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.

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.

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: 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.)

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.

Unrealistic optimism, the underestimation of one's risk of experiencing harm, has been investigated extensively to understand better and predict behavioural responses to health threats. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, a relative dearth of research existed in this domain regarding epidemics, which is surprising considering that this optimistic bias has been associated with a lack of engagement in protective behaviours critical in fighting twenty-first-century, emergent, infectious diseases. The current study addresses this gap in the literature by investigating whether people demonstrated optimism bias during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe, how this changed over time, and whether unrealistic optimism was negatively associated with protective measures. Taking advantage of a pre-existing international participative influenza surveillance network ( n = 12,378), absolute and comparative unrealistic optimism were measured at three epidemic stages (pre-, early, peak), and across four countries-France, Italy, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Despite differences in culture and health response, similar patterns were observed across all four countries. The prevalence of unrealistic optimism appears to be influenced by the particular epidemic context. Paradoxically, whereas absolute unrealistic optimism decreased over time, comparative unrealistic optimism increased, suggesting that whilst people became increasingly accurate in assessing their personal risk, they nonetheless overestimated that for others. Comparative unrealistic optimism was negatively associated with the adoption of protective behaviours, which is worrying, given that these preventive measures are critical in tackling the spread and health burden of COVID-19. It is hoped these findings will inspire further research into sociocognitive mechanisms involved in risk appraisal.

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.

Background: Claims of influenza vaccination increasing COVID-19 risk are circulating. Within the I-MOVE-COVID-19 primary care multicentre study, we measured the association between 2019-20 influenza vaccination and COVID-19., Methods: We conducted a multicentre test-negative case-control study at primary care level, in study sites in five European countries, from March to August 2020. Patients presenting with acute respiratory infection were swabbed, with demographic, 2019-20 influenza vaccination and clinical information documented. Using logistic regression, we measured the adjusted odds ratio (aOR), adjusting for study site and age, sex, calendar time, presence of chronic conditions. The main analysis included patients swabbed ≤7 days after onset from the three countries with <15% of missing influenza vaccination. In secondary analyses, we included five countries, using multiple imputation with chained equations to account for missing data., Results: We included 257 COVID-19 cases and 1631 controls in the main analysis (three countries). The overall aOR between influenza vaccination and COVID-19 was 0.93 (95% CI: 0.66-1.32). The aOR was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.58-1.46) and 0.92 (95% CI: 0.51-1.67) among those aged 20-59 and ≥60 years, respectively. In secondary analyses, we included 6457 cases and 69 272 controls. The imputed aOR was 0.87 (95% CI: 0.79-0.95) among all ages and any delay between swab and symptom onset., Conclusions: There was no evidence that COVID-19 cases were more likely to be vaccinated against influenza than controls. Influenza vaccination should be encouraged among target groups for vaccination. I-MOVE-COVID-19 will continue documenting influenza vaccination status in 2020-21, in order to learn about effects of recent influenza vaccination., (© 2021 The Authors. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objectives: To assess the potential trends for the year 2030 in dental implant dentistry in Europe using the Delphi methodology., Material and Methods: A steering committee and a management team of experts in implant dentistry were created and validated a questionnaire including 60 questions, divided in eight topics. The survey was conducted in two rounds using an anonymous questionnaire, which provided the participants in the second round with the results of the first. Each question had three possible answers, and the results were expressed as percentages., Results: A total of 138 experts were invited to participate in the survey. From all the invited experts, 52 answered in both the first and second rounds. Three different consensus categories were established based on the percentage of agreement: no consensus (<65%); moderate consensus (65%-85%); and high consensus (≥86%). Within the topic categories, a consensus was reached (mainly moderate consensus) for the majority of questions discussed among experts during a face to face consensus meeting. However, consensus was not reached for a small number of questions/topics., Conclusions: About 82% of the questions reached consensus. The consensus points towards a lower number of implants to replace chewing units, with implants surfaces made of bioactive materials with reduced micro-roughness using mainly customized abutments with polished surfaces and an internal implant-abutment connection (85%). CBCT-3D technologies will be the main tool for pre-surgical implant placement diagnosis together with direct digital restorative workflows. There will be an increase in the incidence of peri-implantitis, although there will be more efficient interventions its treatment and prevention., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objectives: The population analysis of cardiovascular risk and non-risk genetic variation can help to identify adaptive or random demographic processes that shaped coronary incidence variation across geography., Material and Methods: In this study, 114 single nucleotide polymorphisms and 17 tandem repeat polymorphisms from Nitric Oxide Synthases (NOS) regions were analyzed in 1686 individuals from 35 populations from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East. NOS genes encode for key enzymes on nitric oxide availability, which is involved in several cardiovascular processes. These genetic variations were used to test for selection and to infer the population structure of NOS regions. Moreover, we tested whether the variation in the incidence of coronary events and in the levels of classical risk factors in 11 of these European populations could be explained by the population structure estimates., Results: Our results supported, first, the absence of clear signs of selection for NOS genetic variants associated with cardiovascular diseases, and second, the presence of a continuous genetic pattern of variation across European and North African populations without a Mediterranean barrier for gene flow. Finally, population structure estimates from NOS regions are closely correlated with coronary event rates and classical risk parameters (explaining 39-98%) among European populations., Conclusion: Our results reinforce the hypothesis that genetic bases of cardiovascular diseases and associated complex phenotypes could be geographically shaped by random demographic processes., (© 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Small terrestrial non-eusuchian mesoeucrocodylians are common components of Cretaceous assemblages of Gondwanan provinces with notosuchians and araripesuchids as flagship taxa in South America, Africa and Madagascar, well into the Late Cretaceous. On the other hand, these are exceedingly rare in Laurasian landmasses during the Late Cretaceous. Small terrestrial mesoeucrocodylians from Europe were often referred to the genus Theriosuchus, a taxon with stratigraphic range extending from the Late Jurassic to the late Early Cretaceous. Theriosuchus is abundantly reported from various European localities, although Asiatic and possibly North American members are also known. It has often been closely associated with the first modern crocodilians, members of the Eusuchia, because of the presence of procoelous vertebrae, a widespread key character diagnosing the Eusuchia. Nevertheless, the relationships of Theriosuchus have not been explored in detail although one species, Theriosuchus pusillus, has been extensively described and referred in numerous works. Here, we describe a new basal mesoeucrocodylian, Theriosuchus sympiestodon sp. nov. from the Maastrichtian of the Haţeg Basin, Romania, suggesting a large temporal gap (about 58 myr) in the fossil record of the genus. Inclusion of the new taxon, along with Theriosuchus guimarotae, in a phylogenetic analysis confirms its referral to the genus Theriosuchus, within a monophyletic atoposaurid clade. Although phylogenetic resolution within this clade is still poor, the new taxon appears, on morphological grounds, to be most closely related to T. pusillus. The relationships of Atoposauridae within Mesoeucrocodylia and especially to Neosuchia are discussed in light of the results of the present contribution as well as from recent work. Our results raise the possibility that Atoposauridae might not be regarded as a derived neosuchian clade anymore, although further investigation of the neosuchian interrelationships is needed. Reports of isolated teeth referable to a closely related taxon from the Upper Cretaceous of Romania and France, together with the presence of Doratodon and Ischyrochampsa, indicate a previously unsuspected diverse assemblage of non-eusuchian mesoeucrocodylians in the Late Cretaceous European archipelago.