Search

Introduction: This prospective study examines the test–retest reliability of touchscreen DriveSafe DriveAware (DSDA). In a future study, the authors intend assessing the usefulness of DSDA to measure progress of patients undergoing treatment for neurological conditions. Evidence of test–retest reliability is required first. Methods: Australian adults with current driver's licences (N = 39) aged 20 to 91 years (Mage = 58) recruited from a convenience sample were assessed with DSDA. The assessment was repeated 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months later to match planned assessments of patients undergoing neurosurgical treatment in future research. DSDA classification, DriveSafe subtest score, and DriveAware subtest scores were analysed as a whole sample, and in three age groups. Results: DSDA classification and DriveAware scores were consistent over repeated tests. DriveSafe scores increased between test 1 and 2 (p =.006), and thereafter no significant change from test 2 to 4. DriveSafe scores of older participants (70+ years) increased between test 1 and 2 more notably than younger participants' scores. No DriveSafe scores decreased over time. Conclusion: DSDA classification and DriveAware scores demonstrated test–retest reliability for all age groups. DriveSafe scores did not demonstrate test–retest reliability between test 1 and 2 for participants 70+ years. However, DriveSafe scores demonstrated test–retest reliability after test 2, possibly indicating an initial learning effect for the DriveSafe score only. The authors posit that this result may have been influenced by older adults' reduced familiarity with iPad technology at first assessment. Further longitudinal research is required to confirm whether these results are consistent in a sample population with diagnosed cognitive impairment. Future research will assess whether repeated assessment of DSDA may be useful for monitoring and screening cognitive fitness to drive in patients who have undergone neurosurgical treatment and whether declining scores may indicate cognitive changes in ability to drive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The universal paediatric live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) programme commenced in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2013/2014. Since 2014/2015, all pre‐school and primary school children in Scotland and Northern Ireland have been offered the vaccine. England and Wales incrementally introduced the programme with additional school age cohorts being vaccinated each season. The Republic of Ireland (ROI) had no universal paediatric programme before 2017. We evaluated the potential population impact of vaccinating primary school‐aged children across the five countries up to the 2016/2017 influenza season. Methods: We compared rates of primary care influenza‐like illness (ILI) consultations, confirmed influenza intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, and all‐cause excess mortality using standardised methods. To further quantify the impact, a scoring system was developed where each weekly rate/z‐score was scored and summed across each influenza season according to the weekly respective threshold experienced in each country. Results: Results highlight ILI consultation rates in the four seasons' post‐programme, breached baseline thresholds once or not at all in Scotland and Northern Ireland; in three out of the four seasons in England and Wales; and in all four seasons in ROI. No differences were observed in the seasons' post‐programme introduction between countries in rates of ICU and excess mortality, although reductions in influenza‐related mortality were seen. The scoring system also reflected similar results overall. Conclusions: Findings of this study suggest that LAIV vaccination of primary school age children is associated with population‐level benefits, particularly in reducing infection incidence in primary care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We developed a COVID‐19 pandemic severity assessment (PSA) monitoring system in Ireland, in order to inform and improve public health preparedness, response and recovery. The system based on the World Health Organization (WHO) Pandemic Influenza Severity Assessment (PISA) project included a panel of surveillance parameters for the following indicators: transmissibility, impact and disease severity. Age‐specific thresholds were established for each parameter and data visualised using heat maps. The findings from the first pandemic wave in Ireland have shown that the WHO PISA system can be adapted for COVID‐19, providing a standardised tool for early warning and monitoring pandemic severity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]