Search

Introduction Vaccine-preventable respiratory infections (VPRI) including those caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae, influenza, respiratory syncytial virus and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pose substantial challenges to health and social care systems. In the UK, routine adult respiratory vaccination programs are in place. The objective of this article is to review the current evidence on the impact of four seasonal VPRIs in adults risk group definitions and to explore the strengths and limitations of current recommendations, and to identify evidence gaps for further research.Areas covered Relevant evidence on UK data from surveillance systems, observational studies and publicly available government documents is collated and reviewed, as well as selected global data.Expert opinion Disparities exist between adult risk group categories for different respiratory vaccination programs as defined in the current vaccination guidance. The burden of multiple respiratory pathogens signifies importance of routine multi-pathogen testing with the need for a resilient and large-scale national surveillance system. Further understanding of epidemiological trends and disease burden will help guide decision-making and planning of targeted strategies for disease prevention and control. Addressing inequalities in disease burden and vaccine coverage particularly in clinical risk groups, and promoting equitable vaccine access remain a priority.

Introduction Pneumococcal disease (PD) significantly contributes to morbidity and mortality, carrying substantial economic and public health burden. This article is a targeted review of evidence for pneumococcal vaccination in the UK, the definitions of groups at particular risk of PD and vaccine effectiveness. Areas covered Relevant evidence focusing on UK data from surveillance systems, randomized controlled trials, observational studies and publicly available government documents is collated and reviewed. Selected global data are included where appropriate. Expert opinion National vaccination programs have reduced the incidence of vaccine-type PD, despite the rising prominence of non-vaccine serotypes in the UK. The introduction of higher-valency conjugate vaccines provides an opportunity to improve protection against PD for adults in risk groups. Several incentives are in place to encourage general practitioners to vaccinate risk groups, but uptake is low-suboptimal particularly among at-risk individuals. Wider awareness and understanding among the public and healthcare professionals may increase vaccination uptake and coverage. National strategies targeting organizational factors are urgently needed to achieve optimal access to vaccines. Finally, identifying new risk factors and approaches to risk assessment for PD are crucial to ensure those at risk of PD can benefit from pneumococcal vaccination.

Abstract Recombinant vaccines against invasive meningococcal disease due to Neisseria meningitidis serogroup B (MenB) have shown substantial impact in reducing MenB disease in targeted populations. 4CMenB targets four key N. meningitidis protein antigens; human factor H binding protein (fHbp), Neisserial heparin binding antigen (NHBA), Neisseria adhesin A (NadA) and the porin A protein (PorA P1.4), with one or more of these expressed by most pathogenic MenB strains, while MenB-FHbp targets two distinct fHbp variants. While many countries recommend MenB immunisation in adults considered at high risk due to underlying medical conditions or immunosuppression, there are no recommendations for routine use in the general adult population. We reviewed the burden of MenB in adults, where, while incidence rates remain low (and far lower than in young children 50 years) and key aspects relating to duration of protection remain unclear. Although a broader adult MenB immunisation policy could provide greater protection of the adult population, additional data are required to support policy decision-making. Graphical Abstract

The evolution of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the waning of immunity over time has necessitated the use of booster doses of original coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines. This has also led to the development and implementation of variant-adapted messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines that include an Omicron sub-lineage component in addition to the antigen based on the wild-type virus spike protein. Subsequent emergence of the recombinant XBB sub-lineages triggered the development of monovalent XBB-based variant-adapted mRNA vaccines, which are available for vaccination campaigns in late 2023. Misconceptions about new variant-adapted vaccines may exacerbate vaccine fatigue and drive the lack of vaccine acceptance. This article aims to address common concerns about the development and use of COVID-19 variant-adapted mRNA vaccines that have emerged as SARS-CoV-2 has continued to evolve.

Immunization programmes have been globally recognized as one of the most successful medical interventions against infectious diseases. Despite the proven efficacy and safety profiles of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines, there are still a substantial number of people who express vaccine hesitancy. Factors that influence vaccine decision-making are heterogenous, complex, and context specific and may be caused or amplified by uncontrolled online information or misinformation. With respect to COVID-19, the recent emergence of novel variants of concern that give rise to milder disease also drives vaccine hesitancy. Healthcare professionals remain one of the most trusted groups to advise and provide information to those ambivalent about COVID-19 vaccination and should be equipped with adequate resources and information as well as practical guidance to empower them to effectively discuss concerns. This article seeks to summarize the currently available information to address the most common concerns regarding COVID-19 vaccination.

Abstract Background Influenza surveillance systems vary widely between countries and there is no framework to evaluate national surveillance systems in terms of data generation and dissemination. This study aimed to develop and test a comparative framework for European influenza surveillance. Methods Surveillance systems were evaluated qualitatively in five European countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom) by a panel of influenza experts and researchers from each country. Seven surveillance sub-systems were defined: non-medically attended community surveillance, virological surveillance, community surveillance, outbreak surveillance, primary care surveillance, hospital surveillance, mortality surveillance). These covered a total of 19 comparable outcomes of increasing severity, ranging from non-medically attended cases to deaths, which were evaluated using 5 comparison criteria based on WHO guidance (granularity, timing, representativeness, sampling strategy, communication) to produce a framework to compare the five countries. Results France and the United Kingdom showed the widest range of surveillance sub-systems, particularly for hospital surveillance, followed by Germany, Spain, and Italy. In all countries, virological, primary care and hospital surveillance were well developed, but non-medically attended events, influenza cases in the community, outbreaks in closed settings and mortality estimates were not consistently reported or published. The framework also allowed the comparison of variations in data granularity, timing, representativeness, sampling strategy, and communication between countries. For data granularity, breakdown per risk condition were available in France and Spain, but not in the United Kingdom, Germany and Italy. For data communication, there were disparities in the timeliness and accessibility of surveillance data. Conclusions This new framework can be used to compare influenza surveillance systems qualitatively between countries to allow the identification of structural differences as well as to evaluate adherence to WHO guidance. The framework may be adapted for other infectious respiratory diseases.

Despite the occurrence of several hepatitis A (hepA) and hepatitis B (hepB) outbreaks in Europe in the last few decades, not all European countries have implemented hepA and hepB vaccinations in their national immunization programs, especially for adults at risk for hepA and/or hepB infection, such as men who have sex with men or patients with chronic liver disease. Currently, little is known on the attitudes of European healthcare professionals (HCPs) towards hepA and hepB vaccinations for at-risk adults. We conducted an online survey among HCPs in Germany, Spain, and the United Kingdom to assess their awareness of and adherence to their national hepA and hepB vaccination guidelines for at-risk adults. Among the 698 HCPs who took the survey, most (91.1%) were familiar with their national vaccination recommendations and always followed them or followed them most of the time when advising or prescribing hepA or hepB vaccines. Major and moderate barriers for recommending or administering such vaccines were the non-disclosure of risk factors by the patient (53.0–57.6%) and the patient’s lack of motivation or knowledge about the risk of the disease (50.3–52.9%). These results may help inform strategies to improve and accelerate hepA and hepB vaccination in European at-risk adults.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, immunization programs for other respiratory infections, notably influenza continued worldwide but attracted less public or political attention than COVID-19 vaccinations. Due to non-pharmaceutical intervention measures the global influenza burden decreased substantially; but with lifting of restrictions a rebound in other respiratory virus pathogens is both plausible and likely. This article discusses lessons identified from the UK and USA, and provides recommendations for future influenza vaccination programs in light of emerging data from the southern hemisphere and the need for harmonization with COVID-19 vaccination, focusing on operational delivery and messaging to practitioners and the public.

Background: Many countries consistently fail to achieve the target influenza vaccine coverage rate (VCR) of 75% for populations at risk of complications, recommended by the World Health Organization and European Council. We aimed to identify factors for achieving a high VCR in the scope of four benchmark countries with high influenza VCRs: Australia, Canada, UK and USA. Methods: Publicly available evidence was first reviewed at a global level and then for each of the four countries. Semistructured interviews were then conducted with stakeholders meeting predefined criteria. Descriptive cluster analyses were performed to identify key factors and pillars for establishing and maintaining high VCRs. Results: No single factor led to a high VCR, and each benchmark country used a different combination of tailored approaches to achieve a high vaccine coverage. In each country, specific triggers were important to stimulate changes that led to improved vaccine coverage. A total of 42 key factors for a successful influenza vaccination programme were identified and clustered into five pillars: (1) Health Authority accountability and strengths of the influenza programme, (2) facilitated access to vaccination, (3) healthcare professional accountability and engagement, (4) awareness of the burden and severity of disease and (5) belief in influenza vaccination benefit. Each benchmark country has implemented multiple factors from each pillar. Conclusion: A wide range of factors were identified from an evaluation of four high-performing benchmark countries, classified into five pillars, thus providing a basis for countries with lower VCRs to tailor their own particular solutions to improve their influenza VCR.

Seasonal vaccination against influenza and in-pandemic COVID-19 vaccination are top public health priorities; vaccines are the primary means of reducing infections and also controlling pressures on health systems. During the 2018–2019 influenza season, we conducted a study of the knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours of 159 general practitioners (GPs) and 189 patients aged ≥65 years in England using a combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches to document beliefs about seasonal influenza and seasonal influenza vaccine. GPs were surveyed before and after a continuing medical education (CME) module on influenza disease and vaccination with an adjuvanted trivalent influenza vaccine (aTIV) designed for patients aged ≥65 years, and patients were surveyed before and after a routine visit with a GP who participated in the CME portion of the study. The CME course was associated with significantly increased GP confidence in their ability to address patients’ questions and concerns about influenza disease and vaccination (p < 0.001). Patients reported significantly increased confidence in the effectiveness and safety of aTIV after meeting their GP. Overall, 82.2% of the study population were vaccinated against influenza (including 137 patients vaccinated during the GP visit and 15 patients who had been previously vaccinated), a rate higher than the English national average vaccine uptake of 72.0% that season. These findings support the value of GP-patient interactions to foster vaccine acceptance.

Seasonal influenza can have serious morbid consequences and can even result in death, particularly in at-risk populations, including healthcare professionals (HCPs), elderly and those living with a medical risk condition. Although in Europe recommendations exist for annual influenza vaccination in these populations in most countries, the vaccination coverage rate (VCR) is often well below the World Health Organization target of 75% coverage. In our previous survey in 2009 we showed that some elements of national vaccination policies, e.g. reminder systems, strong official recommendation, and easy access, seemed to contribute to achieving higher influenza VCRs among elderly. We repeated the survey in 2016, using the same methodology to assess changes in influenza VCRs among the elderly and in the impact of policy elements on these VCRs. In addition, we collected information about VCRs among HCPs, and those living with a medical risk condition. The median VCR in the 21 countries that had recommendations for influenza vaccination in the elderly was 35.3%, ranging from 1.1% in Estonia to 74.5% in Scotland. The average VCRs for HCPs and those living with medical risk conditions, available in 17 and 10 countries, respectively, were 28.3% (range 7% in Czech Republic to 59.1% in Portugal) and 32.2% (range from 20.0% in the Czech Republic and Hungary to 59.6% in Portugal), respectively. Fewer countries were able to provide data from HCP and those living with medical risk conditions. Since the initial survey during the 2007–2008 influenza season, VCRs have decreased in the elderly in the majority of countries, thus, achieving high VCRs in the elderly and the other target groups is still a major public health challenge in Europe. This could be addressed by the identification, assessment and sharing of best practice for influenza vaccination policies.

Background: The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region faces a dual challenge with regard to influenza infection due to severe zoonotic influenza outbreaks episodes and the circulation of Northern Hemisphere human influenza viruses among pilgrims. Methods: The MENA Influenza Stakeholder Network (MENA-ISN) was set-up with the aim of increasing seasonal influenza vaccination coverage by (i) enhancing evidence-based exchanges, and (ii) increasing awareness on the safety and benefits of seasonal vaccination. During the 7th MENA-ISN meeting, representatives from 8 countries presented their influenza surveillance, vaccination coverage and actions achieved and provided a list of country objectives for the upcoming 3 years. Results: MENA-ISN countries share the goal to reduce influenza related morbidity and mortality. Participants admitted that lack of knowledge about influenza, its consequences in terms of morbidity, mortality and economy are the major barrier to attaining higher influenza vaccination coverage in their countries. The cost of the vaccine is another key barrier that could contribute to low vaccination coverage. Participants drew a list of strategic interventions to bridge gaps in the knowledge of influenza burden in this region. Conclusions: Participating countries concluded that despite an increase in vaccine uptake observed during the last few years, influenza vaccination coverage remains relatively low. Priority areas should be identified and action plans tailored to each country situation set-up to investigate the best way to move forward. Keywords: Influenza, Vaccination coverage, Surveillance, Middle East and North Africa

Currently there is no influenza vaccination guidance for European general practitioners. Furthermore, although the European Council recommends a target seasonal influenza vaccination rate of 75% in the elderly (65 years and above) and in anyone aged >6 months with a chronic medical condition, there remain wide discrepancies throughout Europe. A harmonised guideline regarding not only vaccination strategy but also for the consistent diagnosis of influenza across Europe is essential to support a common approach for the implementation of seasonal influenza vaccination across Europe. This document is based on pre-existing guidelines available in the UK and Netherlands and has been approved by a group of European experts for use throughout Europe. As well as providing a standardised influenza diagnosis, it also reviews the current recommendations for influenza vaccination, the types of vaccine available, the contraindications, vaccine use in special populations (in pregnancy, children, and in those with egg allergy), and concomitant administration with other vaccines. The effectiveness, safety, and timing of the seasonal influenza vaccine are also reviewed. A second section provides practical guidance for general practitioners for the implementation of a seasonal influenza vaccination program, including the selection and notification of those eligible for vaccination, as well as suggestions for the organisation of a vaccination programme. Finally, suggested responses to common patient misconceptions and frequently asked questions are included. The aim of this article is to harmonise the diagnosis of seasonal influenza and the approach of European general practitioners to seasonal influenza vaccination in order to better identify influenza outbreaks and to move towards reaching the target vaccination rate of 75% throughout Europe.

Objective: Our aim was to assess whether the recommendations and guidelines for thromboprophylaxis in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) have been adopted in general practice (GP). Methods: We conducted a retrospective study using the GP computer database (Hatfield, UK) on all 9400 patients to assess the quality of anticoagulation in patients with a recorded diagnosis of AF. Results: Of the 180 patients with a diagnosis of AF, 107 (59.4%) were treated with warfarin, 19 (10.6%) with a novel oral anticoagulant (NOAC), 31 (17.2%) with aspirin or clopidogrel, and 23 (12.8%) received none. Thirty-seven patients (34.6%) who were taking warfarin had a time in the therapeutic range (TTR) of less than 65%. Forty-five (27.6%) of the 163 patients who had a CHA2DS2VASc score of two or more were not prescribed a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) or a NOAC. None had a HAS-BLED greater than the CHA2DS2VASc score. Conclusion: Our study demonstrates that one in four patients with non-valvular AF, at risk of a stroke, is not being adequately treated with an oral anticoagulant in primary care. The majority were treated with warfarin, a third of which had a low TTR. A high proportion of patients are prescribed antiplatelet therapy instead. This is despite overwhelming evidence that VKAs and NOACs, and not aspirin or clopidogrel, improve outcome in patients with non-valvular AF. We suggest that a review of GP practice databases should be considered to identify patients with non-valvular AF, at risk of a disabling or fatal event, and measures taken to initiate anticoagulant therapy.

n 2012, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation recommended that the National Immunisation Programme for influenza be extended to include healthy children/adolescents aged 2–17 years. In the UK, extension of this new immunisation programme began in 2013/2014 and targeted children aged 2 years and 3 years in primary care. Several implementation pilots were undertaken in primary schools across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as a single pilot in a secondary school in England. This article shares lessons learnt from experiences in England and Scotland to provide guidance for other countries considering addition of childhood influenza vaccination into their national immunisation programmes. Recommendations are provided to help ensure effective preparation and management of new childhood influenza vaccination programmes in other countries. This article describes the processes utilised in England and Scotland for programme setup, workforce management, identification and care of contraindicated patients, collection of data on vaccine uptake, communication strategies, and education of parents and children.

Uptake of vaccination against seasonal influenza in healthcare workers (HCWs) is, in general, low (vaccine coverage of 6–54%), as is awareness of its importance, and has been decreasing in most European Union (EU) countries in recent years. By virtue of their working environment, HCWs are at an increased risk of influenza infection and of subsequently transmitting the virus to vulnerable patients, in whom disease burden is significant. It could be argued that a similar or higher target vaccination rate to that recommended for older age groups and people with chronic medical conditions (75%) should be applied to HCWs, and the European Council recommends Member States to improve vaccination coverage in this population. In this context, better education of HCWs is needed to increase awareness and highlight the importance of HCW vaccination for the benefit of public health, particularly for their patients, who may be at risk of serious complications that could lead to disability or death. Secondary to these professional responsibilities, personal benefits (as well as benefits to close family and friends) should also be emphasised. Misconceptions that create barriers to vaccination need to be discussed openly and objections placed in the context of public health.

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) management represents a significant burden on the UK NHS. Understanding this burden will be important in informing future health care planning and policy development. Aim: To describe the non-anticoagulation costs associated with AF management in routine UK clinical practice. Materials, patients and methods: A retrospective observational study of 825 patients with AF undertaken in eight UK primary care practices. Data collected from routine clinical and prescribing records of all eligible, consenting patients, for a period of up to 3 years. The first 12 weeks following diagnosis was defined as the ‘initiation phase’; the period after week 12 was defined as the ‘maintenance phase’. Results: Mean (SD) total cost of AF management was £941 (£1094) per patient in the initiation phase and £426 (£597) per patient-year in the maintenance phase. AF-related inpatient admissions contributed most to total costs; the mean (SD) total cost per patient in the initiation phase was £2285 (£900) for admitted and £278 (£252) for non-admitted patients. Mean maintenance phase costs per year were £1323 (£755) and £168 (£234), respectively, for admitted and non-admitted patients. Significant patient variables contributing to high cost in the initiation phase were hypertension and younger patient age, although only accounting for 6% of cost variability. Significant variables in the maintenance phase (18% of cost variability) were the presence of congestive heart failure, structural heart disease or diabetes and the frequency of day case admissions, ECGs and hospitalisations in the initiation phase. Conclusions: Inpatient admissions contributed most to total AF management costs. Given the burden of hospital care, future work should focus on evaluating the appropriateness and reasons for hospitalisation in patients with AF and the factors affecting length of stay, with the aim of identifying opportunities to safely reduce inpatient costs. A number of significant patient characteristics and initiation phase variables were identified, which accounted for 18% of the variability in total maintenance phase costs. However, none of these could adequately predict high maintenance phase costs.