As the winter chill blankets the U.S., a beacon of hope emerges in the fight against the seasonal flu. Early estimates for the 2024 flu season suggest that the flu vaccine is holding its ground, offering a shield of protection to both adults and children alike. Amidst the hustle of everyday life, millions have rolled up their sleeves, a small act that serves as a frontline defense in the annual battle against influenza.
For adults, the vaccine has demonstrated a 40% effectiveness in warding off flu cases severe enough to require medical attention. This statistic is a testament to the relentless efforts of scientists and health officials who work behind the scenes, analyzing strains and predicting the flu's next move. Children, the often most vulnerable among us, have fared even better. The vaccine's effectiveness jumps to an impressive 60% for the younger population, significantly lowering the odds of flu-related doctor visits or hospitalizations.
These figures, while falling within the expected efficacy range of 40% to 60% for flu vaccines, underscore a critical message: vaccination remains a key player in our health defense strategy. This year's success story is partly credited to the vaccine's good match with the circulating flu strains, a crucial factor in its performance. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has been vigilant, monitoring the vaccine's effectiveness through various surveillance systems, including data from hospitals and outpatient clinics.
Despite the encouraging effectiveness rates, the battle is far from over. The CDC reports that vaccination rates hover just below 50% for both eligible children and adults, a figure that highlights the ongoing challenge of achieving widespread immunization. The quest for higher vaccination rates is not merely a numbers game but a critical endeavor to safeguard public health and ease the burden on healthcare systems.
Amidst discussions of effectiveness, concerns have been raised about the potential for diminishing returns from annual flu vaccinations. Dr. Sarah Long of Drexel University brought this issue to light, questioning whether repeated vaccinations might lead to lower immune responses over time. However, Dr. Lisa Grohskopf from the CDC countered these concerns by emphasizing that, on balance, vaccinated individuals consistently fare better than those who forego the flu shot.
As the flu season progresses, the narrative of this year's vaccine effectiveness serves as a crucial reminder of the power of preventative medicine. The dialogue between researchers, healthcare professionals, and the public continues, shaping a collective response to future flu seasons. The CDC's commitment to monitoring and analyzing vaccine performance paves the way for advancements in flu prevention and public health strategies.
In the face of uncertainties and evolving flu strains, the moderate success of the 2024 flu vaccine offers a glimmer of hope and a call to action. It underscores the importance of vaccination as a cornerstone of public health, urging communities to rally together in the ongoing fight against influenza. As we navigate through the remainder of the flu season, let us carry forward the lessons learned and the successes achieved, armed with the knowledge that every vaccination is a step towards a healthier tomorrow.
Share this Article
You are free to share this article under the Attribution 4.0 International license.
Researchers are developing a new recombinant flu vaccine that has the potential to compete with existing vaccines.
Recombinant protein vaccines, like the Novavax vaccine used to fight COVID-19, offer several advantages over conventional vaccines. Theyre easy to precisely produce. Theyre safe, and potentially more effective. And they could require smaller doses.
Because of these traits, there is much interest in developing recombinant influenza vaccines. To date, however, the Food and Drug Administration has approved only one such vaccine.
The researchers at the University at Buffalo hope to add to that number.
Because of the variable nature of the viruses that cause influenza, current vaccines are not optimally effective among the overall population, says Jonathan Lovell, professor in the biomedical engineering department at the University at Buffalo and senior coauthor of the study in the journal Cell Reports. We believe our vaccine candidate has the potential to improve upon this by inducing stronger and broader immunity, and reducing the likelihood of illness and death.
Conventional flu vaccines contain either deactivated microbes that cause influenza, or they are based on weakened forms of the disease. They are made using fertilized chicken eggs or, less commonly, through cell culture-based production.
The vaccine the research team is developing is based on a nanoliposomea tiny spherical sacthat Lovell and colleagues created called cobalt-porphyrin-phospholipid, or CoPoP. The CoPoP platform enables immune response promoting proteins to be displayed on the surface of the nanoliposome, resulting in potent vaccine efficacy.
Alone, these nanoliposomes do not fight disease. But when combined with recombinant influenza proteins that can be generated based on genetic information from viruses, they enhance the immune systems response to disease.
In the new study, the team attached to the nanoliposome a total of six proteinsthree each from two different protein groups, hemagglutinins and neuraminidases. They also added two adjuvants (PHAD and QS21) to boost immune response.
Researchers evaluated the resulting hexaplex nanoliposome in animal models with three common flu strains: H1N1, H3N2, and type B.
Even when administered in low doses, the hexaplex nanoliposome provided superior protection and survival from H1 and N1 when compared to Flublok, which is the sole licensed recombinant influenza vaccine in the US, and Fluaid, an egg-based vaccine. Tests showed comparable levels of protection against H3N2 and type B viruses.
The tests were performed via vaccination and through blood serum transfer from vaccinated mice into non-vaccinated mice.
The combination of the two groups of proteins led to synergistic effects. In particular, the adjuvanted nanoliposomes excelled in the production of functional antibodies and the activation of T cells, which are critical to fighting off serious infection of the flu, says lead author Zachary Sia, a PhD candidate in Lovells lab.
Bruce Davidson, a research associate professor of anesthesiology in the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, is a senior coauthor of the study.
He says using not only hemagglutinin but also neuraminidase antigens to create vaccines is important because it translates into broader immunity and companies will be able to create more doses with less materials. Thats critical for not only the flu but also potential outbreaks like what we saw with COVID-19. There is still much work to be done in fully testing and validating this flu technology, but at this point these early results are quite promising.
Additional coauthors are from the University at Buffalo and McGill University.
While not part of this study, the CoPoP vaccine platform underwent phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trials in South Korea and the Philippines as a COVID-19 vaccine candidate. This is a partnership between UB spinoff company POP Biotechnologies, cofounded by Lovell, and South Korean biotech company EuBiologics.
The researchers have filed patents with The Research Foundation for the State University of New York. Lovell and coauthor Wei-Chiao Huang, postdoctoral scholar in Lovells lab, are employed by POP Biotechnologies.
The National Institutes of Health funded the work.
Source: University at Buffalo
As winter's chill deepens, a beacon of hope emerges in the fight against the seasonal flu. Recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reveals that this year's flu vaccine is performing admirably, providing substantial protection against the virus, particularly among our youngest. In a season where the flu's unpredictability often leaves health professionals guessing, these findings underscore the vaccine's critical role in our public health arsenal.
The effectiveness of the flu vaccine in children this winter is nothing short of remarkable. According to the latest CDC data, we're seeing protection rates ranging from 59% to 67% in preventing medical care for any flu type, with hospitalization prevention rates between 52% and 61%. Against the predominant influenza A H1N1 viruses, the numbers are equally impressive, with effectiveness in children for care prevention ranging from 54% to 61% and an astounding 64% to 89% against influenza B. This level of efficacy paints a picture of a strong shield guarding our children against the ravages of the flu.
For adults, the landscape is a bit more nuanced. While the vaccine shows a 78% effectiveness against influenza B requiring medical care, its performance against H1N1 dips to 25% for preventing medical care and 50% for hospitalizations. However, adults aged 65 and older benefit from specially formulated high-dose or adjuvant-containing vaccines, providing them slightly better protection. Despite these mixed results, the overarching message from health authorities remains clear: vaccination offers a significant layer of defense against the flu.
Amid these findings, a concerning trend emergesthe decline in flu vaccination rates since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Current vaccination rates stand at 51% for children and 48% for adults, with nearly 74% for those aged 65 and older. This drop underscores the need for increased public health efforts to encourage vaccination, especially in light of the substantial protection it offers. As we navigate through the winter months, the CDC continues to recommend annual flu vaccinations for everyone aged 6 months and older, emphasizing that despite the flu's unpredictability, vaccination remains our best defense.
As we reflect on the current flu season's data, it's evident that the flu vaccine is a cornerstone of public health, particularly for our most vulnerable populations. While vaccination rates and the varying effectiveness among different age groups present challenges, the overall message is clear: the flu vaccine is doing its job, providing a crucial buffer against the flu's impact. As the winter continues, let's not forget the power of vaccination in safeguarding our health and the health of those around us.
Just under half of eligible adults got their flu shot this season, CDC data shows.
NEW YORK Early estimates suggest flu shots are performing OK in the current U.S. winter flu season.
The vaccines were around 40% effective in preventing adults from getting sick enough from the flu that they had to go to a doctors office, clinic or hospital, health officials said during a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention vaccines meeting Wednesday. Children who were vaccinated were roughly 60% less likely to get treatment at a doctor's office or hospital, CDC officials said.
Officials generally are pleased if a flu vaccine is 40% to 60% effective.
The shots tend to do better when they are well matched against the circulating flu strains. Officials say that's what's happened during this relatively typical flu season.
Annual flu vaccines are recommended for everyone 6 months and older in the U.S. About half of eligible kids and just under half of adults got flu shots in the last several months, according to CDC data.
The CDC uses several systems to track the vaccines. One is a network of hospitals that offer information on how well the vaccines prevent flu-related illnesses bad enough to require admission. Another draws on outpatient data from urgent care clinics and hospital emergency departments.
Estimates from four different surveillance systems were presented at Wednesday's meeting of a committee that advises the CDC on vaccines. The findings were reported as ranges, but their midpoints hovered close to 40% for adults and around 60% for children.
The adult effectiveness estimate is similar to what CDC initially reported for last flu season. The shots proved less effective in some other recent seasons, the results influenced by what virus strain was dominating and how well the vaccines were matched to it.
One committee member expressed disappointment at recent effectiveness findings.
There seems to be diminishing returns for annual influenza immunization, said Dr. Sarah Long, of Drexel University.
Long asked whether repeated vaccinations, year-after-year, might be leading to lower immune system responses. A CDC official said some researchers have been exploring that question, so far without conclusive results.
One thing that does seem to arise consistently from these things is that in general you are better off if you got vaccinated than if you didn't, said the CDC's Dr. Lisa Grohskopf.
CDC released today updated recommendationsfor how people can protect themselves and their communities from respiratory viruses, including COVID-19. The new guidance brings a unified approach to addressing risks from a range of common respiratory viral illnesses, such as COVID-19, flu, and RSV, which can cause significant health impacts and strain on hospitals and health care workers. CDC is making updates to the recommendations now because the U.S. is seeing far fewer hospitalizations and deaths associated with COVID-19 and because we have more tools than ever to combat flu, COVID, and RSV.
Todays announcement reflects the progress we have made in protecting against severe illness from COVID-19, said CDC Director Dr. Mandy Cohen. However, we still must use the commonsense solutions we know work to protect ourselves and others from serious illness from respiratory virusesthis includes vaccination, treatment, and staying home when we get sick.
As part of the guidance, CDC provides active recommendations on core prevention steps and strategies:
When people get sick with a respiratory virus, the updated guidance recommends that they stay home and away from others. For people with COVID-19 and influenza, treatment is available and can lessen symptoms and lower the risk of severe illness. The recommendations suggest returning to normal activities when, for at least 24 hours, symptoms are improving overall, and if a fever was present, it has been gone without use of a fever-reducing medication.
Once people resume normal activities, they are encouraged to take additional prevention strategies for the next 5 days to curb disease spread, such as taking more steps for cleaner air, enhancing hygiene practices, wearing a well-fitting mask, keeping a distance from others, and/or getting tested for respiratory viruses. Enhanced precautions are especially important to protect those most at risk for severe illness, including those over 65 and people with weakened immune systems. CDCs updated guidance reflects how the circumstances around COVID-19 in particular have changed.While it remains a threat, today it is far less likely to cause severe illness because of widespread immunity and improved tools to prevent and treat the disease. Importantly, states and countries that have already adjusted recommended isolation times have not seen increased hospitalizations or deaths related to COVID-19.
While every respiratory virus does not act the same, adopting a unified approach to limiting disease spread makes recommendations easier to follow and thus more likely to be adopted and does not rely on individuals to test for illness, a practice that data indicates is uneven.
The bottom line is that when people follow these actionable recommendations to avoid getting sick, and to protect themselves and others if they do get sick, it will help limit the spread of respiratory viruses, and that will mean fewer people who experience severe illness, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases Director Dr. Demetre Daskalakis said. That includes taking enhanced precautions that can help protect people who are at higher risk for getting seriously ill.
The updated guidance also includes specific sections with additional considerations for people who are at higher risk of severe illness from respiratory viruses, including people who are immunocompromised, people with disabilities, people who are or were recently pregnant, young children, and older adults. Respiratory viruses remain a public health threat. CDC will continue to focus efforts on ensuring the public has the information and tools to lower their risk or respiratory illness by protecting themselves, families, and communities.
This updated guidance is intended for community settings.There are no changes to respiratory virus guidance for healthcare settings.
NEW YORK (AP) Older U.S. adults should roll up their sleeves for another COVID-19 shot, even if they got a booster in the fall, U.S. health officials said Wednesday.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Americans 65 and older should get another dose of the updated vaccine that became available in September if at least four months has passed since their last shot. In making the recommendation, the agency endorsed guidance proposed by an expert advisory panel earlier in the day.
Most COVID-19 deaths and hospitalizations last year were among people 65 years and older. An additional vaccine dose can provide added protection ... for those at highest risk, CDC Director Dr. Mandy Cohen said in a statement.
The advisory panels decision came after a lengthy discussion about whether to say older people may get the shots or if they should do so. That reflects a debate among experts about how necessary another booster is and whether yet another recommendation would add to the publics growing vaccine fatigue.
Some doctors say most older adults are adequately protected by the fall shot, which built on immunity derived from earlier vaccinations and exposure to the virus itself. And preliminary studies so far have shown no substantial waning in vaccine effectiveness over six months.
However, the bodys vaccine-induced defenses tend to fade over time, and that happens faster in seniors than in other adults. The committee had recommended COVID-19 booster doses for older adults in 2022 and 2023.
COVID-19 remains a danger, especially to older people and those with underlying medical conditions. There are still more than 20,000 hospitalizations and more than 2,000 deaths each week due to the coronavirus, according to the CDC. And people 65 and older have the highest hospitalization and death rates.
Some members of the advisory panel said a should recommendation is meant to more clearly prod doctors and pharmacists to offer the shots.
Most people are coming in either wanting the vaccine or not, said Dr. Jamie Loehr, a committee member and family doctor in Ithaca, New York. I am trying to make it easier for providers to say, Yes, we recommend this.
In September, the government recommended a new COVID-19 shot recipe built against a version of the coronavirus called XBB.1.5. That single-target vaccine replaced combination shots that had been targeting both the original coronavirus strain and a much earlier omicron version.
The CDC recommended the new shots for everyone 6 months and older, and allowed that people with weak immune systems could get a second dose as early as two months after the first.
Most Americans havent listened. According to the latest CDC data, 13% of U.S. children have gotten the shots and about 22% of U.S. adults have. The vaccination rate is higher for adults 65 and older, at nearly 42%.
In each successive vaccine, the uptake has gone down, said Dr. David Canaday, a Case Western Reserve University infectious diseases expert who studies COVID-19 in older people.
People are tired of getting all these shots all the time, said Canaday, who does not serve on the committee. We have to be careful about over-recommending the vaccine.
But there is a subset of Americans those at higher danger of severe illness and death who have been asking if another dose is permissible, said Dr. William Schaffner, a Vanderbilt University vaccines expert who serves on a committee workgroup that has been debating the booster question.
Indeed, CDC survey data suggests that groups biggest worry about the vaccine is whether its effective enough.
Agency officials say that among those who got the latest version of the COVID-19 vaccine, 50% fewer will get sick after they come into contact with the virus compared with those who didnt get the fall shot.
The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institutes Science and Educational Media Group. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
This is a retrospective study of COVID-19 hospitalized patients in Spain during 2020 and 2021 with a nosocomial fungal coinfection. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study analyzing fungal coinfection at a national level in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in Spanish population. We found that (i) The incidence of fungal coinfections in patients with COVID-19 was 1.41%, (ii) Patients with fungal coinfection had a longer general hospital stay, higher ICU admission, mortality and stay, as well as and a greater need for mechanical ventilation, (iii) The respiratory tract was the most frequent site of infection, followed by the genitourinary tract, (iv) Risk factors for the development of fungal infection included surgery, sepsis, age, male sex, obesity and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
Previous studies analyzing the association between fungal coinfections and SARS-CoV-2, reported highly variable incidences, ranging from 0.70% in a study by Garca-Vidal8 to 26.70% in another study by White23. In our study, the incidence found was 1.41%, which is within the lower range of the previously described incidences. Estimating the coinfection rate in all COVID-19 cases is a challenging task as not all patients undergo sequential testing for coinfection. Also, this disparity could be attributed to the different methodologies used in these studies (case series, retrospective studies, prospective studies) with varying numbers of patients, and conducted in different populations.
Critically ill patients have a higher risk of developing coinfections. These patients exhibit increased levels of pro-inflammatory and anti-inflammatory markers, elevated cytokine levels, and reduced CD4+and CD8+lymphocyte levels10,24. These conditions, along with invasive procedures performed in the ICU25, and prolonged hospital stays26, increased the risk of developing fungal coinfections. In our study, patients with fungal coinfection had longer hospital stay, higher risk of death, increased ICU admission, and longer duration of ICU stay.
Furthermore, the most commonly fungal microorganisms found in the population studied, were Candida and Aspergillus that have been previously described2,27. In our cohort, the most frequent site of infection was the respiratory tract. This could be explained by the destruction of the respiratory tract epithelium and suppression of the immune response in the site after viral infections. Also, the antibiotic treatment and the microbiota alteration, may lead to the emergence of fungal infection13. The second most frequent site of infection was the genitourinary tract. This could be attributed to the presence of risk factors in COVID-19 patients that promote the occurrence of fungal infections in the urinary tract, such as renal failure, advanced age, diabetes, cancer, and immune system disorders28.
Multiple factors have been associated with the risk of fungal coinfection in COVID-19 patients, such as admission to the ICU, high-dose steroid administration, presence of diabetes mellitus, COPD, among other15,29,30. In our study, the main risk factors described were surgery, sepsis, obesity, advanced age, men gender, and COPD.
Surgery, especially abdominal surgery, causes damage to the body's natural barrier, which can favor gastrointestinal translocation and lead to Candida infection, as Candida often colonizes the intestines31. This risk factor has not been described in previous studies conducted in COVID-19 patient groups, but in the literature, different risk assessment scales analyze the main risk factors for developing invasive fungal infection in non-COVID-19 patients, such as the scale developed by Len et al.32, where surgery was identified as a significant risk factor, consistent with our study findings. This is the first time that surgery has been described as a risk factor for the development of aspergillosis in patients with SARS-CoV-2. The presence of surgery as a risk factor for the development of aspergillosis in patients with SARS-CoV-2 may not have been previously identified due to the lack of information on surgical procedures in previous studies or because this variable was not considered in those studies. Therefore, further research and data collection are required to better understand the relationship between surgery and fungal infections in COVID-19 patients.
Sepsis and the presence of multiorgan dysfunction further contribute to the occurrence of superinfections due to the immunosuppressive state they induce. Patients with sepsis and multiorgan failure have multiple risk factors for developing fungal infections, such as antibiotic administration, invasive therapeutic strategies33, sepsis-induced immunosuppression34, and intestinal barrier dysfunction35. The presence of sepsis was a significant risk factor for Aspergillus spp. infection in COVID-19 patients, which is consistent with the findings of the meta-analysis by Chong et al.36.
Obese patients have an increased risk of bacterial, viral, and fungal infections37,38 due to the inflammatory state they experience, which leads to elevated proinflammatory cytokines and favors the development of chronic inflammation. Additionally, obese patients often require invasive mechanical ventilation, which further contributes to the development of superinfections39.
We observed that age was independently associated with an increased incidence of fungal infection. Advanced age is a known risk factor for infections due to immunosenescence, which results in reduced activation of the immune system (increased immature T lymphocytes, altered CD4+/CD8+T cell ratio, and decreased immune response), thus promoting the occurrence of infections40,41.
We report that fungal coinfection was more frequent in men than in women. This higher risk in males could be influenced by hormonal factors, genetic factors leading to differences in immune response, or even genetic polymorphisms.
In this research, the presence of COPD was identified as a risk factor for the development of Aspergillus spp. infection in COVID-19 patients, that do not present in patients with invasive candidiasis. This could be explained by the fact that Aspergillus spp. spores are normally cleared by the ciliary action of the respiratory epithelium, but in COPD patients (as in those infected with SARS-CoV-2), this ciliary clearance is impaired, facilitating the invasion of the bronchial mucosa and lung parenchyma42. Additionally, COPD patients often receive inhaled corticosteroid treatment, which can reduce immune activity and predispose them to fungal infection.
Our study presents certain limitations due to its retrospective design, relying on data obtained from the Spanish MBDS. As with any retrospective analysis, there is a possibility of under-coding of variables, leading to incomplete or inaccurate information. This could introduce potential bias and affect the robustness of our findings. Furthermore, the lack of coding for certain analytical variables and multiple admissions of the same patient might have influenced the precision and completeness of our results. Despite the limitations, our study possesses notable strengths. Foremost among these is the substantial sample size, which confers high statistical power and enhances the reliability of our analyses. The extensive dataset enabled us to provide a comprehensive and representative perspective on the epidemiological landscape of fungal co-infections in patients with COVID-19 within the Spanish population. This large-scale approach contributes to a more nuanced understanding of the prevalence and characteristics of fungal infections in this specific context.
Saturday 2 March 2024 16:32, UK
Lockdowns imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic saw changes in newborn babies that may have protected them against allergies, according to a study.
Infants raised when coronavirus social distancing restrictions were in place were found by Irish researchers to have more of the beneficial microbes acquired after birth from their mother, which could act as a defence against disease.
The scientists believe this led "pandemic babies" to have lower than expected rates of allergic conditions, such as to food, compared to pre-COVID babies.
The findings, published in the journal Allergy, highlighted the gut health benefits for the youngsters as a result of the COVID-19 lockdowns, including lower rates of infection and consequent antibiotic use, and increased duration of breastfeeding.
The ecosystem of naturally-occurring bacteria in the gut, known as the microbiome, plays an essential role in human health.
The researchers analysed faecal samples from 351 babies born in the first three months of the pandemic, comparing these with a pre-pandemic group.
Online questionnaires were used to collect information on diet, home environment and health.
Stool samples were collected at six, 12 and 24 months and allergy testing was performed at 12 and 24 months.
The study highlighted significant differences in the microbiome development of babies born during lockdown periods when compared to pre-pandemic babies.
Advertisement
It revealed only about 5% of the lockdown babies had developed a food allergy at age one, compared to 22.8% in the pre-COVID group.
Fewer infections through not being exposed to germs also reduced the need for antibiotics, which kill good bacteria.
Of the lockdown babies only 17% needed an antibiotic by the age of one.
In the pre-pandemic group, 80% of infants had taken antibiotics by 12 months.
Read more on Sky News: Data shows how pop music has changed over the Brit years Musk sues OpenAI for 'perverting' the company's mission
Professor Jonathan Hourihane, consultant paediatrician at Children's Health Ireland Temple Street and joint senior author of the research, said: "This study offers a new perspective on the impact of social isolation in early life on the gut microbiome.
"Notably, the lower allergy rates among newborns during the lockdown could highlight the impact of lifestyle and environmental factors, such as frequent antibiotic use, on the rise of allergic diseases.
"We hope to re-examine these children when they are five years old to see if there are longer-term impacts of these interesting changes in early gut microbiome."
This is a limited version of the story so unfortunately this content is not available. Open the full version
Fellow joint senior author Liam O'Mahony, professor of immunology at University College Cork, said: "While we all start life sterile, communities of beneficial microbes that inhabit our gut develop over the first years of life.
"We took the opportunity to study microbiome development in infants raised during the early COVID-19 era when strict social distancing restrictions were in place, as the complexity of early life exposures was reduced and this facilitated a more accurate identification of the key early life exposures.
"Prior to this study it has been difficult to fully determine the relative contribution of these multiple environmental exposures and dietary factors on early-life microbiome development."
He added: "One fascinating outcome is that due to reduced human exposures and protection from infection, only 17% of infants required an antibiotic by one year of age, which correlated with higher levels of beneficial bacteria such as bifidobacteria.
"The study has provided a rich repository of data, which we will continue to analyse and investigate in the future."
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced Friday that it would wind down much of its remaining guidance specifically targeted at COVID-19, including an official end to a pandemic-era plea for Americans to stay home for five daysafter testing positive.
The agency cited improvements in the rates of hospitalizations and deaths inflicted by the virus this past season for the change in its recommendations.
"COVID-19 remains an important public health threat, but it is no longer the emergency that it once was, and its health impacts increasingly resemble those of other respiratory viral illnesses," the agency said Friday in a report justifying its decision.
click to expand
Instead of offering recommendations specific to COVID-19, the agency said it would switch to offering a "unified, practical approach to addressing risk" from the virus alongside influenza and respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV.
"We're taking this unified approach so things can be simpler and more likely to be followed. And if they're easier and more likely to be followed, then we're protecting everyone, right? So the folks who are more vulnerable were top of mind when we did this," CDC Director Dr. Mandy Cohen told CBS News.
The decision follows a months-long effort started last year to draw up a new "pan-respiratory" approach blending together federal recommendations for COVID-19, flu and RSV. Cohen blamed the emergence of the highly mutated variant BA.2.86 last summer and fall, and the fast-spreading descendant it spawned, JN.1, for delaying the rollout of the new guidance.
"We wanted to see if the trends would hold through another respiratory season. We wanted to see continued decreases in hospitalizations, decreases in deaths, even with that larger change in the virus," Cohen said.
The changes include new guidance for when to stay home when sick, when people should test for COVID-19 and when to put on masks.
Here's the latest about the CDC's new recommendations.
Similar to influenza, where antiviral treatments are available for those who test positive and are more likely to face severe disease, the CDC's new guidance says everyone who is at higher risk should seek outtestingwhen they develop symptoms.
"If you are feeling sick, it is still important to know what you have, because you could get access to treatment. We have treatment for flu and COVID, and treatment can also save someone's life and reduce the risk of long COVID," said Cohen.
For people without additional risk factors, the agency says testing can be an "additional prevention" strategy to choose. Cohen said the agency would also continue to say testing was an option to be "proactive to protect those around you," like before visiting others who might be more vulnerable.
"If it's positive, we see very few false positives, we know that you have COVID. But it is still possible to have a false negative. So it can be reassuring, but it is not a guarantee that you don't have COVID if you see a negative," said Cohen.
A recent CDC survey found that less than half of people would do an at-home COVID-19 test if they had cough or cold symptoms.
It also acknowledged that mild cases are now often not detected by home tests until past the peak of infectiousness, given the risk of false negative results soon after an infection.
"Even when testing occurs, COVID-19 is often not identified early in illness. The overall sensitivity of COVID-19 antigen tests is relatively low and even lower in individuals with only mild symptoms," the CDC said in its report.
The agency's new guidance also moves away from an earlier recommendationon using test results to decide when to stop isolation after an infection.
"While COVID-19 at-home testing can give a rough approximation of whether a person is still infectious, at-home testing for other respiratory viruses is not widely available. CDC guidance throughout the pandemic recognized that repeated testing through the course of illness is not practical for many people," the agency says.
For people who are sick with COVID-19 or another respiratory virus, the CDC will suggest masking as part of five additional days of ramped-up precautions after they are no longer staying home, alongside distancing and improved ventilation.
The agency had previously suggested wearing a mask for up to 10 days after stopping isolation when indoors near other people.
Much of the data the CDC had tracked on COVID-19 alongside other trends, like influenza and RSV, will also continue to be published. But specific benchmarks, which had guided county-by-county recommendations on when people should wear masks to avoid getting sick, are now being discarded.
"This guidance is not going to tie to any specific colors or anything like that. We're trying to give folks broad tools that they can use to protect themselves, and then give them information about what's happening in their community," said Cohen.
Cohen stressed that guidance for health care facilities, like long-term care nursing homes, would not be changing at this time.
It is unclear how benchmarks will be updated for these settings. This past season, some hospitals and other more vulnerable settings had relied on the weekly map to make decisions on when to require masks and take other precautions.
A pandemic-era plea for Americans to isolate at home for five days after testing positive for COVID-19 is also being ended.
Instead, the CDC will urge people sick with symptoms of respiratory viruses to stay home until their fever has disappeared for at least 24 hours without relying on fever-lowering medications and their symptoms are improving.
The agency cited states that have already adopted these kinds of recommendations, like Oregon and California, as well as other countries abroad. Experts have questioned how often the five-day recommendations were followed, given hurdles like the lack of paid sick leave.
"Importantly, states and countries that have already shortened recommended isolation times have not seen increased hospitalizations or deaths related to COVID-19," the agency said.
Over the following five days, the CDC suggests people take additional precautions like distancing, improving ventilation and wearing masks especially around vulnerable people.
"Keep in mind that you may still be able to spread the virus that made you sick, even if you are feeling better. You are likely to be less contagious at this time, depending on factors like how long you were sick or how sick you were," the guidance says.
Alexander Tin is a digital reporter for CBS News based in the Washington, D.C. bureau. He covers the Biden administration's public health agencies, including the federal response to infectious disease outbreaks like COVID-19.
NEW YORK (AP) Americans who test positive for COVID-19 no longer need to stay in isolation for five days, U.S. health officials announced Friday.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention changed its longstanding guidance, saying that people can return to work or regular activities if their symptoms are mild and improving and its been a day since theyve had a fever.
The change comes at a time when COVID-19 is no longer the public health menace it once was. It dropped from being the nations third leading cause of death early in the pandemic to 10th last year.
Most people have some degree of immunity to the coronavirus from past vaccinations or from infections. And many people are not following the five-day isolation guidance anyway, some experts say.
Our goal here is to continue to protect those at risk for severe illness while also reassuring folks that these recommendation are simple, clear, easy to understand, and can be followed, said Dr. Mandy Cohen, the CDCs director
However, some experts worry that the change may increase the risk of infection for those people who are more vulnerable to developing severe illness.
WHY ARE THE GUIDELINES CHANGING?
COVID-19 is not causing as many hospitalizations and deaths as it did in the first years of the pandemic. The change is an effort to streamline recommendations so they are similar to longstanding recommendations for flu and other respiratory viruses. Many people with a runny nose, cough or other symptoms arent testing to distinguish whether its COVID-19, flu, or something else, officials say.
This may not be as stringent, but also emphasizes that all people with respiratory symptoms should stay home while they are sick, said Dr. David Margolius, the head of Clevelands health department.
Theres been no recent change in the science of how long people with COVID-19 are likely contagious, said Jennifer Nuzzo, director of the Pandemic Center at Brown Universitys School of Public Health.
What has changed is how much COVID is harming us as a population, Nuzzo said.
WHAT ARE THE NEW GUIDELINES?
If you have symptoms, stay home until your symptoms are mild and improving and its been a day since youve had a fever. But then you can remain cautious by wearing a mask and keeping a distance from others.
There is no change to guidelines for nursing homes and health care facilities, however.
The agency is emphasizing that people should still try to prevent infections in the first place, by getting vaccinated, washing their hands, and taking steps to bring in more outdoor fresh air.
IS THERE OPPOSITION TO THIS CHANGE?
Yes, and even some who understand the rationale for the change have concerns.
My biggest worry in all of this is that employers will take this change in guidance to require employees to come back to work before they are ready to, before they feel well enough, and before they are not likely to pose harm to their co-workers, Nuzzo said.
IS THIS THE FIRST CHANGE FOR COVID-19 ISOLATION GUIDELINES?
No. The CDC originally advised 10 days of isolation, but in late 2021 cut it to five days for Americans who catch the coronavirus and have no symptoms or only brief illnesses. Under that guidance, isolation only ends if a person has been fever-free for at least 24 hours without the use of fever-reducing medications and if other symptoms are resolving.
At the time, agency officials said the changes were in keeping with evidence that people with the coronavirus were most infectious in the two days before and three days after symptoms develop.
