BBIBP-CorV vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 in patients aged 60 years and older during the Delta-dominant period in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, a test-negative case-control study

COVID-19 vaccine uptake in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (FBiH) accelerated in the second half of 2021, with greater vaccine availability. In this study, we estimated the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of complete primary series BBIBP-CorV vaccine against COVID-19 in patients aged 60 years and older, during the Delta-dominant period, using a test-negative case-control design. Surveillance sites were 11 primary health care centers (PHC) collecting patient data from October 1, 2021, to January 4, 2022, retrospectively according to a common protocol. In total, we included 1711 participants in the analysis: 933 cases and 778 controls. Of the 933 cases, 508 (54.4 %) had mild and 425 (45.6 %) had moderate to severe disease presentation. We observed no effectiveness against mild COVID-19. Overall vaccine effectiveness was 65.0 % (95 %CI: 40.1-79.5) against moderate to severe COVID-19. In time since vaccination analysis, VE was 78.7 % (95 % CI: 54.8-89.9) in patients who received their last dose < 90 days before onset; 66.0 % (95 % CI: -0.5-88.5) in those 90-119 days before onset; 42.1 % (95 % CI: -88.6-82.3) in those 120-149 days before onset and 45.0 % (95 % CI: -94.0-84.4) in those ≥ 150 days before onset. In our study, two doses of BBIBP-CorV provided considerable protection against moderate to severe COVID-19 in older adults, highest within 3 months after second dose, during the Delta-dominant period. Point estimates declined thereafter, suggesting a need for additional doses.

Effectiveness of one and two doses of acellular pertussis vaccines against laboratory-confirmed pertussis requiring hospitalisation in infants: Results of the PERTINENT sentinel surveillance system in six EU/EEA countries, December 2015 - December 2019

BACKGROUND

Monitoring effectiveness of pertussis vaccines is necessary to adapt vaccination strategies. PERTINENT, Pertussis in Infants European Network, is an active sentinel surveillance system implemented in 35 hospitals across six EU/EEA countries. We aim to measure pertussis vaccines effectiveness (VE) by dose against hospitalisation in infants aged <1 year.

METHODS

From December 2015 to December 2019, participating hospitals recruited all infants with pertussis-like symptoms. Cases were vaccine-eligible infants testing positive for Bordetella pertussis by PCR or culture; controls were those testing negative to all Bordetella spp. For each vaccine dose, we defined an infant as vaccinated if she/he received the corresponding dose >14 days before symptoms. Unvaccinated were those who did not receive any dose. We calculated (one-stage model) pooled VE as 100*(1-odds ratio of vaccination) adjusted for country, onset date (in 3-month categories) and age-group (when sample allowed it).

RESULTS

Of 1,393 infants eligible for vaccination, we included 259 cases and 746 controls. Median age was 16 weeks for cases and 19 weeks for controls (p < 0.001). Median birth weight and gestational age were 3,235 g and week 39 for cases, 3,113 g and week 39 for controls. Among cases, 119 (46 %) were vaccinated: 74 with one dose, 37 two doses, 8 three doses. Among controls, 469 (63 %) were vaccinated: 233 with one dose, 206 two doses, 30 three doses. Adjusted VE after at least one dose was 59 % (95 %CI: 36-73). Adjusted VE was 48 % (95 %CI: 5-71) for dose one (416 eligible infants) and 76 % (95 %CI: 43-90) for dose two (258 eligible infants). Only 42 infants were eligible for the third dose.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest moderate one-dose and two-dose VE in infants. Larger sample size would allow more precise estimates for dose one, two and three.

Effectiveness of XBB.1.5 Monovalent COVID-19 Vaccines During a Period of XBB.1.5 Dominance in EU/EEA Countries, October to November 2023: A VEBIS-EHR Network Study

Using a common protocol across seven countries in the European Union/European Economic Area, we estimated XBB.1.5 monovalent vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19 hospitalisation and death in booster-eligible ≥ 65-year-olds, during October-November 2023. We linked electronic records to construct retrospective cohorts and used Cox models to estimate adjusted hazard ratios and derive VE. VE for COVID-19 hospitalisation and death was, respectively, 67% (95%CI: 58-74) and 67% (95%CI: 42-81) in 65- to 79-year-olds and 66% (95%CI: 57-73) and 72% (95%CI: 51-85) in ≥ 80-year-olds. Results indicate that periodic vaccination of individuals ≥ 65 years has an ongoing benefit and support current vaccination strategies in the EU/EEA.

COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic infection with SARS-CoV-2 BA.1/BA.2 lineages among adults and adolescents in a multicentre primary care study, Europe, December 2021 to June 2022

BackgroundScarce European data in early 2021 suggested lower vaccine effectiveness (VE) against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron lineages than previous variants.AimWe aimed to estimate primary series (PS) and first booster VE against symptomatic BA.1/BA.2 infection and investigate potential biases.MethodsThis European test-negative multicentre study tested primary care patients with acute respiratory symptoms for SARS-CoV-2 in the BA.1/BA.2-dominant period. We estimated PS and booster VE among adults and adolescents (PS only) for all products combined and for Comirnaty alone, by time since vaccination, age and chronic condition. We investigated potential bias due to correlation between COVID-19 and influenza vaccination and explored effect modification and confounding by prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.ResultsAmong adults, PS VE was 37% (95% CI: 24-47%) overall and 60% (95% CI: 44-72%), 43% (95% CI: 26-55%) and 29% (95% CI: 13-43%) < 90, 90-179 and ≥ 180 days post vaccination, respectively. Booster VE was 42% (95% CI: 32-51%) overall and 56% (95% CI: 47-64%), 22% (95% CI: 2-38%) and 3% (95% CI: -78% to 48%), respectively. Primary series VE was similar among adolescents. Restricting analyses to Comirnaty had little impact. Vaccine effectiveness was higher among older adults. There was no signal of bias due to correlation between COVID-19 and influenza vaccination. Confounding by previous infection was low, but sample size precluded definite assessment of effect modification.ConclusionPrimary series and booster VE against symptomatic infection with BA.1/BA.2 ranged from 37% to 42%, with similar waning post vaccination. Comprehensive data on previous SARS-CoV-2 infection would help disentangle vaccine- and infection-induced immunity.

Interim 2023/24 influenza A vaccine effectiveness: VEBIS European primary care and hospital multicentre studies, September 2023 to January 2024

Influenza A viruses circulated in Europe from September 2023 to January 2024, with influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 predominance. We provide interim 2023/24 influenza vaccine effectiveness (IVE) estimates from two European studies, covering 10 countries across primary care (EU-PC) and hospital (EU-H) settings. Interim IVE was higher against A(H1N1)pdm09 than A(H3N2): EU-PC influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 IVE was 53% (95% CI: 41 to 63) and 30% (95% CI: -3 to 54) against influenza A(H3N2). For EU-H, these were 44% (95% CI: 30 to 55) and 14% (95% CI: -32 to 43), respectively.

Vaccine effectiveness against influenza hospitalisation in adults during the 2022/2023 mixed season of influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, A(H3N2) and B circulation, Europe: VEBIS SARI VE hospital network

We conducted a multicentre hospital-based test-negative case-control study to measure vaccine effectiveness (VE) against PCR-confirmed influenza in adult patients with severe acute respiratory infection (SARI) during the 2022/2023 influenza season in Europe. Among 5547 SARI patients ≥18 years, 2963 (53%) were vaccinated against influenza. Overall VE against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 was 11% (95% CI: -23-36); 20% (95% CI: -4-39) against A(H3N2) and 56% (95% CI: 22-75) against B. During the 2022/2023 season, while VE against hospitalisation with influenza B was >55%, it was ≤20% for influenza A subtypes. While influenza vaccination should be a priority for future seasons, improved vaccines against influenza are needed.

Influenza vaccine effectiveness in Europe: Results from the 2022-2023 VEBIS (Vaccine Effectiveness, Burden and Impact Studies) primary care multicentre study

Background

Influenza A(H3N2) viruses dominated early in the 2022-2023 influenza season in Europe, followed by higher circulation of influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 and B viruses. The VEBIS primary care network estimated the influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) using a multicentre test-negative study.

Materials and Methods

Primary care practitioners collected information and specimens from patients consulting with acute respiratory infection. We measured VE against any influenza, influenza (sub)type and clade, by age group, by influenza vaccine target group and by time since vaccination, using logistic regression.

Results

We included 38 058 patients, of which 3786 were influenza A(H3N2), 1548 influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 and 3275 influenza B cases. Against influenza A(H3N2), VE was 36% (95% CI: 25-45) among all ages and ranged between 30% and 52% by age group and target group. VE against influenza A(H3N2) clade 2b was 38% (95% CI: 25-49). Overall, VE against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 was 46% (95% CI: 35-56) and ranged between 29% and 59% by age group and target group. VE against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 clade 5a.2a was 56% (95% CI: 46-65) and 79% (95% CI: 64-88) against clade 5a.2a.1. VE against influenza B was 76% (95% CI: 70-81); overall, 84%, 72% and 71% were among 0-14-year-olds, 15-64-year-olds and those in the influenza vaccination target group, respectively. VE against influenza B with a position 197 mutation of the hemagglutinin (HA) gene was 79% (95% CI: 73-85) and 90% (95% CI: 85-94) without this mutation.

Conclusion

The 2022-2023 end-of-season results from the VEBIS network at primary care level showed high VE among children and against influenza B, with lower VE against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 and A(H3N2).

Relative vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 hospitalisation in persons aged ≥ 65 years: results from a VEBIS network, Europe, October 2021 to July 2023

To monitor relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) against COVID-19-related hospitalisation of the first, second and third COVID-19 booster (vs complete primary vaccination), we performed monthly Cox regression models using retrospective cohorts constructed from electronic health registries in eight European countries, October 2021-July 2023. Within 12 weeks of administration, each booster showed high rVE (≥ 70% for second and third boosters). However, as of July 2023, most of the relative benefit has waned, particularly in persons ≥ 80-years-old, while some protection remained in 65-79-year-olds.

Vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 hospitalisation in adults (≥ 20 years) during Omicron-dominant circulation: I-MOVE-COVID-19 and VEBIS SARI VE networks, Europe, 2021 to 2022

IntroductionThe I-MOVE-COVID-19 and VEBIS hospital networks have been measuring COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) in participating European countries since early 2021.AimWe aimed to measure VE against PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 in patients ≥ 20 years hospitalised with severe acute respiratory infection (SARI) from December 2021 to July 2022 (Omicron-dominant period).MethodsIn both networks, 46 hospitals (13 countries) follow a similar test-negative case-control protocol. We defined complete primary series vaccination (PSV) and first booster dose vaccination as last dose of either vaccine received ≥ 14 days before symptom onset (stratifying first booster into received < 150 and ≥ 150 days after last PSV dose). We measured VE overall, by vaccine category/product, age group and time since first mRNA booster dose, adjusting by site as a fixed effect, and by swab date, age, sex, and presence/absence of at least one commonly collected chronic condition.ResultsWe included 2,779 cases and 2,362 controls. The VE of all vaccine products combined against hospitalisation for laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 was 43% (95% CI: 29-54) for complete PSV (with last dose received ≥ 150 days before onset), while it was 59% (95% CI: 51-66) after addition of one booster dose. The VE was 85% (95% CI: 78-89), 70% (95% CI: 61-77) and 36% (95% CI: 17-51) for those with onset 14-59 days, 60-119 days and 120-179 days after booster vaccination, respectively.ConclusionsOur results suggest that, during the Omicron period, observed VE against SARI hospitalisation improved with first mRNA booster dose, particularly for those having symptom onset < 120 days after first booster dose.

Vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 hospitalisation in adults (≥ 20 years) during Alpha- and Delta-dominant circulation: I-MOVE-COVID-19 and VEBIS SARI VE networks, Europe, 2021

IntroductionTwo large multicentre European hospital networks have estimated vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19 since 2021.AimWe aimed to measure VE against PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 in hospitalised severe acute respiratory illness (SARI) patients ≥ 20 years, combining data from these networks during Alpha (March-June)- and Delta (June-December)-dominant periods, 2021.MethodsForty-six participating hospitals across 14 countries follow a similar generic protocol using the test-negative case-control design. We defined complete primary series vaccination (PSV) as two doses of a two-dose or one of a single-dose vaccine ≥ 14 days before onset.ResultsWe included 1,087 cases (538 controls) and 1,669 cases (1,442 controls) in the Alpha- and Delta-dominant periods, respectively. During the Alpha period, VE against hospitalisation with SARS-CoV2 for complete Comirnaty PSV was 85% (95% CI: 69-92) overall and 75% (95% CI: 42-90) in those aged ≥ 80 years. During the Delta period, among SARI patients ≥ 20 years with symptom onset ≥ 150 days from last PSV dose, VE for complete Comirnaty PSV was 54% (95% CI: 18-74). Among those receiving Comirnaty PSV and mRNA booster (any product) ≥ 150 days after last PSV dose, VE was 91% (95% CI: 57-98). In time-since-vaccination analysis, complete all-product PSV VE was > 90% in those with their last dose < 90 days before onset; ≥ 70% in those 90-179 days before onset.ConclusionsOur results from this EU multi-country hospital setting showed that VE for complete PSV alone was higher in the Alpha- than the Delta-dominant period, and addition of a first booster dose during the latter period increased VE to over 90%.

Primary Series and Booster Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccine Effectiveness in a Cohort of Healthcare Workers in Albania During a BA.1 and BA.2 Variant Period, January-May 2022

Background

Healthcare workers (HCWs) have experienced high rates of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) morbidity and mortality. We estimated COVID-19 2-dose primary series and monovalent booster vaccine effectiveness (VE) against symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron (BA.1 and BA.2) infection among HCWs in 3 Albanian hospitals during January-May 2022.

Methods

Study participants completed weekly symptom questionnaires, underwent polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing when symptomatic, and provided quarterly blood samples for serology. We estimated VE using Cox regression models (1 - hazard ratio), with vaccination status as the time-varying exposure and unvaccinated HCWs as the reference group, adjusting for potential confounders: age, sex, prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (detected by PCR, rapid antigen test, or serology), and household size.

Results

At the start of the analysis period, 76% of 1462 HCWs had received a primary series, 10% had received a booster dose, and 9% were unvaccinated; 1307 (89%) HCWs had evidence of prior infection. Overall, 86% of primary series and 98% of booster doses received were BNT162b2. The median time interval from the second dose and the booster dose to the start of the analysis period was 289 (interquartile range [IQR], 210-292) days and 30 (IQR, 22-46) days, respectively. VE against symptomatic PCR-confirmed infection was 34% (95% confidence interval [CI], -36% to 68%) for the primary series and 88% (95% CI, 39%-98%) for the booster.

Conclusions

Among Albanian HCWs, most of whom had been previously infected, COVID-19 booster dose offered improved VE during a period of Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 circulation. Our findings support promoting booster dose uptake among Albanian HCWs, which, as of January 2023, was only 20%. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT04811391.

The effectiveness of primary series CoronaVac vaccine in preventing COVID-19 illness: A prospective cohort study among healthcare workers in Azerbaijan, May-November 2021

Background

Healthcare workers (HCWs) have suffered considerable morbidity and mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic. Few studies have evaluated the CoronaVac vaccine effectiveness (VE), particularly in Eastern Europe, where the vaccine has been widely used.

Methods

We conducted a prospective cohort study among HCWs in seven hospitals in Baku, Azerbaijan between May 17 and November 30, 2021, to evaluate primary series (two-dose) CoronaVac VE against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Participants completed weekly symptom questionnaires, provided nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing when symptomatic, and provided serology samples at enrollment that were tested for anti-spike and anti-nucleocapsid antibodies. We estimated VE as (1 - hazard ratio)*100 using a Cox proportional hazards model with vaccination status as a time-varying exposure, adjusting for hospital and previous SARS-CoV-2 infection status.

Results

We enrolled 1582 HCWs. At enrollment, 1040 (66%) had received two doses of CoronaVac; 421 (27%) were unvaccinated. During the study period, 72 PCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 infections occurred; 36/39 (92%) sequenced samples were classified as Delta variants. Primary series VE against COVID-19 illness was 29% (95% CI: -51%; 67%) for the entire analysis period. For the Delta-only period (July 1-November 30, 2021), primary series VE was 19% (95% CI: -81%; 64%). For the entire analysis period, primary series VE was 39% (95% CI: -40%; 73%) for HCWs vaccinated within 14-149 days and 19% (95% CI: -81%; 63%) for those vaccinated ≥150 days.

Conclusions

During a period in Azerbaijan characterized by mostly Delta circulation, VE point estimates suggested that primary series CoronaVac protected nearly 1 in 3 HCWs against COVID-19, but 95% confidence intervals were wide, with lower bounds that crossed zero, reflecting the limited precision of our VE estimates. Our findings underscore the need to consider booster doses for individuals who have received the primary series of CoronaVac.

Primary series COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness among healthcare workers in Albania, February-December 2021

Background

Healthcare workers have experienced high rates of morbidity and mortality from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Methods

A prospective cohort study was conducted in three Albanian hospitals between 19 February and 14 December 2021. All participants underwent polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and serological testing at enrolment, regular serology throughout, and PCR testing when symptomatic.Vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19 and against all severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections (symptomatic or asymptomatic) was estimated. VE was estimated using a Cox regression model, with vaccination status as a time-varying variable.

Findings

In total, 1504 HCWs were enrolled in this study; 70% had evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. VE was 65.1% [95% confidence interval (CI) 37.7-80.5] against COVID-19, 58.2% (95% CI 15.7-79.3) among participants without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, and 73.6% (95% CI 24.3-90.8) among participants with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. For BNT162b2 alone, VE was 69.5% (95% CI 44.5-83.2). During the period when the Delta variant was predominant, VE was 67.1% (95% CI 38.3-82.5). VE against SARS-CoV-2 infection for the full study period was 36.9% (95% CI 15.8-52.7).

Interpretation

This study found moderate primary series VE against COVID-19 among healthcare workers in Albania. These results support the continued promotion of COVID-19 vaccination in Albania, and highlight the benefits of vaccination in populations with high levels of prior infection.

Interim 2022/23 influenza vaccine effectiveness: six European studies, October 2022 to January 2023

BackgroundBetween October 2022 and January 2023, influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, A(H3N2) and B/Victoria viruses circulated in Europe with different influenza (sub)types dominating in different areas.AimTo provide interim 2022/23 influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates from six European studies, covering 16 countries in primary care, emergency care and hospital inpatient settings.MethodsAll studies used the test-negative design, but with differences in other study characteristics, such as data sources, patient selection, case definitions and included age groups. Overall and influenza (sub)type-specific VE was estimated for each study using logistic regression adjusted for potential confounders.ResultsThere were 20,477 influenza cases recruited across the six studies, of which 16,589 (81%) were influenza A. Among all ages and settings, VE against influenza A ranged from 27 to 44%. Against A(H1N1)pdm09 (all ages and settings), VE point estimates ranged from 28% to 46%, higher among children (< 18 years) at 49-77%. Against A(H3N2), overall VE ranged from 2% to 44%, also higher among children (62-70%). Against influenza B/Victoria, overall and age-specific VE were ≥ 50% (87-95% among children < 18 years).ConclusionsInterim results from six European studies during the 2022/23 influenza season indicate a ≥ 27% and ≥ 50% reduction in disease occurrence among all-age influenza vaccine recipients for influenza A and B, respectively, with higher reductions among children. Genetic virus characterisation results and end-of-season VE estimates will contribute to greater understanding of differences in influenza (sub)type-specific results across studies.

Factors associated with receipt of COVID-19 vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity among healthcare workers in Albania (February 2021-June 2022): secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study

Background

Healthcare workers (HCWs) have been disproportionally affected by COVID-19. We investigated factors associated with two- and three-dose COVID-19 vaccine uptake and SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity among 1504 HCWs enrolled (19 February-7 May 2021) in a prospective COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness cohort in Albania through a secondary analysis.

Methods

We collected sociodemographic, occupational, health, prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, and COVID-19 vaccination data from all HCWs at enrollment. Vaccination status was assessed weekly through June 2022. A serum sample was collected from all participants at enrollment and tested for anti-spike SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We analyzed HCWs characteristics and outcomes using multivariable logistic regression.

Findings

By 11 June 2022, 1337 (88.9%) HCWs had received two COVID-19 vaccine doses, of whom 255 (19.1%) received a booster. Factors significantly associated with receiving three doses (adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 95% CIs) were being ≥35 years (35-44 years: 1.76 (1.05-2.97); 45-54 years: 3.11 (1.92-5.05); ≥55 years: 3.38 (2.04-5.59)) and vaccinated against influenza (1.78; 1.20-2.64). Booster dose receipt was lower among females (0.58; 0.41-0.81), previously infected (0.67; 0.48-0.93), nurses and midwives (0.31; 0.22-0.45), and support staff (0.19; 0.11-0.32). Overall 1076 (72%) were SARS-CoV-2 seropositive at enrollment. Nurses and midwifes (1.45; 1.05-2.02), support staff (1.57; 1.03-2.41), and HCWs performing aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) (1.40; 1.01-1.94) had higher odds of being seropositive, while smokers had reduced odds (0.55; 0.40-0.75).

Interpretation

In a large cohort of Albanian HCWs, COVID-19 vaccine booster dose uptake was very low, particularly among younger, female, and non-physician HCWs, despite evidence demonstrating the added benefit of boosters in preventing infection and severe disease. Reasons behind these disparities should be explored to develop targeted strategies in order to promote uptake in this critical population. SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence was higher among non-physicians and HCWs performing APGs. A better understanding of the factors contributing to these differences is needed to inform interventions that could reduce infections in the future.

Funding

This study was funded by the Task Force for Global Health (US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) cooperative agreement # NU51IP000873) and the World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe.

Influenza vaccine effectiveness against influenza A subtypes in Europe: Results from the 2021-2022 I-MOVE primary care multicentre study

BACKGROUND

In 2021-2022, influenza A viruses dominated in Europe. The I-MOVE primary care network conducted a multicentre test-negative study to measure influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE).

METHODS

Primary care practitioners collected information on patients presenting with acute respiratory infection. Cases were influenza A(H3N2) or A(H1N1)pdm09 RT-PCR positive, and controls were influenza virus negative. We calculated VE using logistic regression, adjusting for study site, age, sex, onset date, and presence of chronic conditions.

RESULTS

Between week 40 2021 and week 20 2022, we included over 11 000 patients of whom 253 and 1595 were positive for influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 and A(H3N2), respectively. Overall VE against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 was 75% (95% CI: 43-89) and 81% (95% CI: 45-93) among those aged 15-64 years. Overall VE against influenza A(H3N2) was 29% (95% CI: 12-42) and 25% (95% CI: -41 to 61), 33% (95% CI: 14-49), and 26% (95% CI: -22 to 55) among those aged 0-14, 15-64, and over 65 years, respectively. The A(H3N2) VE among the influenza vaccination target group was 20% (95% CI: -6 to 39). All 53 sequenced A(H1N1)pdm09 viruses belonged to clade 6B.1A.5a.1. Among 410 sequenced influenza A(H3N2) viruses, all but eight belonged to clade 3C.2a1b.2a.2.

DISCUSSION

Despite antigenic mismatch between vaccine and circulating strains for influenza A(H3N2) and A(H1N1)pdm09, 2021-2022 VE estimates against circulating influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 were the highest within the I-MOVE network since the 2009 influenza pandemic. VE against A(H3N2) was lower than A(H1N1)pdm09, but at least one in five individuals vaccinated against influenza were protected against presentation to primary care with laboratory-confirmed influenza.

Epitweetr: Early warning of public health threats using Twitter data

BackgroundThe European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) systematically collates information from sources to rapidly detect early public health threats. The lack of a freely available, customisable and automated early warning tool using data from Twitter prompted the ECDC to develop epitweetr, which collects, geolocates and aggregates tweets generating signals and email alerts.AimThis study aims to compare the performance of epitweetr to manually monitoring tweets for the purpose of early detecting public health threats.MethodsWe calculated the general and specific positive predictive value (PPV) of signals generated by epitweetr between 19 October and 30 November 2020. Sensitivity, specificity, timeliness and accuracy and performance of tweet geolocation and signal detection algorithms obtained from epitweetr and the manual monitoring of 1,200 tweets were compared.ResultsThe epitweetr geolocation algorithm had an accuracy of 30.1% at national, and 25.9% at subnational levels. The signal detection algorithm had 3.0% general PPV and 74.6% specific PPV. Compared to manual monitoring, epitweetr had greater sensitivity (47.9% and 78.6%, respectively), and reduced PPV (97.9% and 74.6%, respectively). Median validation time difference between 16 common events detected by epitweetr and manual monitoring was -48.6 hours (IQR: -102.8 to -23.7).ConclusionEpitweetr has shown sufficient performance as an early warning tool for public health threats using Twitter data. Since epitweetr is a free, open-source tool with configurable settings and a strong automated component, it is expected to increase in usability and usefulness to public health experts.

Factors associated with early uptake of COVID-19 vaccination among healthcare workers in Azerbaijan, 2021

INTRODUCTION

We evaluated uptake and factors associated with COVID-19 vaccination among health workers (HWs) in Azerbaijan.

RESULTS

Among 1575 HWs, 73% had received at least one dose, and 67% received two doses; all received CoronaVac. Factors associated with vaccination uptake included no previous COVID-19 infection, older age, belief in the vaccine's safety, previous vaccination for influenza, having patient-facing roles and good or excellent health by self-assessment.

CONCLUSION

These findings could inform strategies to increase vaccination uptake as the campaign continues.

Effectiveness of complete primary vaccination against COVID-19 at primary care and community level during predominant Delta circulation in Europe: multicentre analysis, I-MOVE-COVID-19 and ECDC networks, July to August 2021

IntroductionIn July and August 2021, the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant dominated in Europe.AimUsing a multicentre test-negative study, we measured COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) against symptomatic infection.MethodsIndividuals with COVID-19 or acute respiratory symptoms at primary care/community level in 10 European countries were tested for SARS-CoV-2. We measured complete primary course overall VE by vaccine brand and by time since vaccination.ResultsOverall VE was 74% (95% CI: 69-79), 76% (95% CI: 71-80), 63% (95% CI: 48-75) and 63% (95% CI: 16-83) among those aged 30-44, 45-59, 60-74 and ≥ 75 years, respectively. VE among those aged 30-59 years was 78% (95% CI: 75-81), 66% (95% CI: 58-73), 91% (95% CI: 87-94) and 52% (95% CI: 40-61), for Comirnaty, Vaxzevria, Spikevax and COVID-19 Vaccine Janssen, respectively. VE among people 60 years and older was 67% (95% CI: 52-77), 65% (95% CI: 48-76) and 83% (95% CI: 64-92) for Comirnaty, Vaxzevria and Spikevax, respectively. Comirnaty VE among those aged 30-59 years was 87% (95% CI: 83-89) at 14-29 days and 65% (95% CI: 56-71%) at ≥ 90 days between vaccination and onset of symptoms.ConclusionsVE against symptomatic infection with the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant varied among brands, ranging from 52% to 91%. While some waning of the vaccine effect may be present (sample size limited this analysis to only Comirnaty), protection was 65% at 90 days or more between vaccination and onset.

COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness among healthcare workers in Albania (COVE-AL): protocol for a prospective cohort study and cohort baseline data

INTRODUCTION

Critical questions remain about COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) in real-world settings, particularly in middle-income countries. We describe a study protocol to evaluate COVID-19 VE in preventing laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in health workers (HWs) in Albania, an upper-middle-income country.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

In this 12-month prospective cohort study, we enrolled HWs at three hospitals in Albania. HWs are vaccinated through the routine COVID-19 vaccine campaign. Participants completed a baseline survey about demographics, clinical comorbidities, and infection risk behaviours. Baseline serology samples were also collected and tested against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, and respiratory swabs were collected and tested for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR. Participants complete weekly symptom questionnaires and symptomatic participants have a respiratory swab collected, which is tested for SARS-CoV-2. At 3, 6, 9 months and 12 months of the study, serology will be collected and tested for antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein and spike protein. VE will be estimated using a piecewise proportional hazards model (VE=1-HR).

BASELINE DATA

From February to May 2021, 1504 HWs were enrolled. The median age was 44 (range: 22-71) and 78% were female. At enrolment, 72% of participants were seropositive for SARS-CoV-2. 56% of participants were vaccinated with one dose, of whom 98% received their first shot within 4 days of enrolment. All HWs received the Pfizer BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study protocol and procedures were reviewed and approved by the WHO Ethical Review Board, reference number CERC.0097A, and the Albanian Institute of Public Health Ethical Review Board, reference number 156. All participants have provided written informed consent to participate in this study. The primary results of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal at the time of completion.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04811391.

Three-dimensional gravity modelling of a Quaternary overdeepening fill in the Bern area of Switzerland discloses two stages of glacial carving

The geometry of glacial overdeepenings on the Swiss Plateau close to Bern was inferred through a combination of gravity data with a 3D gravity modelling software. The target overdeepenings have depths between 155 and > 270 m and widths between 860 and 2400 m. The models show incisions characterized by U-shaped cross-sectional geometries and steep to over-steepened lateral flanks. Existing stratigraphic data reveals that the overdeepenings were formed and then filled during at least two glacial stages, which occurred during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) within the Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 2, and possibly MIS 6 or before. The U-shaped cross-sectional geometries point towards glacial erosion as the main driver for the shaping of the overdeepenings. The combination of the geometries with stratigraphic data suggests that the MIS 6 (or older) glaciers deeply carved the bedrock, whereas the LGM ice sheet only widened the existing valleys but did not further deepen them. We relate this pattern to the different ice thicknesses, where a thicker MIS 6 ice was likely more powerful for wearing down the bedrock than a thinner LGM glacier. Gravity data in combination with forward modelling thus offers robust information on the development of a landscape formed through glaciers.

Vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in adults aged 65 years and older in primary care: I-MOVE-COVID-19 project, Europe, December 2020 to May 2021

We measured COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection at primary care/outpatient level among adults ≥ 65 years old using a multicentre test-negative design in eight European countries. We included 592 SARS-CoV-2 cases and 4,372 test-negative controls in the main analysis. The VE was 62% (95% CI: 45–74) for one dose only and 89% (95% CI: 79–94) for complete vaccination. COVID-19 vaccines provide good protection against COVID-19 presentation at primary care/outpatient level, particularly among fully vaccinated individuals.

Training for Foodborne Outbreak Investigations by Using Structured Learning Experience

We created a free and interactive training activity based on playing cards (disease detective cards) that introduces foodborne outbreak investigations to public health professionals and students. Competencies taught cover selected descriptive and analytic epidemiologic topics, such as case definition, epidemic curve, 2-by-2 tables, relative risks, attack rates, stratification, and confounding.

Absence of association between 2019-20 influenza vaccination and COVID-19: Results of the European I-MOVE-COVID-19 primary care project, March-August 2020

BACKGROUND

Claims of influenza vaccination increasing COVID-19 risk are circulating. Within the I-MOVE-COVID-19 primary care multicentre study, we measured the association between 2019-20 influenza vaccination and COVID-19.

METHODS

We conducted a multicentre test-negative case-control study at primary care level, in study sites in five European countries, from March to August 2020. Patients presenting with acute respiratory infection were swabbed, with demographic, 2019-20 influenza vaccination and clinical information documented. Using logistic regression, we measured the adjusted odds ratio (aOR), adjusting for study site and age, sex, calendar time, presence of chronic conditions. The main analysis included patients swabbed ≤7 days after onset from the three countries with <15% of missing influenza vaccination. In secondary analyses, we included five countries, using multiple imputation with chained equations to account for missing data.

RESULTS

We included 257 COVID-19 cases and 1631 controls in the main analysis (three countries). The overall aOR between influenza vaccination and COVID-19 was 0.93 (95% CI: 0.66-1.32). The aOR was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.58-1.46) and 0.92 (95% CI: 0.51-1.67) among those aged 20-59 and ≥60 years, respectively. In secondary analyses, we included 6457 cases and 69 272 controls. The imputed aOR was 0.87 (95% CI: 0.79-0.95) among all ages and any delay between swab and symptom onset.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no evidence that COVID-19 cases were more likely to be vaccinated against influenza than controls. Influenza vaccination should be encouraged among target groups for vaccination. I-MOVE-COVID-19 will continue documenting influenza vaccination status in 2020-21, in order to learn about effects of recent influenza vaccination.

Impact of influenza vaccination programmes among the elderly population on primary care, Portugal, Spain and the Netherlands: 2015/16 to 2017/18 influenza seasons

Background

To increase the acceptability of influenza vaccine, it is important to quantify the overall benefits of the vaccination programme.

Aim

To assess the impact of influenza vaccination in Portugal, Spain and the Netherlands, we estimated the number of medically attended influenza-confirmed cases (MAICC) in primary care averted in the seasons 2015/16 to 2017/18 among those ≥ 65 years.

Methods

We used an ecological approach to estimate vaccination impact. We compared the number of observed MAICC (n) to the estimated number that would have occurred without the vaccination programme (N). To estimate N, we used: (i) MAICC estimated from influenza surveillance systems, (ii) vaccine coverage, (iii) pooled (sub)type-specific influenza vaccine effectiveness estimates for seasons 2015/16 to 2017/18, weighted by the proportion of virus circulation in each season and country. We estimated the number of MAICC averted (NAE) and the prevented fraction (PF) by the vaccination programme.

Results

The annual average of NAE in the population ≥ 65 years was 33, 58 and 204 MAICC per 100,000 in Portugal, Spain and the Netherlands, respectively. On average, influenza vaccination prevented 10.7%, 10.9% and 14.2% of potential influenza MAICC each season in these countries. The lowest PF was in 2016/17 (4.9–6.1%) with an NAE ranging from 24 to 69 per 100,000.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that influenza vaccination programmes reduced a substantial number of MAICC. Together with studies on hospitalisations and deaths averted by influenza vaccination programmes, this will contribute to the evaluation of the impact of vaccination strategies and strengthen public health communication.

Low 2018/19 vaccine effectiveness against influenza A(H3N2) among 15-64-year-olds in Europe: exploration by birth cohort

Introduction

Influenza A(H3N2) clades 3C.2a and 3C.3a co-circulated in Europe in 2018/19. Immunological imprinting by first childhood influenza infection may induce future birth cohort differences in vaccine effectiveness (VE).

Aim

The I-MOVE multicentre primary care test-negative study assessed 2018/19 influenza A(H3N2) VE by age and genetic subgroups to explore VE by birth cohort.

Methods

We measured VE against influenza A(H3N2) and (sub)clades. We stratified VE by usual age groups (0–14, 15–64, ≥ 65-years). To assess the imprint-regulated effect of vaccine (I-REV) hypothesis, we further stratified the middle-aged group, notably including 32–54-year-olds (1964–86) sharing potential childhood imprinting to serine at haemagglutinin position 159.

Results

Influenza A(H3N2) VE among all ages was −1% (95% confidence interval (CI): −24 to 18) and 46% (95% CI: 8–68), −26% (95% CI: −66 to 4) and 20% (95% CI: −20 to 46) among 0–14, 15–64 and ≥ 65-year-olds, respectively. Among 15–64-year-olds, VE against clades 3C.2a1b and 3C.3a was 15% (95% CI: −34 to 50) and −74% (95% CI: −259 to 16), respectively. VE was −18% (95% CI: −140 to 41), −53% (95% CI: −131 to −2) and −12% (95% CI: −74 to 28) among 15–31-year-olds (1987–2003), 32–54-year-olds (1964–86) and 55–64-year-olds (1954–63), respectively.

Discussion

The lowest 2018/19 influenza A(H3N2) VE was against clade 3C.3a and among those born 1964–86, corresponding to the I-REV hypothesis. The low influenza A(H3N2) VE in 15–64-year-olds and the public health impact of the I-REV hypothesis warrant further study.

Interim 2018/19 influenza vaccine effectiveness: six European studies, October 2018 to January 2019

Influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 and A(H3N2) viruses both circulated in Europe in October 2018–January 2019. Interim results from six studies indicate that 2018/19 influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates among all ages in primary care was 32–43% against influenza A; higher against A(H1N1)pdm09 and lower against A(H3N2). Among hospitalised older adults, VE estimates were 34–38% against influenza A and slightly lower against A(H1N1)pdm09. Influenza vaccination is of continued benefit during the ongoing 2018/19 influenza season.

Interim 2019/20 influenza vaccine effectiveness: six European studies, September 2019 to January 2020

BackgroundInfluenza A(H1N1)pdm09, A(H3N2) and B viruses were co-circulating in Europe between September 2019 and January 2020.AimTo provide interim 2019/20 influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates from six European studies, covering 10 countries and both primary care and hospital settings.MethodsAll studies used the test-negative design, although there were some differences in other study characteristics, e.g. patient selection, data sources, case definitions and included age groups. Overall and influenza (sub)type-specific VE was estimated for each study using logistic regression adjusted for potential confounders.ResultsThere were 31,537 patients recruited across the six studies, of which 5,300 (17%) were cases with 5,310 infections. Most of these (4,466; 84%) were influenza A. The VE point estimates for all ages were 29% to 61% against any influenza in the primary care setting and 35% to 60% in hospitalised older adults (aged 65 years and over). The VE point estimates against A(H1N1)pdm09 (all ages, both settings) was 48% to 75%, and against A(H3N2) ranged from -58% to 57% (primary care) and -16% to 60% (hospital). Against influenza B, VE for all ages was 62% to 83% (primary care only).ConclusionsInfluenza vaccination is of continued benefit during the ongoing 2019/20 influenza season. Robust end-of-season VE estimates and genetic virus characterisation results may help understand the variability in influenza (sub)type-specific results across studies.

Vaccine effectiveness against influenza A(H3N2) and B among laboratory-confirmed, hospitalised older adults, Europe, 2017-18: A season of B lineage mismatched to the trivalent vaccine

Background

Influenza A(H3N2), A(H1N1)pdm09 and B viruses co‐circulated in Europe in 2017‐18, predominated by influenza B. WHO‐recommended, trivalent vaccine components were lineage‐mismatched for B. The I‐MOVE hospital network measured 2017‐18 seasonal influenza vaccine effectiveness (IVE) against influenza A(H3N2) and B among hospitalised patients (≥65 years) in Europe.

Methods

Following the same generic protocol for test‐negative design, hospital teams in nine countries swabbed patients ≥65 years with recent onset (≤7 days) severe acute respiratory infection (SARI), collecting information on demographics, vaccination status and underlying conditions. Cases were RT‐PCR positive for influenza A(H3N2) or B; controls: negative for any influenza. “Vaccinated” patients had SARI onset >14 days after vaccination. We measured pooled IVE against influenza, adjusted for study site, age, sex, onset date and chronic conditions.

Results

We included 3483 patients: 376 influenza A(H3N2) and 928 B cases, and 2028 controls. Most (>99%) vaccinated patients received the B lineage‐mismatched trivalent vaccine. IVE against influenza A(H3N2) was 24% (95% CI: 2 to 40); 35% (95% CI: 6 to 55) in 65‐ to 79‐year‐olds and 14% (95% CI: −22 to 39) in ≥80‐year‐olds. Against influenza B, IVE was 30% (95% CI: 16 to 41); 37% (95% CI: 19 to 51) in 65‐ to 79‐year‐olds and 19% (95% CI: −7 to 38) in ≥80‐year‐olds.

Conclusions

IVE against influenza B was similar to A(H3N2) in hospitalised older adults, despite trivalent vaccine and circulating B lineage mismatch, suggesting some cross‐protection. IVE was lower in those ≥80 than 65‐79 years. We reinforce the importance of influenza vaccination in older adults as, even with a poorly matched vaccine, it still protects one in three to four of this population from severe influenza.

Effectiveness of influenza vaccine against influenza A in Europe in seasons of different A(H1N1)pdm09 and the same A(H3N2) vaccine components (2016-17 and 2017-18)

•

Influenza A(H3N2) circulated in Europe in 2016–17 and 2017–18 and A(H1N1)pdm09 in 2017–18.

•

Changed A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccine component VE was 58% against A(H1N1)pdm09 in 2017–18.

•

A(H3N2) VE was 13% and 28% among all ages in 2016–17 and 2017–18, respectively.

Introduction

Influenza A(H3N2) viruses predominated in Europe in 2016–17. In 2017–18 A(H3N2) and A(H1N1)pdm09 viruses co-circulated. The A(H3N2) vaccine component was the same in both seasons; while the A(H1N1)pdm09 component changed in 2017–18. In both seasons, vaccine seed A(H3N2) viruses developed adaptations/alterations during propagation in eggs, impacting antigenicity.

Methods

We used the test-negative design in a multicentre primary care case-control study in 12 European countries to measure 2016–17 and 2017–18 influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) against laboratory-confirmed influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 and A(H3N2) overall and by age group.

Results

During the 2017–18 season, the overall VE against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 was 59% (95% CI: 47–69). Among those aged 0–14, 15–64 and ≥65 years, VE against A(H1N1)pdm09 was 64% (95% CI: 37–79), 50% (95% CI: 28–66) and 66% (95% CI: 42–80), respectively. Overall VE against influenza A(H3N2) was 28% (95% CI: 17–38) in 2016–17 and 13% (95% CI: −15 to 34) in 2017–18. Among 0–14-year-olds VE against A(H3N2) was 28% (95%CI: −10 to 53) and 29% (95% CI: −87 to 73), among 15–64-year-olds 34% (95% CI: 18–46) and 33% (95% CI: −3 to 56) and among those aged ≥65 years 15% (95% CI: −10 to 34) and −9% (95% CI: −74 to 32) in 2016–17 and 2017–18, respectively.

Conclusions

Our study suggests the new A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccine component conferred good protection against circulating strains, while VE against A(H3N2) was <35% in 2016–17 and 2017–18. The egg propagation derived antigenic mismatch of the vaccine seed virus with circulating strains may have contributed to this low effectiveness. A(H3N2) seed viruses for vaccines in subsequent seasons may be subject to the same adaptations; in years with lower than expected VE, recommendations of preventive measures other than vaccination should be given in a timely manner.

Interim 2017/18 influenza seasonal vaccine effectiveness: combined results from five European studies

Between September 2017 and February 2018, influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, A(H3N2) and B viruses (mainly B/Yamagata, not included in 2017/18 trivalent vaccines) co-circulated in Europe. Interim results from five European studies indicate that, in all age groups, 2017/18 influenza vaccine effectiveness was 25 to 52% against any influenza, 55 to 68% against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, −42 to 7% against influenza A(H3N2) and 36 to 54% against influenza B. 2017/18 influenza vaccine should be promoted where influenza still circulates.

Exploring the effect of previous inactivated influenza vaccination on seasonal influenza vaccine effectiveness against medically attended influenza: Results of the European I-MOVE multicentre test-negative case-control study, 2011/2012-2016/2017

BACKGROUND

Results of previous influenza vaccination effects on current season influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) are inconsistent.

OBJECTIVES

To explore previous influenza vaccination effects on current season VE among population targeted for vaccination.

METHODS

We used 2011/2012 to 2016/2017 I-MOVE primary care multicentre test-negative data. For each season, we compared current season adjusted VE (aVE) between individuals vaccinated and unvaccinated in previous season. Using unvaccinated in both seasons as a reference, we then compared aVE between vaccinated in both seasons, current only, and previous only.

RESULTS

We included 941, 2645 and 959 influenza-like illness patients positive for influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, A(H3N2) and B, respectively, and 5532 controls. In 2011/2012, 2014/2015 and 2016/2017, A(H3N2) aVE point estimates among those vaccinated in previous season were -68%, -21% and -19%, respectively; among unvaccinated in previous season, these were 33%, 48% and 46%, respectively (aVE not computable for influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 and B). Compared to current season vaccination only, VE for both seasons' vaccination was (i) similar in two of four seasons for A(H3N2) (absolute difference [ad] 6% and 8%); (ii) lower in three of four seasons for influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 (ad 18%, 26% and 29%), in two seasons for influenza A(H3N2) (ad 27% and 39%) and in two of three seasons for influenza B (ad 26% and 37%); (iii) higher in one season for influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 (ad 20%) and influenza B (ad 24%).

CONCLUSIONS

We did not identify any pattern of previous influenza vaccination effect. Prospective cohort studies documenting influenza infections, vaccinations and vaccine types are needed to understand previous influenza vaccinations' effects.

2015/16 I-MOVE/I-MOVE+ multicentre case-control study in Europe: Moderate vaccine effectiveness estimates against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 and low estimates against lineage-mismatched influenza B among children

Background

During the 2015/16 influenza season in Europe, the cocirculating influenza viruses were A(H1N1)pdm09 and B/Victoria, which was antigenically distinct from the B/Yamagata component in the trivalent influenza vaccine.

Methods

We used the test‐negative design in a multicentre case‐control study in twelve European countries to measure 2015/16 influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) against medically attended influenza‐like illness (ILI) laboratory‐confirmed as influenza. General practitioners swabbed a systematic sample of consulting ILI patients and a random sample of influenza‐positive swabs was sequenced. We calculated adjusted VE against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, A(H1N1)pdm09 genetic group 6B.1 and influenza B overall and by age group.

Results

We included 11 430 ILI patients, of which 2272 were influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 and 2901 were influenza B cases. Overall VE against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 was 32.9% (95% CI: 15.5‐46.7). Among those aged 0‐14, 15‐64 and ≥65 years, VE against A(H1N1)pdm09 was 31.9% (95% CI: −32.3 to 65.0), 41.4% (95% CI: 20.5‐56.7) and 13.2% (95% CI: −38.0 to 45.3), respectively. Overall VE against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 genetic group 6B.1 was 32.8% (95% CI: −4.1 to 56.7). Among those aged 0‐14, 15‐64 and ≥65 years, VE against influenza B was −47.6% (95% CI: −124.9 to 3.1), 27.3% (95% CI: −4.6 to 49.4) and 9.3% (95% CI: −44.1 to 42.9), respectively.

Conclusions

Vaccine effectiveness (VE) against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 and its genetic group 6B.1 was moderate in children and adults, and low among individuals ≥65 years. Vaccine effectiveness (VE) against influenza B was low and heterogeneous among age groups. More information on effects of previous vaccination and previous infection is needed to understand the VE results against influenza B in the context of a mismatched vaccine.

Early 2016/17 vaccine effectiveness estimates against influenza A(H3N2): I-MOVE multicentre case control studies at primary care and hospital levels in Europe

We measured early 2016/17 season influenza vaccine effectiveness (IVE) against influenza A(H3N2) in Europe using multicentre case control studies at primary care and hospital levels. IVE at primary care level was 44.1%, 46.9% and 23.4% among 0–14, 15–64 and ≥ 65 year-olds, and 25.7% in the influenza vaccination target group. At hospital level, IVE was 2.5%, 7.9% and 2.4% among ≥ 65, 65–79 and ≥ 80 year-olds. As in previous seasons, we observed suboptimal IVE against influenza A(H3N2).

I-MOVE multicentre case-control study 2010/11 to 2014/15: Is there within-season waning of influenza type/subtype vaccine effectiveness with increasing time since vaccination?

Since the 2008/9 influenza season, the I-MOVE multicentre case-control study measures influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) against medically-attended influenza-like-illness (ILI) laboratory confirmed as influenza. In 2011/12, European studies reported a decline in VE against influenza A(H3N2) within the season. Using combined I-MOVE data from 2010/11 to 2014/15 we studied the effects of time since vaccination on influenza type/subtype-specific VE. We modelled influenza type/subtype-specific VE by time since vaccination using a restricted cubic spline, controlling for potential confounders (age, sex, time of onset, chronic conditions). Over 10,000 ILI cases were included in each analysis of influenza A(H3N2), A(H1N1)pdm09 and B; with 4,759, 3,152 and 3,617 influenza positive cases respectively. VE against influenza A(H3N2) reached 50.6% (95% CI: 30.0-65.1) 38 days after vaccination, declined to 0% (95% CI: -18.1-15.2) from 111 days onwards. At day 54 VE against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 reached 55.3% (95% CI: 37.9-67.9) and remained between this value and 50.3% (95% CI: 34.8-62.1) until season end. VE against influenza B declined from 70.7% (95% CI: 51.3-82.4) 44 days after vaccination to 21.4% (95% CI: -57.4-60.8) at season end. To assess if vaccination campaign strategies need revising more evidence on VE by time since vaccination is urgently needed.

Vaccine effectiveness in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza in primary care patients in a season of co-circulation of influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, B and drifted A(H3N2), I-MOVE Multicentre Case-Control Study, Europe 2014/15

Influenza A(H3N2), A(H1N1)pdm09 and B viruses co-circulated in Europe in 2014/15. We undertook a multicentre case-control study in eight European countries to measure 2014/15 influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) against medically-attended influenza-like illness (ILI) laboratory-confirmed as influenza. General practitioners swabbed all or a systematic sample of ILI patients. We compared the odds of vaccination of ILI influenza positive patients to negative patients. We calculated adjusted VE by influenza type/subtype, and age group. Among 6,579 ILI patients included, 1,828 were A(H3N2), 539 A(H1N1)pdm09 and 1,038 B. VE against A(H3N2) was 14.4% (95% confidence interval (CI): -6.3 to 31.0) overall, 20.7% (95%CI: -22.3 to 48.5), 10.9% (95%CI -30.8 to 39.3) and 15.8% (95% CI: -20.2 to 41.0) among those aged 0-14, 15-59 and  ≥60  years, respectively. VE against A(H1N1)pdm09 was 54.2% (95%CI: 31.2 to 69.6) overall, 73.1% (95%CI: 39.6 to 88.1), 59.7% (95%CI: 10.9 to 81.8), and 22.4% (95%CI: -44.4 to 58.4) among those aged 0-14, 15-59 and  ≥60 years respectively. VE against B was 48.0% (95%CI: 28.9 to 61.9) overall, 62.1% (95%CI: 14.9 to 83.1), 41.4% (95%CI: 6.2 to 63.4) and 50.4% (95%CI: 14.6 to 71.2) among those aged 0-14, 15-59 and ≥60 years respectively. VE against A(H1N1)pdm09 and B was moderate. The low VE against A(H3N2) is consistent with the reported mismatch between circulating and vaccine strains.

Vaccine Effectiveness of Polysaccharide Vaccines Against Clinical Meningitis - Niamey, Niger, June 2015

Introduction: In 2015, a large outbreak of serogroup C meningococcal meningitis hit Niamey, Niger, in response to which a vaccination campaign was conducted late April. Using a case-control study we measured the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of tri - (ACW) and quadrivalent (ACYW) polysaccharide meningococcal vaccines against clinical meningitis among 2-15 year olds in Niamey II district between April 28th and June 30th 2015.

Methods: We selected all clinical cases registered in health centers and conducted a household- vaccination coverage cluster survey (control group).  We ascertained vaccination from children/parent reports. Using odds of vaccination among controls and cases, we computed VE as 1-(Odds Ratio). To compute VE by day since vaccination, we simulated a density case control design randomly attributing recruitment dates to controls based on case dates of onset (3 controls per case). We calculated the number of days between vaccination and the date of onset/recruitment and computed VE by number of days since vaccination using a cubic-spline model. We repeated this simulated analysis 500 times and calculated the mean VE and the mean lower and upper bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results: Among 523 cases and 1800 controls, 57% and 92% were vaccinated respectively. Overall, VE at more than 10 days following vaccination was 84% (95%CI: 75-89) and 97% (94-99) for the tri- and quadrivalent vaccines respectively. VE at days 5 and 10 after trivalent vaccination was 84% (95% CI: 74-91) and 89% (95% CI: 83-93) respectively. It was 88% (95% CI: 75-94) and 95.8% (95% CI: 92 -98) respectively for the quadrivalent vaccine.

Conclusion: Results suggest a high VE of the polysaccharide vaccines against clinical meningitis, an outcome of low specificity, and a rapid protection after vaccination. We identified no potential biases leading to VE overestimation. Measuring VE and rapidity of protection against laboratory confirmed meningococcal meningitis is needed.

Influenza vaccine effectiveness estimates in Europe in a season with three influenza type/subtypes circulating: the I-MOVE multicentre case-control study, influenza season 2012/13

In the fifth season of Influenza Monitoring Vaccine Effectiveness in Europe (I-MOVE), we undertook a multicentre case-control study (MCCS) in seven European Union (EU) Member States to measure 2012/13 influenza vaccine effectiveness against medically attended influenza-like illness (ILI) laboratory confirmed as influenza. The season was characterised by substantial co-circulation of influenza B, A(H1N1)pdm09 and A(H3N2) viruses. Practitioners systematically selected ILI patients to swab ≤7 days of symptom onset. We compared influenza-positive by type/subtype to influenza-negative patients among those who met the EU ILI case definition. We conducted a complete case analysis using logistic regression with study as fixed effect and calculated adjusted vaccine effectiveness (AVE), controlling for potential confounders (age, sex, symptom onset week and presence of chronic conditions). We calculated AVE by type/subtype. Study sites sent 7,954 ILI/acute respiratory infection records for analysis. After applying exclusion criteria, we included 4,627 ILI patients in the analysis of VE against influenza B (1,937 cases), 3,516 for A(H1N1)pdm09 (1,068 cases) and 3,340 for influenza A(H3N2) (730 cases). AVE was 49.3% (95% confidence interval (CI): 32.4 to 62.0) against influenza B, 50.4% (95% CI: 28.4 to 65.6) against A(H1N1)pdm09 and 42.2% (95% CI: 14.9 to 60.7) against A(H3N2). Our results suggest an overall low to moderate AVE against influenza B, A(H1N1)pdm09 and A(H3N2), between 42 and 50%. In this season with many co-circulating viruses, the high sample size enabled stratified AVE by type/subtype. The low estimates indicate seasonal influenza vaccines should be improved to achieve acceptable protection levels.

Challenges and Opportunities in Routine Time Series Analysis of Surveillance Data

Objective

To discuss challenges and opportunities in the introduction of an automated approach for time series analysis (TSA) regarding epidemiological methodology for generation of hypotheses, steps to be performed and interpretation of outputs.

Introduction

ECDC long term strategies for surveillance include analysis of trends of communicable disease of public health importance for European Union countries to guide public health actions. The European Surveillance System (TESSy) holds data on 49 communicable diseases reported by 30 countries for at least the past five years. To simplify time related analysis using surveillance data, ECDC launched a project to enable descriptive and routine TSA without the need for complex programming.

Methods

Protocols for TESSy data were developed specifying hypotheses to be tested, types and format of variables needed for TSA for several diseases, including VTEC, and legionellosis. Stata scripts were developed to comply with the basic steps of TSA, including data aggregation, data checking, data description, analysis of trends and seasonality, residual analysis, simple modelling and long-term forecasting. TSA steps were presented as successive tabs in a TSA dialogue box in Stata. Before using the Stata TSA dialogue box, experts were offered a two-day training, and provided with an in-depth manual supporting use and interpretation of TSA outputs using the Stata TSA dialogue box.

Results

For VTEC, it was possible to identify a small increase in the trend and a seasonal pattern in surveillance data with an estimate of the start of the increased risk for infection in the beginning of the summer season [1]. For legionellosis, an increasing trend in the number of reported cases was observed in 2010 [2]. Feedback from the training showed that using the Stata TSA dialogue box enables a quick exploratory analysis even by non-Stata users who could focus on interpretation of results, rather than the programme writing. However, we emphasise that statistical knowledge of TSA as well as rigorous preparation of the datasets (including data quality checks) and generation of hypotheses, are essential to ensure appropriate analysis and meaningful interpretation of the results.

Conclusions

Using the Stata TSA dialogue box saves time when performing rapid exploratory TSA of epidemiological data, avoiding the need for complex programming which is still needed for sophisticated TSA. Results of exploratory TSA analysis can trigger new hypothesis, for more advanced and sophisticated TSA. The introduction of a new technology (Stata TSA dialogue box) does not replace multi-disciplinary approach, knowledge and application of a methodological approach to TSA to produce meaningful results that can inform public health decision making. Further testing and training will be performed to enhance simplicity before appropriate dissemination of the Stata TSA dialogue box for a wider use.

Early estimates of seasonal influenza vaccine effectiveness in Europe: results from the I-MOVE multicentre case–control study, 2012/13

Binary file ES_Abstracts_Final_ECDC.txt matches

Early estimates of seasonal influenza vaccine effectiveness in Europe: results from the I-MOVE multicentre case-control study, 2012/13

We conducted a test-negative case-control study based in five European sentinel surveillance networks. The early 2012/13 adjusted influenza vaccine effectiveness was 78.2% (95% CI: 18.0 to 94.2) against influenza B, 62.1% (95% CI: -22.9 to 88.3%) against A(H1) pdm09, 41.9 (95% CI: -67.1 to 79.8) against A(H3N2) and 50.4% (95% CI: -20.7 to 79.6) against all influenza types in the target groups for vaccination. Efforts to improve influenza vaccines should continue to better protect those at risk of severe illness or complications.

Low and decreasing vaccine effectiveness against influenza A(H3) in 2011/12 among vaccination target groups in Europe: results from the I-MOVE multicentre case-control study

Within the Influenza Monitoring Vaccine Effectiveness in Europe (I-MOVE) project we conducted a multicentre case–control study in eight European Union (EU) Member States to estimate the 2011/12 influenza vaccine effectiveness against medically attended influenza-like illness (ILI) laboratory-confirmed as influenza A(H3) among the vaccination target groups. Practitioners systematically selected ILI / acute respiratory infection patients to swab within seven days of symptom onset. We restricted the study population to those meeting the EU ILI case definition and compared influenza A(H3) positive to influenza laboratory-negative patients. We used logistic regression with study site as fixed effect and calculated adjusted influenza vaccine effectiveness (IVE), controlling for potential confounders (age group, sex, month of symptom onset, chronic diseases and related hospitalisations, number of practitioner visits in the previous year). Adjusted IVE was 25% (95% confidence intervals (CI): -6 to 47) among all ages (n=1,014), 63% (95% CI: 26 to 82) in adults aged between 15 and 59 years and 15% (95% CI: -33 to 46) among those aged 60 years and above. Adjusted IVE was 38% (95%CI: -8 to 65) in the early influenza season (up to week 6 of 2012) and -1% (95% CI: -60 to 37) in the late phase. The results suggested a low adjusted IVE in 2011/12. The lower IVE in the late season could be due to virus changes through the season or waning immunity. Virological surveillance should be enhanced to quantify change over time and understand its relation with duration of immunological protection. Seasonal influenza vaccines should be improved to achieve acceptable levels of protection.

Early estimates of seasonal influenza vaccine effectiveness in Europe among target groups for vaccination: results from the I-MOVE multicentre case-control study, 2011/12

To provide an early estimate of 2011/12 influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE), we conducted a multicentre case-control study based on seven sentinel surveillance networks. We included influenza-like illness cases up to week 7/2012 from the vaccination target groups, swabbed less than eight days after symptom onset. Laboratory-confirmed influenza A(H3) cases were compared to negative controls. Adjusted VE was 43% (95% confidence interval: -0.4 to 67.7), suggesting low to moderate VE against influenza A(H3) in the early 2011/12 season.

Early estimates of seasonal influenza vaccine effectiveness in Europe among target groups for vaccination: results from the I-MOVE multicentre case–control study, 2011/12

Binary file ES_Abstracts_Final_ECDC.txt matches

Early estimates of seasonal influenza vaccine effectiveness in Europe, 2010/11: I-MOVE, a multicentre case-control study

We present early estimates (up to week 4 of 2011) of the 2010/11 seasonal influenza vaccine effectiveness in preventing medically attended influenza-like illness(ILI) laboratory confirmed as influenza. Practitioners from seven European sentinel networks systematically swabbed ILI patients. We included patients meeting the European Union ILI case definition and swabbed less than eight days after symptom onset. Laboratory-confirmed influenza cases were compared with negative controls. The adjusted vaccine effectiveness was 42.3% (95% CI: -7.3 to 69.0%), suggesting moderate protection of the seasonal vaccine.

Impact of conjugate 7-valent vaccination in Belgium: addressing methodological challenges

In Belgium, the 7-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV7) was introduced into the national schedule in 2007. The early impact of PCV7 vaccination on paediatric invasive disease was estimated by comparing pre- and post-vaccination incidence from national surveillance. In children <2 year-olds, vaccine-serotype incidence declined by 96% but non-vaccine-types increased 2-3-fold. Overall invasive disease decreased by 23-46%, depending on adjustment for under-reporting and pre-vaccine trends. Non-vaccine-types 1 and 19A had increased before PCV7 use, suggesting the contribution of other factors. Estimation of PCV7 impact comparing pre- and post-vaccination data should adjust for pre-vaccine trends, and serotype dynamics need further exploration.

Estimates of pandemic influenza vaccine effectiveness in Europe, 2009-2010: results of Influenza Monitoring Vaccine Effectiveness in Europe (I-MOVE) multicentre case-control study

BACKGROUND

A multicentre case-control study based on sentinel practitioner surveillance networks from seven European countries was undertaken to estimate the effectiveness of 2009-2010 pandemic and seasonal influenza vaccines against medically attended influenza-like illness (ILI) laboratory-confirmed as pandemic influenza A (H1N1) (pH1N1).

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Sentinel practitioners swabbed ILI patients using systematic sampling. We included in the study patients meeting the European ILI case definition with onset of symptoms >14 days after the start of national pandemic vaccination campaigns. We compared pH1N1 cases to influenza laboratory-negative controls. A valid vaccination corresponded to >14 days between receiving a dose of vaccine and symptom onset. We estimated pooled vaccine effectiveness (VE) as 1 minus the odds ratio with the study site as a fixed effect. Using logistic regression, we adjusted VE for potential confounding factors (age group, sex, month of onset, chronic diseases and related hospitalizations, smoking history, seasonal influenza vaccinations, practitioner visits in previous year). We conducted a complete case analysis excluding individuals with missing values and a multiple multivariate imputation to estimate missing values. The multivariate imputation (n = 2902) adjusted pandemic VE (PIVE) estimates were 71.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 45.6-85.5) overall; 78.4% (95% CI 54.4-89.8) in patients <65 years; and 72.9% (95% CI 39.8-87.8) in individuals without chronic disease. The complete case (n = 1,502) adjusted PIVE were 66.0% (95% CI 23.9-84.8), 71.3% (95% CI 29.1-88.4), and 70.2% (95% CI 19.4-89.0), respectively. The adjusted PIVE was 66.0% (95% CI -69.9 to 93.2) if vaccinated 8-14 days before ILI onset. The adjusted 2009-2010 seasonal influenza VE was 9.9% (95% CI -65.2 to 50.9).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest good protection of the pandemic monovalent vaccine against medically attended pH1N1 and no effect of the 2009-2010 seasonal influenza vaccine. However, the late availability of the pandemic vaccine and subsequent limited coverage with this vaccine hampered our ability to study vaccine benefits during the outbreak period. Future studies should include estimation of the effectiveness of the new trivalent vaccine in the upcoming 2010-2011 season, when vaccination will occur before the influenza season starts.