signals in Calgary’s wastewater for influenza A and B and RSV correlated significantly with weekly confirmed clinical cases in Calgary residents.

Influenza A peaked in Calgary’s wastewater between November and December 2022; influenza B peaked between February and April 2023; and RSV between November 2022 and February 2023.

“Wastewater gives us unbiased, objective, and comprehensive data. It can be used in addition to other testing for assessing the community burden that disease may have, and it is complementary to clinical testing,” Ms. Du said.

Their team, Ms. Du said, is continuing to proactively monitor wastewater for influenza and RSV, as well as other agents of “pandemic potential to make sure we know what could affect humans – and make sure everyone is aware of that.”

Commenting on the research, briefing moderator Belinda Ostrowsky, MD, MPH, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, said, “Wastewater surveillance illustrates how understanding community levels of viral trends can identify hotspots, inform local public health decision-making, and prepare clinicians and hospitals for potential outreach. This topic is particularly timely as we head into the flu and RSV season.”

The study had no commercial funding. Ms. Du and Dr. Ostrowsky report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine, where I’m the director.

It’s flu season, yet again. For many parts of the country, we’re already in the thick of it, and for other places, we’re going to have flu outbreaks continuing and intensifying. I’ve long believed that every health care institution – nursing homes, hospitals, clinics, home care, hospice – should require flu shots for all doctors and all nurses because it is the easiest, cheapest, and most ethical way to protect the workforce, who you need to be in there when flu outbreaks take place, and to protect patients against getting the flu when they come into hospital settings and get exposed to health care workers who may have the flu already but don’t know it.

In a recent poll, I was happy to see that the majority of physicians surveyed agreed with me: 65% said they supported mandatory flu vaccination in hospitals and only 23% said they did not. I think flu vaccination is something that has already been shown to be useful and important, not only in stopping people from getting the flu but also in making sure that they don’t get as sick when they get the flu.

Just like COVID-19 vaccination, it doesn’t always prevent somebody from getting infected, but if you get it, it keeps you from winding up sick at home, or worse – from dying and winding up in the morgue. Flu kills many, many people every year. We don’t want that to happen. A flu vaccine will really help prevent deaths, help prevent the number of symptoms that somebody gets, and will get people back to work. The benefits are pretty clear.

Does the flu vaccine work equally well every year? It does not. Some years, the strains that are picked for the vaccine don’t match the ones that circulate, and we don’t get as much protection as we hoped for. I think the safety side is so strong that it’s worth making the investment and the effort to promote mandatory flu vaccination.

Can you opt out on religious grounds? Well, some hospitals permit that at New York University. You have to go before a committee and make a case that your exemption on religious grounds is based on an authentic set of beliefs that are deeply held, and not just something you thought up the day before flu vaccine requirements went into effect.

There may be room for some exemptions – obviously, for health reasons. If people think that the flu vaccine is dangerous to them and can get a physician to agree and sign off that they are not appropriate to vaccinate, okay.

On the other hand, if you’re working with an especially vulnerable population – newborns, people who are immunosuppressed – then I think you’ve got to be vaccinated and you shouldn’t be working around people who are at huge risk of getting the flu if you refuse to be vaccinated or, for that matter, can’t be vaccinated.

Would I extend these mandates? Yes, I would. I’d extend them to COVID-19 vaccination and to measles vaccination. I think physicians and nurses should be good role models. They should get vaccinated. We know that the best available evidence says that vaccination for infectious disease is safe. It is really the best thing we can do to combat a variety of diseases such as the flu and COVID-19.

It seems to me that, in addition, the data that are out there in terms of risks from flu and COVID-19 – deaths in places like nursing homes – are overwhelming about the importance of trying to get staff vaccinated so they don’t bring flu into an institutionalized population. This is similar for prison health and many other settings where people are kept close together and staff may move from place to place, rotating from institution to institution, spreading infectious disease.

I’m going to go with the poll. Let’s keep pushing for health care workers to do the right thing and to be good role models. Let’s get everybody a flu vaccination. Let’s extend it to a COVID-19 vaccination and its boosters.

Let’s try to show the nation that health care is going to be guided by good science, a duty to one’s own health, and a duty to one’s patients. It shouldn’t be political. It should be based on what works best for the interests of health care providers and those they care for.

I’m Art Caplan at the New York University Grossman School of Medicine. Thanks for watching.
 

Dr. Caplan has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). Serves as a contributing author and advisor for Medscape. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine, where I’m the director.

It’s flu season, yet again. For many parts of the country, we’re already in the thick of it, and for other places, we’re going to have flu outbreaks continuing and intensifying. I’ve long believed that every health care institution – nursing homes, hospitals, clinics, home care, hospice – should require flu shots for all doctors and all nurses because it is the easiest, cheapest, and most ethical way to protect the workforce, who you need to be in there when flu outbreaks take place, and to protect patients against getting the flu when they come into hospital settings and get exposed to health care workers who may have the flu already but don’t know it.

In a recent poll, I was happy to see that the majority of physicians surveyed agreed with me: 65% said they supported mandatory flu vaccination in hospitals and only 23% said they did not. I think flu vaccination is something that has already been shown to be useful and important, not only in stopping people from getting the flu but also in making sure that they don’t get as sick when they get the flu.

Just like COVID-19 vaccination, it doesn’t always prevent somebody from getting infected, but if you get it, it keeps you from winding up sick at home, or worse – from dying and winding up in the morgue. Flu kills many, many people every year. We don’t want that to happen. A flu vaccine will really help prevent deaths, help prevent the number of symptoms that somebody gets, and will get people back to work. The benefits are pretty clear.

Does the flu vaccine work equally well every year? It does not. Some years, the strains that are picked for the vaccine don’t match the ones that circulate, and we don’t get as much protection as we hoped for. I think the safety side is so strong that it’s worth making the investment and the effort to promote mandatory flu vaccination.

Can you opt out on religious grounds? Well, some hospitals permit that at New York University. You have to go before a committee and make a case that your exemption on religious grounds is based on an authentic set of beliefs that are deeply held, and not just something you thought up the day before flu vaccine requirements went into effect.

There may be room for some exemptions – obviously, for health reasons. If people think that the flu vaccine is dangerous to them and can get a physician to agree and sign off that they are not appropriate to vaccinate, okay.

On the other hand, if you’re working with an especially vulnerable population – newborns, people who are immunosuppressed – then I think you’ve got to be vaccinated and you shouldn’t be working around people who are at huge risk of getting the flu if you refuse to be vaccinated or, for that matter, can’t be vaccinated.

Would I extend these mandates? Yes, I would. I’d extend them to COVID-19 vaccination and to measles vaccination. I think physicians and nurses should be good role models. They should get vaccinated. We know that the best available evidence says that vaccination for infectious disease is safe. It is really the best thing we can do to combat a variety of diseases such as the flu and COVID-19.

It seems to me that, in addition, the data that are out there in terms of risks from flu and COVID-19 – deaths in places like nursing homes – are overwhelming about the importance of trying to get staff vaccinated so they don’t bring flu into an institutionalized population. This is similar for prison health and many other settings where people are kept close together and staff may move from place to place, rotating from institution to institution, spreading infectious disease.

I’m going to go with the poll. Let’s keep pushing for health care workers to do the right thing and to be good role models. Let’s get everybody a flu vaccination. Let’s extend it to a COVID-19 vaccination and its boosters.

Let’s try to show the nation that health care is going to be guided by good science, a duty to one’s own health, and a duty to one’s patients. It shouldn’t be political. It should be based on what works best for the interests of health care providers and those they care for.

I’m Art Caplan at the New York University Grossman School of Medicine. Thanks for watching.
 

Dr. Caplan has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). Serves as a contributing author and advisor for Medscape. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine, where I’m the director.

It’s flu season, yet again. For many parts of the country, we’re already in the thick of it, and for other places, we’re going to have flu outbreaks continuing and intensifying. I’ve long believed that every health care institution – nursing homes, hospitals, clinics, home care, hospice – should require flu shots for all doctors and all nurses because it is the easiest, cheapest, and most ethical way to protect the workforce, who you need to be in there when flu outbreaks take place, and to protect patients against getting the flu when they come into hospital settings and get exposed to health care workers who may have the flu already but don’t know it.

In a recent poll, I was happy to see that the majority of physicians surveyed agreed with me: 65% said they supported mandatory flu vaccination in hospitals and only 23% said they did not. I think flu vaccination is something that has already been shown to be useful and important, not only in stopping people from getting the flu but also in making sure that they don’t get as sick when they get the flu.

Just like COVID-19 vaccination, it doesn’t always prevent somebody from getting infected, but if you get it, it keeps you from winding up sick at home, or worse – from dying and winding up in the morgue. Flu kills many, many people every year. We don’t want that to happen. A flu vaccine will really help prevent deaths, help prevent the number of symptoms that somebody gets, and will get people back to work. The benefits are pretty clear.

Does the flu vaccine work equally well every year? It does not. Some years, the strains that are picked for the vaccine don’t match the ones that circulate, and we don’t get as much protection as we hoped for. I think the safety side is so strong that it’s worth making the investment and the effort to promote mandatory flu vaccination.

Can you opt out on religious grounds? Well, some hospitals permit that at New York University. You have to go before a committee and make a case that your exemption on religious grounds is based on an authentic set of beliefs that are deeply held, and not just something you thought up the day before flu vaccine requirements went into effect.

There may be room for some exemptions – obviously, for health reasons. If people think that the flu vaccine is dangerous to them and can get a physician to agree and sign off that they are not appropriate to vaccinate, okay.

On the other hand, if you’re working with an especially vulnerable population – newborns, people who are immunosuppressed – then I think you’ve got to be vaccinated and you shouldn’t be working around people who are at huge risk of getting the flu if you refuse to be vaccinated or, for that matter, can’t be vaccinated.

Would I extend these mandates? Yes, I would. I’d extend them to COVID-19 vaccination and to measles vaccination. I think physicians and nurses should be good role models. They should get vaccinated. We know that the best available evidence says that vaccination for infectious disease is safe. It is really the best thing we can do to combat a variety of diseases such as the flu and COVID-19.

It seems to me that, in addition, the data that are out there in terms of risks from flu and COVID-19 – deaths in places like nursing homes – are overwhelming about the importance of trying to get staff vaccinated so they don’t bring flu into an institutionalized population. This is similar for prison health and many other settings where people are kept close together and staff may move from place to place, rotating from institution to institution, spreading infectious disease.

I’m going to go with the poll. Let’s keep pushing for health care workers to do the right thing and to be good role models. Let’s get everybody a flu vaccination. Let’s extend it to a COVID-19 vaccination and its boosters.

Let’s try to show the nation that health care is going to be guided by good science, a duty to one’s own health, and a duty to one’s patients. It shouldn’t be political. It should be based on what works best for the interests of health care providers and those they care for.

I’m Art Caplan at the New York University Grossman School of Medicine. Thanks for watching.
 

Dr. Caplan has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). Serves as a contributing author and advisor for Medscape. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s a common scenario. A patient, Agnes, with symptoms of an upper respiratory infection (URI), but what’s the cause? Is it COVID-19, flu, or even RSV? I recently described just such a patient, an obese woman with type 2 diabetes, presenting with fever, cough, myalgia, and fatigue. I asked readers whether they agreed with my management of this patient.

Thank you for your comments as we continue to react to high rates of URIs. Your comments highlight the importance of local resources and practice habits when managing patients with URI.

It was clear that readers value testing to distinguish between infections. However, access to testing is highly variable around the world and is likely to be routinely used only in high-income countries. The Kaiser Family Foundation performed a cost analysis of testing for SARS-CoV-2 in 2020 and found, not surprisingly, wide variability in the cost of testing. Medicare covers tests at rates of $36-$143 per test; a study of list prices for SARS-CoV-2 tests at 93 hospitals found a median cost of $148 per test. And this does not include collection or facility fees. About 20% of tests cost more than $300.

These costs are prohibitive for many health systems. However, more devices have been introduced since that analysis, and competition and evolving technology should drive down prices. Generally, multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for multiple pathogens is less expensive than ordering two or three separate molecular tests and is more convenient for patients and practices alike.

Other reader comments focused on the challenges of getting accurate data on viral epidemiology, and there is certainly a time lag between infection trends and public health reports. This is exacerbated by underreporting of symptoms and more testing at home using antigen tests.

But please do not give up on epidemiology! If a test such as PCR is 90% sensitive for identifying infection, the yield in terms of the number of individuals infected with a particular virus should be high, and that is true when infection is in broad circulation. If 20% of a population of 1,000 has an infection and the test sensitivity is 90%, the yield of testing is 180 true cases versus 20 false positives.

However, if just 2% of the population of 1,000 has the infection in this same scenario, then only 18 true cases are identified. The effect on public health is certainly less, and a lower prevalence rate means that confounding variables, such as how long an individual might shed viral particles and the method of sample collection, have an outsized effect on results. This reduces the validity of diagnostic tests.

Even trends on a national level can provide some insight regarding whom to test. Traditionally, our practice has been to not routinely test patients for influenza or RSV from late spring to early fall unless there was a compelling reason, such as recent travel to an area where these infections were more prevalent. The loss of temporality for these infections since 2020 has altered this approach and made us pay more attention to reports from public health organizations.

I also appreciate the discussion of how to treat Agnes’s symptoms as she waits to improve, and anyone who suffers with or treats a viral URI knows that there are few interventions effective for such symptoms as cough and congestion. A systematic review of 29 randomized controlled trials of over-the-counter medications for cough yielded mixed and largely negative results.

Antihistamines alone do not seem to work, and guaifenesin was successful in only one of three trials. Combinations of different drug classes appeared to be slightly more effective.

My personal favorite for the management of acute cough is something that kids generally love: honey. In a review of 14 studies, 9 of which were limited to pediatric patients, honey was associated with significant reductions in cough frequency, cough severity, and total symptom score. However, there was a moderate risk of bias in the included research, and evidence of honey’s benefit in placebo-controlled trials was limited. Honey used in this research came in a variety of forms, so the best dosage is uncertain.

Clearly, advancements are needed. Better symptom management in viral URI will almost certainly improve productivity across the population and will probably reduce the inappropriate use of antibiotics as well. I have said for years that the scientists who can solve the Gordian knot of pediatric mucus deserve three Nobel prizes. I look forward to that golden day.

Dr. Vega is a clinical professor of family medicine at the University of California, Irvine. He reported a conflict of interest with McNeil Pharmaceuticals.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s a common scenario. A patient, Agnes, with symptoms of an upper respiratory infection (URI), but what’s the cause? Is it COVID-19, flu, or even RSV? I recently described just such a patient, an obese woman with type 2 diabetes, presenting with fever, cough, myalgia, and fatigue. I asked readers whether they agreed with my management of this patient.

Thank you for your comments as we continue to react to high rates of URIs. Your comments highlight the importance of local resources and practice habits when managing patients with URI.

It was clear that readers value testing to distinguish between infections. However, access to testing is highly variable around the world and is likely to be routinely used only in high-income countries. The Kaiser Family Foundation performed a cost analysis of testing for SARS-CoV-2 in 2020 and found, not surprisingly, wide variability in the cost of testing. Medicare covers tests at rates of $36-$143 per test; a study of list prices for SARS-CoV-2 tests at 93 hospitals found a median cost of $148 per test. And this does not include collection or facility fees. About 20% of tests cost more than $300.

These costs are prohibitive for many health systems. However, more devices have been introduced since that analysis, and competition and evolving technology should drive down prices. Generally, multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for multiple pathogens is less expensive than ordering two or three separate molecular tests and is more convenient for patients and practices alike.

Other reader comments focused on the challenges of getting accurate data on viral epidemiology, and there is certainly a time lag between infection trends and public health reports. This is exacerbated by underreporting of symptoms and more testing at home using antigen tests.

But please do not give up on epidemiology! If a test such as PCR is 90% sensitive for identifying infection, the yield in terms of the number of individuals infected with a particular virus should be high, and that is true when infection is in broad circulation. If 20% of a population of 1,000 has an infection and the test sensitivity is 90%, the yield of testing is 180 true cases versus 20 false positives.

However, if just 2% of the population of 1,000 has the infection in this same scenario, then only 18 true cases are identified. The effect on public health is certainly less, and a lower prevalence rate means that confounding variables, such as how long an individual might shed viral particles and the method of sample collection, have an outsized effect on results. This reduces the validity of diagnostic tests.

Even trends on a national level can provide some insight regarding whom to test. Traditionally, our practice has been to not routinely test patients for influenza or RSV from late spring to early fall unless there was a compelling reason, such as recent travel to an area where these infections were more prevalent. The loss of temporality for these infections since 2020 has altered this approach and made us pay more attention to reports from public health organizations.

I also appreciate the discussion of how to treat Agnes’s symptoms as she waits to improve, and anyone who suffers with or treats a viral URI knows that there are few interventions effective for such symptoms as cough and congestion. A systematic review of 29 randomized controlled trials of over-the-counter medications for cough yielded mixed and largely negative results.

Antihistamines alone do not seem to work, and guaifenesin was successful in only one of three trials. Combinations of different drug classes appeared to be slightly more effective.

My personal favorite for the management of acute cough is something that kids generally love: honey. In a review of 14 studies, 9 of which were limited to pediatric patients, honey was associated with significant reductions in cough frequency, cough severity, and total symptom score. However, there was a moderate risk of bias in the included research, and evidence of honey’s benefit in placebo-controlled trials was limited. Honey used in this research came in a variety of forms, so the best dosage is uncertain.

Clearly, advancements are needed. Better symptom management in viral URI will almost certainly improve productivity across the population and will probably reduce the inappropriate use of antibiotics as well. I have said for years that the scientists who can solve the Gordian knot of pediatric mucus deserve three Nobel prizes. I look forward to that golden day.

Dr. Vega is a clinical professor of family medicine at the University of California, Irvine. He reported a conflict of interest with McNeil Pharmaceuticals.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s a common scenario. A patient, Agnes, with symptoms of an upper respiratory infection (URI), but what’s the cause? Is it COVID-19, flu, or even RSV? I recently described just such a patient, an obese woman with type 2 diabetes, presenting with fever, cough, myalgia, and fatigue. I asked readers whether they agreed with my management of this patient.

Thank you for your comments as we continue to react to high rates of URIs. Your comments highlight the importance of local resources and practice habits when managing patients with URI.

It was clear that readers value testing to distinguish between infections. However, access to testing is highly variable around the world and is likely to be routinely used only in high-income countries. The Kaiser Family Foundation performed a cost analysis of testing for SARS-CoV-2 in 2020 and found, not surprisingly, wide variability in the cost of testing. Medicare covers tests at rates of $36-$143 per test; a study of list prices for SARS-CoV-2 tests at 93 hospitals found a median cost of $148 per test. And this does not include collection or facility fees. About 20% of tests cost more than $300.

These costs are prohibitive for many health systems. However, more devices have been introduced since that analysis, and competition and evolving technology should drive down prices. Generally, multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for multiple pathogens is less expensive than ordering two or three separate molecular tests and is more convenient for patients and practices alike.

Other reader comments focused on the challenges of getting accurate data on viral epidemiology, and there is certainly a time lag between infection trends and public health reports. This is exacerbated by underreporting of symptoms and more testing at home using antigen tests.

But please do not give up on epidemiology! If a test such as PCR is 90% sensitive for identifying infection, the yield in terms of the number of individuals infected with a particular virus should be high, and that is true when infection is in broad circulation. If 20% of a population of 1,000 has an infection and the test sensitivity is 90%, the yield of testing is 180 true cases versus 20 false positives.

However, if just 2% of the population of 1,000 has the infection in this same scenario, then only 18 true cases are identified. The effect on public health is certainly less, and a lower prevalence rate means that confounding variables, such as how long an individual might shed viral particles and the method of sample collection, have an outsized effect on results. This reduces the validity of diagnostic tests.

Even trends on a national level can provide some insight regarding whom to test. Traditionally, our practice has been to not routinely test patients for influenza or RSV from late spring to early fall unless there was a compelling reason, such as recent travel to an area where these infections were more prevalent. The loss of temporality for these infections since 2020 has altered this approach and made us pay more attention to reports from public health organizations.

I also appreciate the discussion of how to treat Agnes’s symptoms as she waits to improve, and anyone who suffers with or treats a viral URI knows that there are few interventions effective for such symptoms as cough and congestion. A systematic review of 29 randomized controlled trials of over-the-counter medications for cough yielded mixed and largely negative results.

Antihistamines alone do not seem to work, and guaifenesin was successful in only one of three trials. Combinations of different drug classes appeared to be slightly more effective.

My personal favorite for the management of acute cough is something that kids generally love: honey. In a review of 14 studies, 9 of which were limited to pediatric patients, honey was associated with significant reductions in cough frequency, cough severity, and total symptom score. However, there was a moderate risk of bias in the included research, and evidence of honey’s benefit in placebo-controlled trials was limited. Honey used in this research came in a variety of forms, so the best dosage is uncertain.

Clearly, advancements are needed. Better symptom management in viral URI will almost certainly improve productivity across the population and will probably reduce the inappropriate use of antibiotics as well. I have said for years that the scientists who can solve the Gordian knot of pediatric mucus deserve three Nobel prizes. I look forward to that golden day.

Dr. Vega is a clinical professor of family medicine at the University of California, Irvine. He reported a conflict of interest with McNeil Pharmaceuticals.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

U.S. health officials want to simplify the recommended COVID-19 vaccine protocol, making it more like the process for annual flu shots.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is suggesting a single annual shot. The formulation would be selected in June targeting the most threatening COVID-19 strains, and then people could get a shot in the fall when people begin spending more time indoors and exposure increases. 

Some people, such as those who are older or immunocompromised, may need more than one dose.

A national advisory committee is expected to vote on the proposal at a meeting Jan. 26.

People in the United States have been much less likely to get an updated COVID-19 booster shot, compared with widespread uptake of the primary vaccine series. In its proposal, the FDA indicated it hoped a single annual shot would overcome challenges created by the complexity of the process – both in messaging and administration – attributed to that low booster rate. Nine in 10 people age 12 or older got the primary vaccine series in the United States, but only 15% got the latest booster shot for COVID-19.

About half of children and adults in the U.S. get an annual flu shot, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data.

The FDA also wants to move to a single COVID-19 vaccine formulation that would be used for primary vaccine series and for booster shots.

COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are trending downward, according to the data tracker from the New York Times. Cases are down 28%, with 47,290 tallied daily. Hospitalizations are down 22%, with 37,474 daily. Deaths are down 4%, with an average of 489 per day as of Jan. 22.

A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.

U.S. health officials want to simplify the recommended COVID-19 vaccine protocol, making it more like the process for annual flu shots.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is suggesting a single annual shot. The formulation would be selected in June targeting the most threatening COVID-19 strains, and then people could get a shot in the fall when people begin spending more time indoors and exposure increases. 

Some people, such as those who are older or immunocompromised, may need more than one dose.

A national advisory committee is expected to vote on the proposal at a meeting Jan. 26.

People in the United States have been much less likely to get an updated COVID-19 booster shot, compared with widespread uptake of the primary vaccine series. In its proposal, the FDA indicated it hoped a single annual shot would overcome challenges created by the complexity of the process – both in messaging and administration – attributed to that low booster rate. Nine in 10 people age 12 or older got the primary vaccine series in the United States, but only 15% got the latest booster shot for COVID-19.

About half of children and adults in the U.S. get an annual flu shot, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data.

The FDA also wants to move to a single COVID-19 vaccine formulation that would be used for primary vaccine series and for booster shots.

COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are trending downward, according to the data tracker from the New York Times. Cases are down 28%, with 47,290 tallied daily. Hospitalizations are down 22%, with 37,474 daily. Deaths are down 4%, with an average of 489 per day as of Jan. 22.

A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.

U.S. health officials want to simplify the recommended COVID-19 vaccine protocol, making it more like the process for annual flu shots.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is suggesting a single annual shot. The formulation would be selected in June targeting the most threatening COVID-19 strains, and then people could get a shot in the fall when people begin spending more time indoors and exposure increases. 

Some people, such as those who are older or immunocompromised, may need more than one dose.

A national advisory committee is expected to vote on the proposal at a meeting Jan. 26.

People in the United States have been much less likely to get an updated COVID-19 booster shot, compared with widespread uptake of the primary vaccine series. In its proposal, the FDA indicated it hoped a single annual shot would overcome challenges created by the complexity of the process – both in messaging and administration – attributed to that low booster rate. Nine in 10 people age 12 or older got the primary vaccine series in the United States, but only 15% got the latest booster shot for COVID-19.

About half of children and adults in the U.S. get an annual flu shot, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data.

The FDA also wants to move to a single COVID-19 vaccine formulation that would be used for primary vaccine series and for booster shots.

COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are trending downward, according to the data tracker from the New York Times. Cases are down 28%, with 47,290 tallied daily. Hospitalizations are down 22%, with 37,474 daily. Deaths are down 4%, with an average of 489 per day as of Jan. 22.

A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.