Search

The global burden of dengue is increasing against a background of rising global prevalence of chronic noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) and an epidemiological shift of dengue toward older age groups. The contribution of NCDs toward risk for adverse clinical and healthcare utilization outcomes was assessed in a national linked-database study. About 51,433 adult dengue cases between 2014 and 2015 were assessed for outpatient and inpatient claims data in Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database for the 30 days after their dengue diagnosis. A multivariable logistic regression with generalized estimating equations was used to estimate the probability of adverse dengue outcomes in patients with NCDs compared with dengue patients without underlying diseases. Rheumatoid arthritis and related disease were associated with the highest risk of hospitalization after dengue diagnosis (odds ratio: 1.78; 95% CI: 1.37–2.30), followed by stroke, chronic kidney disease (CKD), liver cirrhosis, asthma, coronary artery disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, congestive heart failure, hypertension, and malignancy. Chronic kidney disease and diabetes were associated with higher risks of hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) use, and all-cause mortality. After adjusting for socioeconomic status and other variables, the number of coexisting chronic diseases was associated with increasing risk of adverse dengue outcomes. Specific NCDs were associated with longer hospitalizations, ICU admission, and higher healthcare costs. Quantifying the risks of adverse dengue outcomes and health expenditures among dengue patients with preexisting NCDs provides insights for improved clinical management and essential inputs for health economic analyses on the cost-benefit of risk-based routine or catch-up immunization programs.

The COVID‐19 pandemic and the measures taken to mitigate its spread have had a dramatic effect on the circulation patterns of other respiratory viruses, most especially influenza viruses. Since April 2020, the global circulation of influenza has been markedly reduced; however, it is still present in a number of different countries and could pose a renewed threat in the upcoming Northern Hemisphere winter. Influenza vaccination remains the most effective preventive measure that we have at our disposal against influenza infections and should not be ignored for the 2021–2022 season.

Systematic reviews and meta‐analyses confirm that influenza vaccination reduces the risk of influenza illness by between about 40% and 60% in seasons when circulating influenza stains are well matched to vaccine strains. Influenza vaccine effectiveness (IVE) estimates, however, are often discordant and a source of confusion for decision makers. IVE assessments are increasingly publicized and are often used by policy makers to make decisions about the value of seasonal influenza vaccination. But there is limited guidance on how IVE should be interpreted or used to inform policy. There are several limitations to the use of IVE for decision‐making: (a) IVE studies have methodological issues that often complicate the interpretation of their value; and (b) the full impact of vaccination will almost always be greater than the impact assessed by a point estimate of IVE in specific populations or settings. Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of study methodologies and the fundamental limitations of IVE estimates is important for the accuracy of interpretations and support of policy makers’ decisions. Here, we review a comprehensive set of issues that need to be considered when interpreting IVE and determining the full benefits of influenza vaccination. We propose that published IVE values should be assessed using an evaluative framework that includes influenza‐specific outcomes, types of VE study design, and confounders, among other factors. Better interpretation of IVE will improve the broader assessment of the value of influenza vaccination and ultimately optimize the public health benefits in seasonal influenza vaccination.

There is no global monitoring system for influenza vaccination coverage, making it difficult to assess progress towards the 2003 World Health Assembly (WHA) vaccination coverage target. In 2008, the IFPMA Influenza Vaccine Supply International Task Force (IVS) developed a survey method to assess the global distribution of influenza vaccine doses as a proxy for vaccination coverage rates. The latest dose distribution data for 2014 and 2015 was used to update previous analyses. Data were confidentially collected and aggregated by the IFPMA Secretariat, and combined with previous IFPMA IVS survey data (2004-2013). Data were available from 201 countries over the 2004-2015 period. A "hurdle" rate was defined as the number of doses required to reach 15.9% of the population in 2008. Overall, the number of distributed doses progressively increased between 2004 and 2011, driven by a 150% increase in AMRO, then plateaued. One percent fewer doses were distributed in 2015 than in 2011. Twenty-three countries were above the hurdle rate in 2015, compared to 15 in 2004, but distribution was highly uneven in and across all WHO regions. Three WHO regions (AMRO, EURO and WPRO) accounted for about 95% of doses distributed. But in EURO and WPRO, distribution rates in 2015 were only marginally higher than in 2004, and in EURO there was an overall downward trend in dose distribution. The vast majority of countries cannot meet the 2003WHA coverage targets and are inadequately prepared for a global influenza pandemic. With only 5% of influenza vaccine doses being distributed to 50% of the world's population, there is urgency to redress the gross inequities in disease prevention and in pandemic preparedness. The 2003WHA resolution must be reviewed and revised and a call issued for the renewed commitment of Member States to influenza vaccination coverage targets.

The 2017–2018 seasonal influenza epidemics were severe in the US and Australia where the A(H3N2) subtype viruses predominated. Although circulating A(H3N2) viruses did not differ antigenically from that recommended by the WHO for vaccine production, overall interim vaccine effectiveness estimates were below historic averages (33%) for A(H3N2) viruses. The majority (US) or all (Australian) vaccine doses contained multiple amino-acid changes in the hemagglutinin protein, resulting from the necessary adaptation of the virus to embryonated hen’s eggs used for most vaccine manufacturing. Previous reports have suggested a potential negative impact of egg-driven substitutions on vaccine performance. With BARDA support, two vaccines licensed in the US are produced in cell culture: recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV, Flublok™) manufactured in insect cells and inactivated mammalian cell-grown vaccine (ccIIV, Flucelvax™). Quadrivalent ccIIV (ccIIV4) vaccine for the 2017–2018 influenza season was produced using an A(H3N2) seed virus propagated exclusively in cell culture and therefore lacking egg adaptative changes. Sufficient ccIIV doses were distributed (but not RIV doses) to enable preliminary estimates of its higher effectiveness relative to the traditional egg-based vaccines, with study details pending. The increased availability of comparative product-specific vaccine effectiveness estimates for cell-based and egg-based vaccines may provide critical clues to inform vaccine product improvements moving forward.

Population-based incidence data from Europe on the disease burden of lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI) due to respiratory syncytial viruses (RSV), parainfluenza viruses (PIV) and influenzaviruses (IV) are lacking, especially with respect to the disease burden. In a 2-year prospective multicentre study of children aged