Search

The article presents information about roots of the U.S. Left-Wing interest in folksong. The conscious interest, use and manipulation of folklore materials for political purposes is nothing new. The origins of folklore study itself are deeply rooted in the romantic nationalism of 19th century Europe, in a movement which saw politically-suppressed peoples collect their folksongs and tales. They did so in an effort to establish a cultural heritage which would serve as ideological props in the struggle for political independence. More recently, nations from every part of the political spectrum to name but a few-have employed folklore as a stabilizing, unifying and sometimes repressive tool in maintaining their respective regimes and ideologies. In the U.S., no a priori stress was put on folklore materials by any political group or protest movement until the 1930s, when the left wing, spearheaded by the Communist Party, discovered intrinsic working-class values in folksongs and other folklore genres. The subsequent influence of the left in popularizing folksong was, for a number of years, so great that its effects are felt to this day and have even reached into the academic profession.'

Vancomycin-resistant enterococci infections are of great public health significance due to limited therapeutic options. We investigated epidemiological trends and risk factors of vancomycin resistance in enterococci isolates from patients with bloodstream infections in the EU/EEA from 2012 to 2018. Routine vancomycin susceptibility data of clinical E. faecium (n = 67,022) and E. faecalis (n = 103,112) blood isolates from the European Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance Network were analysed using descriptive statistics and multivariable regression analyses. In Europe, proportions of vancomycin-resistant E. faecium (VREFm) increased from 8.1% (95%CI 6.7-9.7%) in 2012 to 19.0% (95%CI 16.8-21.5%) in 2018. Rising VREFm proportions were observed across all European regions, both genders and all age groups except children and adolescents (1-19 years). Adults (20-59 years) and elderly (≥60 years) had an increased likelihood of VREFm compared to children and adolescents (1-19 years) (OR: 1.99 [95%CI 1.42-2.79, p < 0.001] and OR: 1.56 [95%CI 1.09-2.23, p = 0.014], respectively). Inpatients hospital units, including internal medicine and ICUs, were associated with an increased likelihood of VREFm (OR: 2.29 (95%CI 1.58-3.32, p < 0.001) compared to the emergency department which reflects patients with community origin of E. faecium infections. The mean proportion of vancomycin-resistant E. faecalis in Europe was found to be low (1.1% [95%CI 0.9-1.4%]). Local and regional authorities should intensify efforts directed at diagnostic and antimicrobial stewardship for vancomycin and all last resort drugs for the management of VREFm, particularly for hospitalized elderly patients.

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.)

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.

Background: In the first five I-MOVE (Influenza Monitoring Vaccine Effectiveness in Europe) influenza seasons vaccine effectiveness (VE) results were relatively homogenous among participating study sites. In 2013-2014, we undertook a multicentre case-control study based on sentinel practitioner surveillance networks in six European Union (EU) countries to measure 2013-2014 influenza VE against medically-attended influenza-like illness (ILI) laboratory-confirmed as influenza. Influenza A(H3N2) and A(H1N1)pdm09 viruses co-circulated during the season., Methods: Practitioners systematically selected ILI patients to swab within eight days of symptom onset. We compared cases (ILI positive to influenza A(H3N2) or A(H1N1)pdm09) to influenza negative patients. We calculated VE for the two influenza A subtypes and adjusted for potential confounders. We calculated heterogeneity between sites using the I(2) index and Cochrane's Q test. If the I(2) was <50%, we estimated pooled VE as (1 minus the OR)×100 using a one-stage model with study site as a fixed effect. If the I(2) was >49% we used a two-stage random effects model., Results: We included in the A(H1N1)pdm09 analysis 531 cases and 1712 controls and in the A(H3N2) analysis 623 cases and 1920 controls. For A(H1N1)pdm09, the Q test (p=0.695) and the I(2) index (0%) suggested no heterogeneity of adjusted VE between study sites. Using a one-stage model, the overall pooled adjusted VE against influenza A(H1N1)pdm2009 was 47.5% (95% CI: 16.4-67.0). For A(H3N2), the I(2) was 51.5% (p=0.067). Using a two-stage model for the pooled analysis, the adjusted VE against A(H3N2) was 29.7 (95% CI: -34.4-63.2)., Conclusions: The results suggest a moderate 2013-2014 influenza VE against A(H1N1)pdm09 and a low VE against A(H3N2). The A(H3N2) estimates were heterogeneous among study sites. Larger sample sizes by study site are needed to prevent statistical heterogeneity, decrease variability and allow for two-stage pooled VE for all subgroup analyses., (Copyright © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

In the fifth season of Influenza Monitoring Vaccine Effectiveness in Europe (I-MOVE), we undertook a multicentre case-control study (MCCS) in seven European Union (EU) Member States to measure 2012/13 influenza vaccine effectiveness against medically attended influenza-like illness (ILI) laboratory confirmed as influenza. The season was characterised by substantial co-circulation of influenza B, A(H1N1)pdm09 and A(H3N2) viruses. Practitioners systematically selected ILI patients to swab ≤7 days of symptom onset. We compared influenza-positive by type/subtype to influenza-negative patients among those who met the EU ILI case definition. We conducted a complete case analysis using logistic regression with study as fixed effect and calculated adjusted vaccine effectiveness (AVE), controlling for potential confounders (age, sex, symptom onset week and presence of chronic conditions). We calculated AVE by type/subtype. Study sites sent 7,954 ILI/acute respiratory infection records for analysis. After applying exclusion criteria, we included 4,627 ILI patients in the analysis of VE against influenza B (1,937 cases), 3,516 for A(H1N1)pdm09 (1,068 cases) and 3,340 for influenza A(H3N2) (730 cases). AVE was 49.3% (95% confidence interval (CI): 32.4 to 62.0) against influenza B, 50.4% (95% CI: 28.4 to 65.6) against A(H1N1)pdm09 and 42.2% (95% CI: 14.9 to 60.7) against A(H3N2). Our results suggest an overall low to moderate AVE against influenza B, A(H1N1)pdm09 and A(H3N2), between 42 and 50%. In this season with many co-circulating viruses, the high sample size enabled stratified AVE by type/subtype. The low estimates indicate seasonal influenza vaccines should be improved to achieve acceptable protection levels.