Search

Importance: In the context of emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants or lineages and new vaccines, it is key to accurately monitor COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (CVE) to inform vaccination campaigns., Objective: To estimate the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines administered in autumn and winter 2022 to 2023 against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection (with all circulating viruses and XBB lineage in particular) among people aged 60 years or older in Europe, and to compare different CVE approaches across the exposed and reference groups used., Design, Setting, and Participants: This case-control study obtained data from VEBIS (Vaccine Effectiveness, Burden and Impact Studies), a multicenter study that collects COVID-19 and influenza data from 11 European sites: Croatia; France; Germany; Hungary; Ireland; Portugal; the Netherlands; Romania; Spain, national; Spain, Navarre region; and Sweden. Participants were primary care patients aged 60 years or older with acute respiratory infection symptoms who were recruited at the 11 sites after the start of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign from September 2022 to August 2023. Cases and controls were defined as patients with positive and negative, respectively, reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test results., Exposures: The exposure was COVID-19 vaccination. The exposure group consisted of patients who received a COVID-19 vaccine during the autumn and winter 2022 to 2023 vaccination campaign and 14 days or more before symptom onset. Reference group included patients who were not vaccinated during or in the 6 months before the 2022 to 2023 campaign (seasonal CVE), those who were never vaccinated (absolute CVE), and those who were vaccinated with at least the primary series 6 months or more before the campaign (relative CVE). For relative CVE of second boosters, patients receiving their second booster during the campaign were compared with those receiving 1 booster 6 months or more before the campaign., Main Outcomes and Measures: The outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed, medically attended, symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Four CVE estimates were generated: seasonal, absolute, relative, and relative of second boosters. CVE was estimated using logistic regression, adjusting for study site, symptom onset date, age, chronic condition, and sex., Results: A total of 9308 primary care patients were included, with 1687 cases (1035 females; median [IQR] age, 71 [65-79] years) and 7621 controls (4619 females [61%]; median [IQR] age, 71 [65-78] years). Within 14 to 89 days after vaccination, seasonal CVE was 29% (95% CI, 14%-42%), absolute CVE was 39% (95% CI, 6%-60%), relative CVE was 31% (95% CI, 15% to 44%), and relative CVE of second boosters was 34% (95% CI, 18%-47%) against all SARS-CoV-2 variants. In the same interval, seasonal CVE was 44% (95% CI, -10% to 75%), absolute CVE was 52% (95% CI, -23% to 82%), relative CVE was 47% (95% CI, -8% to 77%), and relative CVE of second boosters was 46% (95% CI, -13% to 77%) during a period of high XBB circulation. Estimates decreased with time since vaccination, with no protection from 180 days after vaccination., Conclusions and Relevance: In this case-control study among older Europeans, all CVE approaches suggested that COVID-19 vaccines administered in autumn and winter 2022 to 2023 offered at least 3 months of protection against symptomatic, medically attended, laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. The effectiveness of new COVID-19 vaccines against emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants should be continually monitored using CVE seasonal approaches.

BackgroundAs Ireland prepared for an autumn 2023 COVID-19 vaccination booster campaign, there was concern that vaccine fatigue would affect uptake, which has been abating.AimThis study aimed to quantify the direct impact of the COVID-19 vaccination programme in Ireland on averted COVID-19-related outcomes including symptomatic presentations to primary care/community testing centres, emergency department (ED) presentations, hospitalisations, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions and deaths, in individuals aged ≥ 50 years, during Omicron dominance.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective observational COVID-19 vaccine impact study in December 2021-March 2023 in Ireland. We used national data on notified outcomes and vaccine coverage, as well as vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates, sourced from the World Health Organization's live systematic review of VE, to estimate the count and prevented fraction of outcomes in ≥ 50-year-olds averted by the COVID-19 vaccination programme in this age group.ResultsThe COVID-19 vaccination programme averted 48,551 symptomatic COVID-19 presentations to primary care/community testing centres (36% of cases expected in the absence of vaccination), 9,517 ED presentations (53% of expected), 102,160 hospitalisations (81% of expected), 3,303 ICU admissions (89% of expected) and 15,985 deaths (87% of expected).ConclusionsWhen Omicron predominated, the COVID-19 vaccination programme averted symptomatic and severe COVID-19 cases, including deaths due to COVID-19. In line with other international vaccine impact studies, these findings emphasise the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination for population health and the healthcare system and are relevant for informing COVID-19 booster vaccination programmes, pandemic preparedness and communicating the reason for and importance of COVID-19 vaccination in Ireland and internationally.

Since the end of November 2023, the European Mortality Monitoring Network (EuroMOMO) has observed excess mortality in Europe. During weeks 48 2023-6 2024, preliminary results show a substantially increased rate of 95.3 (95% CI:  91.7-98.9) excess all-cause deaths per 100,000 person-years for all ages. This excess mortality is seen in adults aged 45 years and older, and coincides with widespread presence of COVID-19, influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) observed in many European countries during the 2023/24 winter season.

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.

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., (© 2024 The Authors. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

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)., Competing Interests: None., (© 2024 The Authors. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: The emergence of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in early 2020 and subsequent implementation of public health and social measures (PHSM) disrupted the epidemiology of respiratory viruses. This work describes the epidemiology of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) observed during two winter seasons (weeks 40-20) and inter-seasonal periods (weeks 21-39) during the pandemic between October 2020 and September 2022., Methods: Using data submitted to The European Surveillance System (TESSy) by countries or territories in the World Health Organization (WHO) European Region between weeks 40/2020 and 39/2022, we aggregated country-specific weekly RSV counts of sentinel, non-sentinel and Severe Acute Respiratory Infection (SARI) surveillance specimens and calculated percentage positivity. Results for both 2020/21 and 2021/22 seasons and inter-seasons were compared with pre-pandemic 2016/17 to 2019/20 seasons and inter-seasons., Results: Although more specimens were tested than in pre-COVID-19 pandemic seasons, very few RSV detections were reported during the 2020/21 season in all surveillance systems. During the 2021 inter-season, a gradual increase in detections was observed in all systems. In 2021/22, all systems saw early peaks of RSV infection, and during the 2022 inter-seasonal period, patterns of detections were closer to those seen before the COVID-19 pandemic., Conclusion: RSV surveillance continued throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, with an initial reduction in transmission, followed by very high and out-of-season RSV circulation (summer 2021) and then an early start of the 2021/22 season. As of the 2022/23 season, RSV circulation had not yet normalised., Competing Interests: The following authors declare having received funding from the Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI): Adam Meijer (The Netherlands) and Anne Teirlinck (The Netherlands). All other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (© 2023 The Authors. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

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.

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%.

Introduction: As the COVID-19 pandemic moves towards endemic status, testing strategies are being de-escalated. A rapid and effective point of care test (POCT) assessment of SARS-CoV-2 immune responses can inform clinical decision-making and epidemiological monitoring of the disease. This cross-sectional seroprevalence study of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Irish healthcare workers assessed how rapid anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing can be compared to a standard laboratory assay, discusses its effectiveness in neutralisation assessment and its uses into the future of the pandemic., Methods: A point of care lateral flow immunoassay (LFA) detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike (S)-receptor binding domain (RBD) neutralising antibodies (Healgen SARS-CoV-2 neutralising Antibody Rapid Test Cassette) was compared to the Roche Elecsys/-S anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays and an in vitro surrogate neutralisation assay. A correlation between anti-spike (S), anti-nucleocapsid (N) titres, and in vitro neutralisation was also assessed., Results: 1,777 serology samples were tested using Roche Elecsys/-S anti-SARS-CoV-2 assays to detect total anti-N/S antibodies. 1,562 samples were tested using the POC LFA (including 50 negative controls), and 90 samples were tested using an in vitro ACE2-RBD binding inhibition surrogate neutralisation assay. The POCT demonstrated 97.7% sensitivity, 100% specificity, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 100%, and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 61% in comparison to the commercial assay. Anti-S antibody titres determined by the Roche assay stratified by the POC LFA result groups demonstrated statistically significant differences between the "Positive" and "Negative" LFA groups ( p < 0.0001) and the "Weak Positive" and "Positive" LFA groups ( p < 0.0001). No statistically significant difference in ACE2-RBD binding inhibition was demonstrated when stratified by the LFA POC results. A positive, statistically significant correlation was demonstrated between the in vitro pseudo-neutralisation assay results and anti-S antibody titres (rho 0.423, p < 0.001) and anti-N antibody titres (rho = 0.55, p < 0.0001)., Conclusion: High sensitivity, specificity, and PPV were demonstrated for the POC LFA for the detection of anti-S-RBD antibodies in comparison to the commercial assay. The LFA was not a reliable determinant of the neutralisation capacity of identified antibodies. POC LFA are useful tools in sero-epidemiology settings, pandemic preparedness and may act as supportive tools in treatment decisions through the rapid identification of anti-Spike antibodies., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 McGrath, O'Doherty, Conlon, Dunne, Brady, Ibrahim, McCormack, Walsh, Domegan, Walsh, Kenny, Allen, Fleming and Bergin.)

BackgroundIn 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) accelerated development of European-level severe acute respiratory infection (SARI) surveillance.AimWe aimed to establish SARI surveillance in one Irish hospital as part of a European network E-SARI-NET.MethodsWe used routine emergency department records to identify cases in one adult acute hospital. The SARI case definition was adapted from the ECDC clinical criteria for a possible COVID-19 case. Clinical data were collected using an online questionnaire. Cases were tested for SARS-CoV-2, influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), including whole genome sequencing (WGS) on SARS-CoV-2 RNA-positive samples and viral characterisation/sequencing on influenza RNA-positive samples. Descriptive analysis was conducted for SARI cases hospitalised between July 2021 and April 2022.ResultsOverall, we identified 437 SARI cases, the incidence ranged from two to 28 cases per week (0.7-9.2/100,000 hospital catchment population). Of 431 cases tested for SARS-CoV-2 RNA, 226 (52%) were positive. Of 349 (80%) cases tested for influenza and RSV RNA, 15 (4.3%) were positive for influenza and eight (2.3%) for RSV. Using WGS, we identified Delta- and Omicron-dominant periods. The resource-intensive nature of manual clinical data collection, specimen management and laboratory supply shortages for influenza and RSV testing were challenging.ConclusionWe successfully established SARI surveillance as part of E-SARI-NET. Expansion to additional sentinel sites is planned following formal evaluation of the existing system. SARI surveillance requires multidisciplinary collaboration, automated data collection where possible, and dedicated personnel resources, including for specimen management.

Background: Nosocomial transmission and outbreaks of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales (CPE) represent a challenge to healthcare systems. In July 2018, a CPE hospital ward outbreak was declared. Our aim was to investigate transmission patterns, using social network analysis and genomics in a nosocomial CPE outbreak., Methods: A retrospective descriptive analysis of all patients (cases and contacts) admitted to a ward experiencing a CPE outbreak (2018-2019) was undertaken. A case had a negative CPE admission screen, and subsequent positive test. A contact shared a multi-bed area and/or facility with a case (>4 hours). Social networks, including genomics data and ward locations, were constructed. Network metrics were analysed., Findings: Forty-five cases and 844 contacts were analysed. The median age of cases was 78 years (IQR 67-83), 58% (n=26) were male and 100% had co-morbidities. The median outbreak ward length-of-stay (LOS) was 17 days (IQR 10-34). OXA-48 CPE was confirmed in all cases and from 26 environmental samples. Social networks identified clusters by time, gender and species/sequence type/plasmid. Network metrics indicated potential superspreading involving a subset of patients with behavioural issues., Conclusion: Social networks elucidated high resolution transmission patterns involving two related OXA-48 plasmids, multiple species/genotypes and potential super-spreading. Interventions prevented intra-hospital spread. An older patient cohort, extended hospital LOS and frequent intra-ward bed transfers, coupled with suboptimal ward infrastructure, likely prolonged this outbreak. We recommend social network analysis contemporaneously with genomics (on case and environmental samples) for complex nosocomial outbreaks and bespoke care plans for patients with behavioural issues on outbreak wards., (© 2023 The Authors.)

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., Competing Interests: Simon de Lusignan has received funding through his university for vaccine‐related research from AstraZeneca, GSK, Sanofi, Seqirus and Takeda and has been a member of advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Sanofi and Seqirus. No conflicts of interest are declared for the other authors., (© 2023 Crown copyright and The Authors. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This article is published with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the King's Printer for Scotland.)

Background: The PRECISE Study, a multi-phase cross-sectional seroprevalence study of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Irish healthcare workers (HCW) investigated: (1) risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity, (2) the durability of antibody responses in a highly vaccinated HCW cohort, and (3) the neutralisation capacity of detected antibodies, prior to booster COVID-19 vaccination., Materials and Methods: Serology samples were collected across two hospital sites in November 2021 and analysed using the Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2/Elecsys-S Anti-SARS-CoV-2 assays to detect anti-nucleocapsid (N) and anti-spike (S) antibodies respectively. Paired serology results from prior study phases were used to analyse changes in individual HCW serostatus over time. Risk-factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection were assessed for demographic and work-related factors. Antibody neutralisation capacity was assessed in a subset of samples via an in vitro ACE2 binding enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay., Results: 2,344 HCW samples were analysed. Median age was 43 years (IQR 33-50) with 80.5% ( n = 1,886) female participants. Irish (78.9%, n = 1,850) and Asian (12.3%, n = 288) were the most commonly reported ethnicities. Nursing/midwifery (39.3%, n = 922) was the most common job role. 97.7% of participants were fully vaccinated, with Pfizer (81.1%, n = 1,902) and AstraZeneca (16.1%, n = 377) the most common vaccines received. Seroprevalence for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies indicating prior infection was 23.4%, of these 33.6% represented previously undiagnosed infections. All vaccinated participants demonstrated positive anti-S antibodies and in those with paired serology, no individual demonstrated loss of previously positive anti-S status below assay threshold for positivity. Interval loss of anti-N antibody positivity was demonstrated in 8.8% of previously positive participants with paired results. Risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity suggestive of previous infection included age 18-29 years (aRR 1.50, 95% CI 1.19-1.90, p < 0.001), India as country of birth (aRR 1.35, 95% CI 1.01-1.73, p = 0.036), lower education level (aRR 1.35, 95% CI 1.11-1.66, p = 0.004) and HCA job role (aRR 2.12, 95% CI 1.51-2.95, p < 0.001). Antibody neutralisation varied significantly by anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody status, with highest levels noted in those anti-N positive, in particular those with vaccination plus previous SARS-CoV-2 infection., Conclusion: All vaccinated HCWs maintained anti-S positivity prior to COVID-19 booster vaccination, however anti-N positivity was more dynamic over time. Antibody neutralisation capacity was highest in participants with COVID-19 vaccination plus prior SARS-CoV-2 infection., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 McGrath, Kenny, Nielsen, Domegan, Walsh, Rooney, Walsh, Conlon, Brady, Ibrahim, Dunne, McCormack, Corcoran, Allen, Fleming and Bergin.)

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., (© 2022 The Authors. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

BackgroundTimely treatment with neuraminidase inhibitors (NAI) can reduce severe outcomes in influenza patients.AimWe assessed the impact of antiviral treatment on in-hospital deaths of laboratory-confirmed influenza patients in 11 European Union countries from 2010/11 to 2019/20.MethodsCase-based surveillance data from hospitalised patients with known age, sex, outcome, ward, vaccination status, timing of antiviral treatment, and hospitalisation were obtained. A mixed effect logistic regression model using country as random intercept was applied to estimate the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for in-hospital death in patients treated with NAIs vs not treated.ResultsOf 19,937 patients, 31% received NAIs within 48 hours of hospital admission. Older age (60-79 years aOR 3.0, 95% CI: 2.4-3.8; 80 years 8.3 (6.6-10.5)) and intensive care unit admission (3.8, 95% CI: 3.4-4.2) increased risk of dying, while early hospital admission after symptom onset decreased risk (aOR 0.91, 95% CI: 0.90-0.93). NAI treatment initiation within 48 hours and up to 7 days reduced risk of dying (0-48 hours aOR 0.51, 95% CI: 0.45-0.59; 3-4 days 0.59 (0.51-0.67); 5-7 days 0.64 (0.56-0.74)), in particular in patients 40 years and older (e.g. treatment within 48 hours: 40-59 years aOR 0.43, 95% CI: 0.28-0.66; 60-79 years 0.50 (0.39-0.63); ≥80 years 0.51 (0.42-0.63)).ConclusionNAI treatment given within 48 hours and possibly up to 7 days after symptom onset reduced risk of in-hospital death. NAI treatment should be considered in older patients to prevent severe outcomes.

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.

Background: In October 2020 SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence among hospital healthcare workers (HCW) of two Irish hospitals was 15 and 4. 1%, respectively. We compare seroprevalence in the same HCW population 6 months later, assess changes in risk factors for seropositivity with progression of the pandemic and serological response to vaccination., Methods: All staff of both hospitals ( N = 9,038) were invited to participate in an online questionnaire and SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing in April 2021. We measured anti-nucleocapsid and anti-spike antibodies. Frequencies and percentages for positive SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were calculated and adjusted relative risks for participant characteristics were calculated using multivariable regression analysis., Results: Five thousand and eighty-five HCW participated. Seroprevalence increased to 21 and 13%, respectively; 26% of infections were previously undiagnosed. Black ethnicity (aRR 1.7, 95% CI 1.3-2.2, p < 0.001), lower level of education (aRR 1.4 for secondary level education, 95% CI 1.1-1.8, p = 0.002), living with other HCW (aRR 1.2, 95% CI 1.0-1.4, p = 0.007) were significantly associated with seropositivity. Having direct patient contact also carried a significant risk being a healthcare assistant (aRR 1.8, 95% CI 1.3-2.3, p < 0.001), being a nurse (aRR 1.4, 95% CI 1.0-1.8, p = 0.022), daily contact with COVID-19 patients (aRR 1.4, 95% CI 1.1-1.7, p = 0.002), daily contact with patients without suspected or confirmed COVID-19 (aRR 1.3, 95% CI 1.1-1.5, p = 0.013). Breakthrough infection occurred in 23/4,111(0.6%) of fully vaccinated participants; all had anti-S antibodies., Conclusion: The increase in seroprevalence reflects the magnitude of the third wave of the pandemic in Ireland. Genomic sequencing is needed to apportion risk to the workplace vs. the household/community. Concerted efforts are needed to mitigate risk factors due to ethnicity and lower level of education, even at this stage of the pandemic. The undiagnosed and breakthrough infections call for ongoing infection prevention and control measures and testing of HCW in the setting of close contact. Vaccinated HCW with confirmed infection should be actively assessed, including SARS-CoV-2 whole genome sequencing (WGS), serology testing and assessment of host determinants, to advance understanding of the reasons for breakthrough infection., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Allen, Brady, Ni Riain, Conlon, Domegan, Carrion Martin, Walsh, Doherty, Higgins, Kerr, Bergin and Fleming.)

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., (© 2021 The Authors. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objectives: Molecular epidemiological description of an OXA-48 CPE outbreak affecting a tertiary-care hospital ward in Ireland over an extended period (2018-2019)., Methods: Microbiological testing and whole-genome sequencing (WGS) were performed on all 56 positive OXA-48 outbreak case isolates., Results: In total, 7 different species were identified: Enterobacter hormaechei (n = 35, 62.5%), Escherichia coli (n = 12, 21.4%), Klebsiella pneumoniae (n = 5, 8.9%), Klebsiella oxytoca (n = 1, 1.8%), Klebsiella michiganensis (n = 1, 1.8%), Citrobacter freundii (n = 1, 1.8%), and Serratia marcesens (n = 1, 1.8%). E. hormaechei ST78 was the most common genotype (n = 14, 25%). Two major pOXA-48 plasmid types were identified throughout the outbreak, 'types' 1 and 2, and 5 major E. hormaechei clonal groupings were identified: ST78, ST108, ST1126, ST135, and ST66. Within each of the ST108, ST1126, ST135 and ST66 groups, the pOXA-48 harbored within each isolate were the same. Within ST78, 9 isolates contained the pOXA48 'type 2' plasmid and 5 contained the 'type 1' plasmid. Environmental specimens were taken from different outbreak ward locations: handwash basins, sink and shower drains, and taps. Of 394 environmental specimens, OXA-48 CPE was isolated from 26 (6.6%)., Conclusions: This prolonged outbreak of OXA-48 CPE was confined to one ward, but it exemplifies the complexity and difficulty in the control of these organisms. With multiple species and genotypes involved, they may be better described as 'plasmid outbreaks.' WGS provided insights into this diversity and potential transmission among cases, though its usefulness would be enhanced by analysis as close as possible to real time so that interventions can be implemented as soon as data are available., (© The Author(s) 2021.)

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies are an excellent indicator of past COVID-19 infection. As the COVID-19 pandemic progresses, retained sensitivity over time is an important quality in an antibody assay that is to be used for the purpose of population seroprevalence studies. We compared 5,788 health care worker (HCW) serum samples by using two serological assays (Abbott SARS-CoV-2 anti-nucleocapsid immunoglobulin G (IgG) and Roche anti-SARS-CoV-2 anti-nucleocapsid total antibody) and a subset of samples (all Abbott assay positive or grayzone, n  = 485) on Wantai SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike antibody enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). For 367 samples from HCW with a previous PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, we correlated the timing of infection with assay results. Overall, seroprevalence was 4.2% on Abbott and 9.5% on Roche. Of those with previously confirmed infection, 41% (150/367) and 95% (348/367) tested positive on Abbott and Roche, respectively. At 21 weeks (150 days) after confirmed infection, positivity on Abbott started to decline. Roche positivity was retained for the entire study period (33 weeks). Factors associated ( P ≤ 0.050) with Abbott seronegativity in those with previous PCR-confirmed infection included sex (odds ratio [OR], 0.30 male ; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15 to 0.60), symptom severity (OR 0.19 severe symptoms; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.61), ethnicity (OR, 0.28 Asian ethnicity; 95% CI, 0.12 to 0.60), and time since PCR diagnosis (OR, 2.06 for infection 6 months previously; 95% CI, 1.01 to 4.30). Wantai detected all previously confirmed infections. In our population, Roche detected antibodies up to at least 7 months after natural infection with SARS-CoV-2. This finding indicates that the Roche total antibody assay is better suited than Abbott IgG assay to population-based studies. Wantai demonstrated high sensitivity, but sample selection was biased. The relationship between serological response and functional immunity to SARS-CoV-2 infection needs to be delineated. IMPORTANCE As the COVID-19 pandemic progresses, retained sensitivity over time is an important quality in an antibody assay that is to be used for the purpose of population seroprevalence studies. There is a relative paucity of published literature in this field to help guide public health specialists when planning seroprevalence studies. In this study, we compared results of 5,788 health care worker blood samples tested by using two assays (Roche and Elecsys, anti-nucleocapsid antibody) and by testing a subset on a third assay (Wantai enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay [ELISA] anti-spike antibody). We found significant differences in the performance of these assays, especially with distance in time from PCR-confirmed COVID-19 infection, and we feel these results may significantly impact the choice of assay for others conducting similar studies.

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.

Hospital healthcare workers (HCWs) are at increased risk of contracting COVID-19 infection. We aimed to determine the seroprevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies in HCWs in Ireland. Two tertiary referral hospitals in Irish cities with diverging community incidence and seroprevalence were identified; COVID-19 had been diagnosed in 10.2% and 1.8% of staff respectively by the time of the study (October 2020). All staff of both hospitals (N = 9038) were invited to participate in an online questionnaire and blood sampling for SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing. Frequencies and percentages for positive SARS-CoV-2 antibody were calculated and adjusted relative risks (aRR) for participant characteristics were calculated using multivariable regression analysis. In total, 5788 HCWs participated (64% response rate). Seroprevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 was 15% and 4.1% in hospitals 1 and 2, respectively. Thirty-nine percent of infections were previously undiagnosed. Risk for seropositivity was higher for healthcare assistants (aRR 2.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.4-3.0), nurses (aRR: 1.6, 95% CI 1.1-2.2), daily exposure to patients with COVID-19 (aRR: 1.6, 95% CI 1.2-2.1), age 18-29 years (aRR: 1.4, 95% CI 1.1-1.9), living with other HCWs (aRR: 1.3, 95% CI 1.1-1.5), Asian background (aRR: 1.3, 95% CI 1.0-1.6) and male sex (aRR: 1.2, 95% CI 1.0-1.4). The HCW seroprevalence was six times higher than community seroprevalence. Risk was higher for those with close patient contact. The proportion of undiagnosed infections call for robust infection control guidance, easy access to testing and consideration of screening in asymptomatic HCWs. With emerging evidence of reduction in transmission from vaccinated individuals, the authors strongly endorse rapid vaccination of all HCWs.

The European monitoring of excess mortality for public health action (EuroMOMO) network monitors weekly excess all-cause mortality in 27 European countries or subnational areas. During the first wave of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic in Europe in spring 2020, several countries experienced extraordinarily high levels of excess mortality. Europe is currently seeing another upsurge in COVID-19 cases, and EuroMOMO is again witnessing a substantial excess all-cause mortality attributable to COVID-19.

A remarkable excess mortality has coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe. We present preliminary pooled estimates of all-cause mortality for 24 European countries/federal states participating in the European monitoring of excess mortality for public health action (EuroMOMO) network, for the period March-April 2020. Excess mortality particularly affected  ≥ 65 year olds (91% of all excess deaths), but also 45-64 (8%) and 15-44 year olds (1%). No excess mortality was observed in 0-14 year olds.

Residents in long-term care facilities (LTCF) are a vulnerable population group. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19)-related deaths in LTCF residents represent 30-60% of all COVID-19 deaths in many European countries. This situation demands that countries implement local and national testing, infection prevention and control, and monitoring programmes for COVID-19 in LTCF in order to identify clusters early, decrease the spread within and between facilities and reduce the size and severity of outbreaks.

IntroductionInfluenza 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).AimThe 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsInfluenza 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.DiscussionThe 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.

Background: Morbidity, severity, and mortality associated with annual influenza epidemics are of public health concern. We analyzed surveillance data on hospitalized laboratory-confirmed influenza cases admitted to intensive care units to identify common determinants for fatal outcome and inform and target public health prevention strategies, including risk communication., Methods: We performed a descriptive analysis and used Poisson regression models with robust variance to estimate the association of age, sex, virus (sub)type, and underlying medical condition with fatal outcome using European Union data from 2009 to 2017., Results: Of 13 368 cases included in the basic dataset, 2806 (21%) were fatal. Age ≥40 years and infection with influenza A virus were associated with fatal outcome. Of 5886 cases with known underlying medical conditions and virus A subtype included in a more detailed analysis, 1349 (23%) were fatal. Influenza virus A(H1N1)pdm09 or A(H3N2) infection, age ≥60 years, cancer, human immunodeficiency virus infection and/or other immune deficiency, and heart, kidney, and liver disease were associated with fatal outcome; the risk of death was lower for patients with chronic lung disease and for pregnant women., Conclusions: This study re-emphasises the importance of preventing influenza in the elderly and tailoring strategies to risk groups with underlying medical conditions., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

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., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2019 The Authors.)

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., (© 2018 The Authors. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

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., (© 2017 The Authors. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Since December 2016, excess all-cause mortality was observed in many European countries, especially among people aged ≥ 65 years. We estimated all-cause and influenza-attributable mortality in 19 European countries/regions. Excess mortality was primarily explained by circulation of influenza virus A(H3N2). Cold weather snaps contributed in some countries. The pattern was similar to the last major influenza A(H3N2) season in 2014/15 in Europe, although starting earlier in line with the early influenza season start., (This article is copyright of The Authors, 2017.)

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.

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.

Objectives: Although influenza-like illnesses (ILI) and acute respiratory illnesses (ARI) surveillance are well established in Europe, the comparability of intensity among countries and seasons remains an unresolved challenge. The objective is to compare the intensity of ILI and ARI in some European countries., Design and Setting: Weekly ILI and ARI incidence rates and proportion of primary care consultations were modeled in 28 countries for the 1996/1997-2013/2014 seasons using the moving epidemic method (MEM). We calculated the epidemic threshold and three intensity thresholds, which delimit five intensity levels: baseline, low, medium, high, and very high. The intensity of 2013/2014 season is described and compared by country., Results: The lowest ILI epidemic thresholds appeared in Sweden and Estonia (below 10 cases per 100 000) and the highest in Belgium, Denmark, Hungary, Poland, Serbia, and Slovakia (above 100 per 100 000). The 2009/2010 season was the most intense, with 35% of the countries showing high or very high intensity levels. The European epidemic period in season 2013/2014 started in January 2014 in Spain, Poland, and Greece. The intensity was between low and medium and only Greece reached the high intensity level, in weeks 7 to 9/2014. Some countries remained at the baseline level throughout the entire surveillance period., Conclusions: Epidemic and intensity thresholds varied by country. Influenza-like illnesses and ARI levels normalized by MEM in 2013/2014 showed that the intensity of the season in Europe was between low and medium in most of the countries. Comparing intensity among seasons or countries is essential for understanding patterns in seasonal epidemics. An automated standardized model for comparison should be implemented at national and international levels., (© 2015 The Authors. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)