Suchergebnisse

Abstract Background The WHO suggested that governments stockpile, as part of preparations for the next influenza pandemic, sufficient influenza antiviral drugs to treat approximately 25% of their populations. Our aim is two-fold: first, since in many countries the antiviral stockpile is well below this level, we search for suboptimal strategies based on treatment provided only to an age-dependent fraction of cases. Second, since in some countries the stockpile exceeds the suggested minimum level, we search for optimal strategies for post-exposure prophylactic treatment of close contacts of cases. Methods We used a stochastic, spatially structured individual-based model, considering explicit transmission in households, schools and workplaces, to simulate the spatiotemporal spread of an influenza pandemic in Italy and to evaluate the efficacy of interventions based on age-prioritized use of antivirals. Results Our results show that the antiviral stockpile required for treatment of cases ranges from 10% to 35% of the population for R 0 in 1.4 – 3. No suboptimal strategies, based on treatment provided to an age-dependent fraction of cases, were found able to remarkably reduce both clinical attack rate and antiviral drugs needs, though they can contribute to largely reduce the excess mortality. Treatment of all cases coupled with prophylaxis provided to younger individuals is the only intervention resulting in a significant reduction of the clinical attack rate and requiring a relatively small stockpile of antivirals. Conclusion Our results strongly suggest that governments stockpile sufficient influenza antiviral drugs to treat approximately 25% of their populations, under the assumption that R 0 is not much larger than 2. In countries where the number of antiviral stockpiled exceeds the suggested minimum level, providing prophylaxis to younger individuals is an option that could be taken into account in preparedness plans. In countries where the number of antivirals stockpiled is well below 25% of the population, priority should be decided based on age-specific case fatality rates. However, late detection of cases (administration of antivirals 48 hours after the clinical onset of symptoms) dramatically affects the efficacy of both treatment and prophylaxis.

In response to the presence of a significant number of non-EU nationals illegally residing within their borders, EU countries implement forced return policies which, besides being particularly burdensome from both a financial and organisational point of view, can stoke the fires of social and diplomatic tensions as well as, at times, proving problematic in terms of a lack of the appropriate full respect for fundamental human rights. For these reasons, the EU institutions have repeatedly stated that voluntary returns are always to be preferred to forced ones. One measure that can concretely encourage voluntary returns is that of Assisted Voluntary Return programmes, which can be accompanied by initiatives to support the socio-economic reintegration of citizens repatriated to their country of origin. This article presents and compares the policies and procedures for Assisted Voluntary Return and reintegration adopted by the four largest EU countries: France, Germany, Italy and Spain. The article also offers some remarks on the four cases studied as a whole, with a particular focus on the elements that seem to provide the most significant contribution to the success of these policies.

The vaccination of pregnant women against influenza and COVID-19 may reduce the risk of severe illness in both the women of this population and their babies. Although the risks of non-vaccination are more serious than the side effects, maternal immunization is still the least-used method of prevention due to a lack of information leading to concerns about the safety and efficacy of vaccines, resulting in a low prevalence rate among pregnant individuals. Our study investigates vaccination coverage and the knowledge, attitudes and perceptions of COVID-19 in pregnant women at a university hospital. A questionnaire was created with the following three scores: a vaccination propensity score, a knowledge score and a hesitancy score. The first observation in the results was the very low number of immunized women (only 4.7% received their first dose). The main barrier towards vaccination was found to be fear of adverse events. We noticed a low percentage of influenza and diphtheria tetanus pertussis vaccination compared to other studies. Vaccination propensity was higher when healthcare workers educated their patients. As immunization is a crucial part of public health policy, measuring coverage to identify gaps and monitor trends, especially for individuals considered at high risk, and developing new strategies in order to increase awareness of vaccination during pregnancy is particularly timely and relevant.

In Europe, annual influenza vaccination is recommended to elderly. From 2011 to 2014 and in 2015-16, we conducted a multicentre test negative case control study in hospitals of 11 European countries to measure influenza vaccine effectiveness (IVE) against laboratory confirmed hospitalised influenza among people aged ≥65years. We pooled four seasons data to measure IVE by past exposures to influenza vaccination. We swabbed patients admitted for clinical conditions related to influenza with onset of severe acute respiratory infection ≤7days before admission. Cases were patients RT-PCR positive for influenza virus and controls those negative for any influenza virus. We documented seasonal vaccination status for the current season and the two previous seasons. We recruited 5295 patients over the four seasons, including 465A(H1N1)pdm09, 642A(H3N2), 278 B case-patients and 3910 controls. Among patients unvaccinated in both previous two seasons, current seasonal IVE (pooled across seasons) was 30% (95%CI: -35 to 64), 8% (95%CI: -94 to 56) and 33% (95%CI: -43 to 68) against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, A(H3N2) and B respectively. Among patients vaccinated in both previous seasons, current seasonal IVE (pooled across seasons) was -1% (95%CI: -80 to 43), 37% (95%CI: 7-57) and 43% (95%CI: 1-68) against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, A(H3N2) and B respectively. Our results suggest that, regardless of patients' recent vaccination history, current seasonal vaccine conferred some protection to vaccinated patients against hospitalisation with influenza A(H3N2) and B. Vaccination of patients already vaccinated in both the past two seasons did not seem to be effective against A(H1N1)pdm09. To better understand the effect of repeated vaccination, engaging in large cohort studies documenting exposures to vaccine and natural infection is needed. ; The Lithuanian I-MOVE + study sites were supported by a grant from the Research Council of Lithuania (SEN-03/2015). The I-MOVE + project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 634446. GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur and Sanofi Pasteur MSD financially supported the InNHOVE network. ; Sí

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. ; Sí

BACKGROUND: In the third season of I-MOVE (Influenza Monitoring Vaccine Effectiveness in Europe), we undertook a multicentre case-control study based on sentinel practitioner surveillance networks in eight European Union (EU) member states to estimate 2010/11 influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) against medically-attended influenza-like illness (ILI) laboratory-confirmed as influenza. METHODS: Using systematic sampling, practitioners swabbed ILI/ARI patients within seven days of symptom onset. We compared influenza-positive to influenza laboratory-negative patients among those meeting the EU ILI case definition. A valid vaccination corresponded to > 14 days between receiving a dose of vaccine and symptom onset. We used multiple imputation with chained equations to estimate missing values. Using logistic regression with study as fixed effect we calculated influenza VE adjusting for potential confounders. We estimated influenza VE overall, by influenza type, age group and among the target group for vaccination. RESULTS: We included 2019 cases and 2391 controls in the analysis. Adjusted VE was 52% (95% CI 30-67) overall (N = 4410), 55% (95% CI 29-72) against A(H1N1) and 50% (95% CI 14-71) against influenza B. Adjusted VE against all influenza subtypes was 66% (95% CI 15-86), 41% (95% CI -3-66) and 60% (95% CI 17-81) among those aged 0-14, 15-59 and ≥60 respectively. Among target groups for vaccination (N = 1004), VE was 56% (95% CI 34-71) overall, 59% (95% CI 32-75) against A(H1N1) and 63% (95% CI 31-81) against influenza B. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest moderate protection from 2010-11 trivalent influenza vaccines against medically-attended ILI laboratory-confirmed as influenza across Europe. Adjusted and stratified influenza VE estimates are possible with the large sample size of this multi-centre case-control. I-MOVE shows how a network can provide precise summary VE measures across Europe. ; The authors have no support or funding to report. ; Sí

Following the emergence of a novel strain of influenza A(H1N1) in Mexico and the United States in April 2009, its epidemiology in Europe during the summer was limited to sporadic and localised outbreaks. Only the United Kingdom experienced widespread transmission declining with school holidays in late July. Using statistical modelling where applicable we explored the following causes that could explain this surprising difference in transmission dynamics: extinction by chance, differences in the susceptibility profile, age distribution of the imported cases, differences in contact patterns, mitigation strategies, school holidays and weather patterns. No single factor was able to explain the differences sufficiently. Hence an additive mixed model was used to model the country-specific weekly estimates of the effective reproductive number using the extinction probability, school holidays and weather patterns as explanatory variables. The average extinction probability, its trend and the trend in absolute humidity were found to be significantly negatively correlated with the effective reproduction number - although they could only explain about 3% of the variability in the model. By comparing the initial epidemiology of influenza A (H1N1) across different European countries, our analysis was able to uncover a possible role for the timing of importations (extinction probability), mixing patterns and the absolute humidity as underlying factors. However, much uncertainty remains. With better information on the role of these epidemiological factors, the control of influenza could be improved.

In a multicentre European hospital study we measured influenza vaccine effectiveness (IVE) against A(H3N2) in 2016/17. Adjusted IVE was 17% (95% confidence interval (CI): 1 to 31) overall; 25% (95% CI: 2 to 43) among 65-79-year-olds and 13% (95% CI: -15 to 30) among those ≥ 80 years. As the A(H3N2) vaccine component has not changed for 2017/18, physicians and public health experts should be aware that IVE could be low where A(H3N2) viruses predominate. ; The I-MOVE+ project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 634446. The Lithuanian I-MOVE+ study sites were supported by a grant from the Research Council of Lithuania (SEN-03/2015). We are grateful to all patients, medical staff, study nurses and epidemiologists from the 12 study sites who actively participated in the study.oin. ; Sí

Members of the I-Move+hospital working group - Portugal: B. Nunes, I. Kislaya, A.P. Rodrigues (National Health Institute Doutor Ricardo Jorge, Lisbon), V. Gomes, R. Côrte-Real (Centro Hospitalar de Lisboa Central, Lisbon), J. Poças, M.J. Peres (Centro Hospitalar de Setúbal, Setúbal). ; In a multicentre European hospital study we measured influenza vaccine effectiveness (IVE) against A(H3N2) in 2016/17. Adjusted IVE was 17% (95% confidence interval (CI): 1 to 31) overall; 25% (95% CI: 2 to 43) among 65-79-year-olds and 13% (95% CI: -15 to 30) among those ≥ 80 years. As the A(H3N2) vaccine component has not changed for 2017/18, physicians and public health experts should be aware that IVE could be low where A(H3N2) viruses predominate. ; Funding: The I-MOVE+ project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 634446. The Lithuanian I-MOVE+ study sites were supported by a grant from the Research Council of Lithuania (SEN-03/2015). ; info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

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

We conducted a multicentre test-negative case-control study in 27 hospitals of 11 European countries to measure 2015/16 influenza vaccine effectiveness (IVE) against hospitalised influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 and B among people aged ≥ 65 years. Patients swabbed within 7 days after onset of symptoms compatible with severe acute respiratory infection were included. Information on demographics, vaccination and underlying conditions was collected. Using logistic regression, we measured IVE adjusted for potential confounders. We included 355 influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 cases, 110 influenza B cases, and 1,274 controls. Adjusted IVE against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 was 42% (95% confidence interval (CI): 22 to 57). It was 59% (95% CI: 23 to 78), 48% (95% CI: 5 to 71), 43% (95% CI: 8 to 65) and 39% (95% CI: 7 to 60) in patients with diabetes mellitus, cancer, lung and heart disease, respectively. Adjusted IVE against influenza B was 52% (95% CI: 24 to 70). It was 62% (95% CI: 5 to 85), 60% (95% CI: 18 to 80) and 36% (95% CI: -23 to 67) in patients with diabetes mellitus, lung and heart disease, respectively. 2015/16 IVE estimates against hospitalised influenza in elderly people was moderate against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 and B, including among those with diabetes mellitus, cancer, lung or heart diseases. ; The I-MOVE+ project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 634446. The Lithuanian I-MOVE+ study sites were supported by a grant from the Research Council of Lithuania (SEN-03/2015). We are grateful to all patients, medical staff, study nurses and epidemiologists from the 12 study sites who actively participated in the study. ; Sí

Members of the I-MOVE+ project - Portugal: Baltazar Nunes, Ana Paula Rodrigues, Raquel Guiomar (Infectious Diseases Department, National Health Institute Doutor Ricardo Jorge, Lisbon, Portugal), Victor Gomes, Filipa Quaresma, Luis Vale, Teresa Garcia, Teresa Bernardo, Liliana Dias, Paula Fonseca, Helena Amorim, João Rolo, Helena Pacheco, Paula Branquinho, Rita Côrte-Real (Centro Hospitalar de Lisboa Central, Lisbon, Portugal),José Poças, Paula Lopes, Maria João Peres, Rosa Ribeiro, Paula Duarte, Ermelinda Pedroso, Sara Rodrigues, Ana Rita Silvério, Diana Gomes Pedreira, Marta Ferreira Fonseca, (Centro Hospitalar de Setúbal, Setúbal, Portugal). ; We conducted a multicentre test-negative case-control study in 27 hospitals of 11 European countries to measure 2015/16 influenza vaccine effectiveness (IVE) against hospitalised influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 and B among people aged ≥ 65 years. Patients swabbed within 7 days after onset of symptoms compatible with severe acute respiratory infection were included. Information on demographics, vaccination and underlying conditions was collected. Using logistic regression, we measured IVE adjusted for potential confounders. We included 355 influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 cases, 110 influenza B cases, and 1,274 controls. Adjusted IVE against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 was 42% (95% confidence interval (CI): 22 to 57). It was 59% (95% CI: 23 to 78), 48% (95% CI: 5 to 71), 43% (95% CI: 8 to 65) and 39% (95% CI: 7 to 60) in patients with diabetes mellitus, cancer, lung and heart disease, respectively. Adjusted IVE against influenza B was 52% (95% CI: 24 to 70). It was 62% (95% CI: 5 to 85), 60% (95% CI: 18 to 80) and 36% (95% CI: -23 to 67) in patients with diabetes mellitus, lung and heart disease, respectively. 2015/16 IVE estimates against hospitalised influenza in elderly people was moderate against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 and B, including among those with diabetes mellitus, cancer, lung or heart diseases. ; The I-MOVE+ project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 634446. ; info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

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/PMC6086844/ ; I‐MOVE primary care multicentre case‐control team - Portugal: Baltazar Nunes, Ausenda Machado, Ana Paula Rodrigues, Verónica Gomez (Departamento de Epidemiologia, Instituto Nacional de Saúde Dr. Ricardo Jorge); Raquel Guiomar, Pedro Pechirra, Paula Cristóvão, Patrícia Conde, Inês Costa (Departamento de Doenças Infeciosas, Instituto Nacional de Saúde Dr. Ricardo Jorge) ; 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. ; European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Grant Number: ECDC/2014/026 European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme. Grant Number: 634446 WHO‐EURO ; info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion