Suchergebnisse

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. 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. 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. 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. ; This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement no. 634446 to conduct the study in individuals aged 65 years or more. ECDC has contributed funds for the coordination and some study sites under the Framework contract no. ECDC/2014/026 for the individuals aged less than 65 years. The WHO Regional office for Europe has contributed funds for the Romanian study site. ; Sí

I-MOVE/I-MOVE+ study team - Portugal: Verónica Gomez, Ana Paula Rodrigues, Baltazar Nunes (Departamento de Epidemiologia, Instituto Nacional de Saúde Dr. Ricardo Jorge, Lisbon, Portugal); Pedro Pechirra, Paula Cristóvão, Patrícia Conde, Inês Costa (Departamento de Doenças Infeciosas, Instituto Nacional de Saúde Dr. Ricardo Jorge, Lisbon, Portugal). ; Background:During the 2015/16 influenza season in Europe, the co-circulating 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 ainfluenza Vaccinend a random sample of influenza positive swabs were 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: -32.3-65.0), 41.4% (95%CI: 20.5-56.7) and 13.2% (95% CI: -38.0-45.3) respectively. Overall VE against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 genetic group 6B.1 was 32.8% (95%CI: -4.1-56.7). Among those aged 0–14, 15–64 and ≥65 years VE against influenza B was -47.6% (95%CI: -124.9-3.1), 27.3% (95%CI: -4.6-49.4), and 9.3% (95%CI: -44.1-42.9) respectively. Conclusions: VE against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 and its genetic group 6B.1 was moderate in children and adults, and low among individuals ≥65 years. VE against influenza B was low and heterogeneous among age groups. More information on effects of previous vaccination and previous infection are needed to understand the VE results against influenza B in the context of a mismatched vaccine. ; This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 634446 to conduct the study in individuals aged 65 years or more. Framework contract No ECDC/2014/026 ; info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

Free PMC article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6807025/pdf/main.pdf ; 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. ; This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement no. 634446 to conduct the study in individuals aged 65 years or more. ECDC has contributed funds for the coordination and some study sites under the Framework contract no. ECDC/2014/026 for the individuals aged less than 65 years. The WHO Regional office for Europe has contributed funds for the Romanian study site ; info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

As the COVID-19 pandemic began in early 2020, primary care influenza sentinel surveillance networks within the Influenza - Monitoring Vaccine Effectiveness in Europe (I-MOVE) consortium rapidly adapted to COVID-19 surveillance. This study maps system adaptations and lessons learned about aligning influenza and COVID-19 surveillance following ECDC / WHO/Europe recommendations and preparing for other diseases possibly emerging in the future. Using a qualitative approach, we describe the adaptations of seven sentinel sites in five European Union countries and the United Kingdom during the first pandemic phase (March–September 2020). Adaptations to sentinel systems were substantial (2/7 sites), moderate (2/7) or minor (3/7 sites). Most adaptations encompassed patient referral and sample collection pathways, laboratory testing and data collection. Strengths included established networks of primary care providers, highly qualified testing laboratories and stakeholder commitments. One challenge was the decreasing number of samples due to altered patient pathways. Lessons learned included flexibility establishing new routines and new laboratory testing. To enable simultaneous sentinel surveillance of influenza and COVID-19, experiences of the sentinel sites and testing infrastructure should be considered. The contradicting aims of rapid case finding and contact tracing, which are needed for control during a pandemic and regular surveillance, should be carefully balanced.