Search

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%.

Background: Within the ECDC-VEBIS project, we prospectively monitored vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19 hospitalisation and COVID-19-related death using electronic health registries (EHR), between October 2021 and November 2022, in community-dwelling residents aged 65-79 and ≥80 years in six European countries., Methods: EHR linkage was used to construct population cohorts in Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg, Navarre (Spain), Norway and Portugal. Using a common protocol, for each outcome, VE was estimated monthly over 8-week follow-up periods, allowing 1 month-lag for data consolidation. Cox proportional-hazards models were used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) and VE = (1 - aHR) × 100%. Site-specific estimates were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis., Results: For ≥80 years, considering unvaccinated as the reference, VE against COVID-19 hospitalisation decreased from 66.9% (95% CI: 60.1; 72.6) to 36.1% (95% CI: -27.3; 67.9) for the primary vaccination and from 95.6% (95% CI: 88.0; 98.4) to 67.7% (95% CI: 45.9; 80.8) for the first booster. Similar trends were observed for 65-79 years. The second booster VE against hospitalisation ranged between 82.0% (95% CI: 75.9; 87.0) and 83.9% (95% CI: 77.7; 88.4) for the ≥80 years and between 39.3% (95% CI: -3.9; 64.5) and 80.6% (95% CI: 67.2; 88.5) for 65-79 years. The first booster VE against COVID-19-related death declined over time for both age groups, while the second booster VE against death remained above 80% for the ≥80 years., Conclusions: Successive vaccine boosters played a relevant role in maintaining protection against COVID-19 hospitalisation and death, in the context of decreasing VE over time. Multicountry data from EHR facilitate robust near-real-time VE monitoring in the EU/EEA and support public health decision-making., (© 2023 The Authors. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Household transmission investigations (HHTIs) contribute timely epidemiologic knowledge in response to emerging pathogens. HHTIs conducted in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020-21 reported variable methodological approaches, producing epidemiological estimates that vary in meaning, precision and accuracy. Because specific tools to assist with the optimal design and critical appraisal of HHTIs are not available, the aggregation and pooling of inferences from HHTIs to inform policy and interventions may be challenging., Methods: In this manuscript, we discuss key aspects of the HHTI design, provide recommendations for the reporting of these studies and propose an appraisal tool that contributes to the optimal design and critical appraisal of HHTIs., Results: The appraisal tool consists of 12 questions that explore 10 aspects of HHTIs and can be answered 'yes', 'no' or 'unclear'. We provide an example of the use of this tool in the context of a systematic review that aimed to quantify the household secondary attack rate from HHTIs., Conclusion: We seek to fill a gap in the epidemiologic literature and contribute to standardised HHTI approaches across settings to achieve richer and more informative datasets., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (© 2023 The Authors. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

BackgroundThe World Health Organization European Action Plan 2020 targets for the elimination of viral hepatitis are that > 75% of eligible individuals with chronic hepatitis B (HBV) or hepatitis C (HCV) are treated, of whom > 90% achieve viral suppression.AimTo report the results from a pilot sentinel surveillance to monitor chronic HBV and HCV treatment uptake and outcomes in 2019.MethodsWe undertook retrospective enhanced data collection on patients with a confirmed chronic HBV or HCV infection presenting at one of seven clinics in three countries (Croatia, Romania and Spain) for the first time between 1 January 2019 and 30 June 2019. Clinical records were reviewed from date of first attendance to 31 December 2019 and data on sociodemographics, clinical history, laboratory results, treatment and treatment outcomes were collected. Treatment eligibility, uptake and case outcome were assessed.ResultsOf 229 individuals with chronic HBV infection, treatment status was reported for 203 (89%). Of the 80 individuals reported as eligible for treatment, 51% (41/80) were treated of whom 89% (33/37) had achieved viral suppression. Of 240 individuals with chronic HCV infection, treatment status was reported for 231 (96%). Of 231 eligible individuals, 77% (179/231) were treated, the majority of whom had received direct acting antivirals (99%, 174/176) and had achieved sustained virological response (98%, 165/169).ConclusionTreatment targets for global elimination were missed for HBV but not for HCV. A wider European implementation of sentinel surveillance with a representative sample of sites could help monitor progress towards achieving hepatitis control targets.

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.)

Background: Our understanding of the global scale of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection remains incomplete: Routine surveillance data underestimate infection and cannot infer on population immunity; there is a predominance of asymptomatic infections, and uneven access to diagnostics. We meta-analyzed SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence studies, standardized to those described in the World Health Organization's Unity protocol (WHO Unity) for general population seroepidemiological studies, to estimate the extent of population infection and seropositivity to the virus 2 years into the pandemic., Methods and Findings: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, searching MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, preprints, and grey literature for SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence published between January 1, 2020 and May 20, 2022. The review protocol is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020183634). We included general population cross-sectional and cohort studies meeting an assay quality threshold (90% sensitivity, 97% specificity; exceptions for humanitarian settings). We excluded studies with an unclear or closed population sample frame. Eligible studies-those aligned with the WHO Unity protocol-were extracted and critically appraised in duplicate, with risk of bias evaluated using a modified Joanna Briggs Institute checklist. We meta-analyzed seroprevalence by country and month, pooling to estimate regional and global seroprevalence over time; compared seroprevalence from infection to confirmed cases to estimate underascertainment; meta-analyzed differences in seroprevalence between demographic subgroups such as age and sex; and identified national factors associated with seroprevalence using meta-regression. We identified 513 full texts reporting 965 distinct seroprevalence studies (41% low- and middle-income countries [LMICs]) sampling 5,346,069 participants between January 2020 and April 2022, including 459 low/moderate risk of bias studies with national/subnational scope in further analysis. By September 2021, global SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence from infection or vaccination was 59.2%, 95% CI [56.1% to 62.2%]. Overall seroprevalence rose steeply in 2021 due to infection in some regions (e.g., 26.6% [24.6 to 28.8] to 86.7% [84.6% to 88.5%] in Africa in December 2021) and vaccination and infection in others (e.g., 9.6% [8.3% to 11.0%] in June 2020 to 95.9% [92.6% to 97.8%] in December 2021, in European high-income countries [HICs]). After the emergence of Omicron in March 2022, infection-induced seroprevalence rose to 47.9% [41.0% to 54.9%] in Europe HIC and 33.7% [31.6% to 36.0%] in Americas HIC. In 2021 Quarter Three (July to September), median seroprevalence to cumulative incidence ratios ranged from around 2:1 in the Americas and Europe HICs to over 100:1 in Africa (LMICs). Children 0 to 9 years and adults 60+ were at lower risk of seropositivity than adults 20 to 29 (p < 0.001 and p = 0.005, respectively). In a multivariable model using prevaccination data, stringent public health and social measures were associated with lower seroprevalence (p = 0.02). The main limitations of our methodology include that some estimates were driven by certain countries or populations being overrepresented., Conclusions: In this study, we observed that global seroprevalence has risen considerably over time and with regional variation; however, over one-third of the global population are seronegative to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Our estimates of infections based on seroprevalence far exceed reported Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases. Quality and standardized seroprevalence studies are essential to inform COVID-19 response, particularly in resource-limited regions., Competing Interests: I have read the journal policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: RKA, MW, HW, ZL, XM, CC, MYL, DB, JP, MPC, ML, MS, GRD, NI, CZ, SP, HPR, TY, KCN, DK, SAA, ND, CD, NAD, EL, RKI, ASB, ELB, AS, JC and NB report grants from Canada’s COVID-19 Immunity Task Force through the Public Health Agency of Canada, and the Canadian Medical Association Joule Innovation Fund. RKA, MW, HW, ZL, CC, MYL, NB also report grants from the World Health Organisation and the Robert Koch Institute. RKA reports personal fees from the Public Health Agency of Canada and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Strategic Investment Fund, as well as equity in Alethea Medical (Outside the submitted work). MPC reports grants from McGill Interdisciplinary Initiative in Infection and Immunity and Canadian Institute of Health Research, and personal fees from GEn1E Lifesciences (Outside the submitted work), nplex biosciences (Outside the submitted work), Kanvas biosciences (Outside the submitted work). JP reports grants from MedImmune (Outside the submitted work) and Sanofi-Pasteur (Outside the submitted work), grants and personal fees from Merck (Outside the submitted work) and AbbVie (Outside the submitted work), and personal fees from AstraZeneca (Outside the submitted work). DB reports grants from the World Health Organization, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada (Outside the submitted work), Institute national d excellence en sante et service sociaux (Outside the submitted work), and personal fees from McGill University Health Centre (Outside the submitted work) and Public Health Agency of Canada (Outside the submitted work). CC reports funding from Sanofi Pasteur (Outside of the submitted work). TY reports working for Health Canada as a part-time Senior Policy Analyst with the COVID-19 Testing and Screening Expert Panel, from Nov 2020-Jun 2021 (Outside of the submitted work). TH reports funding recieved from the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for Columbia University (Outside of the submitted work). Author HCL declares receiving funding as a WHO consultant from WHO Solidarity Response Fund and the German Federal Ministry of Health COVID-19 Research and Development., (Copyright: © 2022 Bergeri et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: PERTINENT is an active hospital-based surveillance system for pertussis in infants. In 2019, four of the six participating European countries recommended pertussis vaccination in pregnancy. Among infants aged <2 months, we measured the vaccine effectiveness (VE) in pregnancy; among infants aged 2-11 months, VE of vaccination in pregnancy and of primary vaccination (PV)., Methods: From December 2015 to 2019, we included all infants aged <1 year presenting with pertussis-like symptoms. Using a test-negative-design, cases were infants testing positive for Bordetella pertussis by PCR or culture. Controls were those testing negative for all Bordetella species. Vaccinated mothers were those who received vaccine in pregnancy. Vaccinated infants were those who received ≥1 dose of PV > 14 days before symptom onset. We excluded infants with unknown maternal or PV status or with mothers vaccinated ≤14 days before delivery. We calculated pooled VE as 100 * (1-odds ratio of vaccination) adjusted for study site, onset date in quarters and infants' age group., Results: Of 829 infants presenting with pertussis-like symptoms, 336 (41%) were too young for PV. For the VE in pregnancy analysis, we included 75 cases and 201 controls. Vaccination in pregnancy was recorded for 9 cases (12%) and 92 controls (46%), adjusted VE was between 75% [95%CI: 35-91%] and 88% [95%CI: 57-96%]. Of 493 infants eligible for PV, we included 123 cases and 253 controls. Thirty-one cases and 98 controls recorded both PV with ≥ 1 dose and vaccination in pregnancy, adjusted VE was between 74% [95%CI: 33-90] and 95% [95%CI: 69-99]; 27 cases and 53 controls recorded PV only, adjusted VE was between 68% [95%CI: 27-86] and 94% [95%CI: 59-99]., Conclusion: Our findings suggest that vaccination in pregnancy reduces pertussis incidence in infants too young for PV. In infants aged 2-11 months, PV only and both PV and vaccination in pregnancy provide significant protection against severe pertussis., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest 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., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

We aimed to estimate the household secondary infection attack rate (hSAR) of SARS-CoV-2 in investigations aligned with the WHO Unity Studies Household Transmission Investigations (HHTI) protocol. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis according to PRISMA 2020 guidelines. We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus and medRxiv/bioRxiv for "Unity-aligned" First Few X cases (FFX) and HHTIs published 1 December 2019 to 26 July 2021. Standardised early results were shared by WHO Unity Studies collaborators (to 1 October 2021). We used a bespoke tool to assess investigation methodological quality. Values for hSAR and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were extracted or calculated from crude data. Heterogeneity was assessed by visually inspecting overlap of CIs on forest plots and quantified in meta-analyses. Of 9988 records retrieved, 80 articles (64 from databases; 16 provided by Unity Studies collaborators) were retained in the systematic review; 62 were included in the primary meta-analysis. hSAR point estimates ranged from 2% to 90% (95% prediction interval: 3%-71%; I 2  = 99.7%); I 2 values remained >99% in subgroup analyses, indicating high, unexplained heterogeneity and leading to a decision not to report pooled hSAR estimates. FFX and HHTI remain critical epidemiological tools for early and ongoing characterisation of novel infectious pathogens. The large, unexplained variance in hSAR estimates emphasises the need to further support standardisation in planning, conduct and analysis, and for clear and comprehensive reporting of FFX and HHTIs in time and place, to guide evidence-based pandemic preparedness and response efforts for SARS-CoV-2, influenza and future novel respiratory viruses., (© 2022 World Health Organization; licensed by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: Estimating COVID-19 cumulative incidence in Africa remains problematic due to challenges in contact tracing, routine surveillance systems and laboratory testing capacities and strategies. We undertook a meta-analysis of population-based seroprevalence studies to estimate SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in Africa to inform evidence-based decision making on public health and social measures (PHSM) and vaccine strategy., Methods: We searched for seroprevalence studies conducted in Africa published 1 January 2020-30 December 2021 in Medline, Embase, Web of Science and Europe PMC (preprints), grey literature, media releases and early results from WHO Unity studies. All studies were screened, extracted, assessed for risk of bias and evaluated for alignment with the WHO Unity seroprevalence protocol. We conducted descriptive analyses of seroprevalence and meta-analysed seroprevalence differences by demographic groups, place and time. We estimated the extent of undetected infections by comparing seroprevalence and cumulative incidence of confirmed cases reported to WHO., Prospero: CRD42020183634., Results: We identified 56 full texts or early results, reporting 153 distinct seroprevalence studies in Africa. Of these, 97 (63%) were low/moderate risk of bias studies. SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence rose from 3.0% (95% CI 1.0% to 9.2%) in April-June 2020 to 65.1% (95% CI 56.3% to 73.0%) in July-September 2021. The ratios of seroprevalence from infection to cumulative incidence of confirmed cases was large (overall: 100:1, ranging from 18:1 to 954:1) and steady over time. Seroprevalence was highly heterogeneous both within countries-urban versus rural (lower seroprevalence for rural geographic areas), children versus adults (children aged 0-9 years had the lowest seroprevalence)-and between countries and African subregions., Conclusion: We report high seroprevalence in Africa suggesting greater population exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and potential protection against COVID-19 severe disease than indicated by surveillance data. As seroprevalence was heterogeneous, targeted PHSM and vaccination strategies need to be tailored to local epidemiological situations., Competing Interests: Competing interests: WHO had a role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation and writing of the report. No other funders had any such role. The corresponding authors had full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication. Authors were not precluded from accessing data in the study, and they accept responsibility to submit for publication. Potential other competing interests of named coauthors include: RKA reports personal fees from the Public Health Agency of Canada and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Strategic Investment Fund, as well as equity in Alethea Medical (outside the submitted work). MPC reports personal fees from GEn1E Lifesciences (outside the submitted work), nplex biosciences (outside the submitted work) and Kanvas biosciences (outside the submitted work). JP reports grants from MedImmune (outside the submitted work) and Sanofi-Pasteur (outside the submitted work), grants and personal fees from Merck (outside the submitted work) and AbbVie (outside the submitted work) and personal fees from AstraZeneca (outside the submitted work). CCo reports funding from Sanofi Pasteur (outside of the submitted work). KE reports being cochairman of ANRS group on public health and social science in France (outside of the submitted work). JDS reports consulting fees from ASLM, GIZ health-focus and l’Oréal (all outside of the submitted work)., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

By employing a common protocol and data from electronic health registries in Denmark, Navarre (Spain), Norway and Portugal, we estimated vaccine effectiveness (VE) against hospitalisation due to COVID-19 in individuals aged ≥ 65 years old, without previous documented infection, between October 2021 and March 2022. VE was higher in 65-79-year-olds compared with ≥ 80-year-olds and in those who received a booster compared with those who were primary vaccinated. VE remained high (ca 80%) between ≥ 12 and < 24 weeks after the first booster administration, and after Omicron became dominant.

As the COVID-19 pandemic began in early 2020, primary care influenza sentinel surveillance networks within the Influenza - Monitoring Vaccine Effectiveness in Europe (I-MOVE) consortium rapidly adapted to COVID-19 surveillance. This study maps system adaptations and lessons learned about aligning influenza and COVID-19 surveillance following ECDC / WHO/Europe recommendations and preparing for other diseases possibly emerging in the future. Using a qualitative approach, we describe the adaptations of seven sentinel sites in five European Union countries and the United Kingdom during the first pandemic phase (March-September 2020). Adaptations to sentinel systems were substantial (2/7 sites), moderate (2/7) or minor (3/7 sites). Most adaptations encompassed patient referral and sample collection pathways, laboratory testing and data collection. Strengths included established networks of primary care providers, highly qualified testing laboratories and stakeholder commitments. One challenge was the decreasing number of samples due to altered patient pathways. Lessons learned included flexibility establishing new routines and new laboratory testing. To enable simultaneous sentinel surveillance of influenza and COVID-19, experiences of the sentinel sites and testing infrastructure should be considered. The contradicting aims of rapid case finding and contact tracing, which are needed for control during a pandemic and regular surveillance, should be carefully balanced.

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.

Introduction: Critical questions remain about COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) in real-world settings, particularly in middle-income countries. We describe a study protocol to evaluate COVID-19 VE in preventing laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in health workers (HWs) in Albania, an upper-middle-income country., Methods and Analysis: In this 12-month prospective cohort study, we enrolled HWs at three hospitals in Albania. HWs are vaccinated through the routine COVID-19 vaccine campaign. Participants completed a baseline survey about demographics, clinical comorbidities, and infection risk behaviours. Baseline serology samples were also collected and tested against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, and respiratory swabs were collected and tested for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR. Participants complete weekly symptom questionnaires and symptomatic participants have a respiratory swab collected, which is tested for SARS-CoV-2. At 3, 6, 9 months and 12 months of the study, serology will be collected and tested for antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein and spike protein. VE will be estimated using a piecewise proportional hazards model (VE=1-HR)., Baseline Data: From February to May 2021, 1504 HWs were enrolled. The median age was 44 (range: 22-71) and 78% were female. At enrolment, 72% of participants were seropositive for SARS-CoV-2. 56% of participants were vaccinated with one dose, of whom 98% received their first shot within 4 days of enrolment. All HWs received the Pfizer BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine., Ethics and Dissemination: The study protocol and procedures were reviewed and approved by the WHO Ethical Review Board, reference number CERC.0097A, and the Albanian Institute of Public Health Ethical Review Board, reference number 156. All participants have provided written informed consent to participate in this study. The primary results of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal at the time of completion., Trial Registration Number: NCT04811391., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The declaration of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) on 30 January 2020 required rapid implementation of early investigations to inform appropriate national and global public health actions., Methods: The suite of existing pandemic preparedness generic epidemiological early investigation protocols was rapidly adapted for COVID-19, branded the 'UNITY studies' and promoted globally for the implementation of standardized and quality studies. Ten protocols were developed investigating household (HH) transmission, the first few cases (FFX), population seroprevalence (SEROPREV), health facilities transmission (n = 2), vaccine effectiveness (n = 2), pregnancy outcomes and transmission, school transmission, and surface contamination. Implementation was supported by WHO and its partners globally, with emphasis to support building surveillance and research capacities in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC)., Results: WHO generic protocols were rapidly developed and published on the WHO website, 5/10 protocols within the first 3 months of the response. As of 30 June 2021, 172 investigations were implemented by 97 countries, of which 62 (64%) were LMIC. The majority of countries implemented population seroprevalence (71 countries) and first few cases/household transmission (37 countries) studies., Conclusion: The widespread adoption of UNITY protocols across all WHO regions indicates that they addressed subnational and national needs to support local public health decision-making to prevent and control the pandemic., (© 2021 The Authors. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: The secondary attack rate (SAR) of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) was estimated, and the risk factors for infection among members of households with a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) index case were identified to inform preventive measures., Methods: Between 3 August and 19 December 2020, a household transmission study was implemented based on a standardized World Health Organization protocol. Laboratory-confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection were recruited through the federal COVID-19 database. Trained contact tracers interviewed index cases and household members to collect information on demographic, clinical and behavioural factors. Contacts were followed up for 28 days to identify secondary infections. SAR was estimated and odds ratios (OR) were calculated for risk factors for transmission., Results: In total, 383 households and 793 contacts were included in this study. The overall SAR was 17% [95% confidence interval (CI) 14-21]. Contacts had higher risk for infection if the primary case had both cough and runny nose (OR 4.31, 95% CI 1.60-11.63), if the contact was aged 18-49 years (OR 4.67, 95% CI 1.83-11.93), if the contact kissed the primary case (OR 3.16, 95% CI 1.19-8.43), or if the contact shared a meal with the primary case (OR 3.10, 95% CI 1.17-8.27)., Conclusions: These results add to the global literature by providing evidence from a middle-income setting. Standard preventive measures in households with positive cases remain critical to reduce transmission., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement None declared., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

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.)

Background: Influenza A(H3N2), A(H1N1)pdm09 and B viruses co-circulated in Europe in 2017-18, predominated by influenza B. WHO-recommended, trivalent vaccine components were lineage-mismatched for B. The I-MOVE hospital network measured 2017-18 seasonal influenza vaccine effectiveness (IVE) against influenza A(H3N2) and B among hospitalised patients (≥65 years) in Europe., Methods: Following the same generic protocol for test-negative design, hospital teams in nine countries swabbed patients ≥65 years with recent onset (≤7 days) severe acute respiratory infection (SARI), collecting information on demographics, vaccination status and underlying conditions. Cases were RT-PCR positive for influenza A(H3N2) or B; controls: negative for any influenza. "Vaccinated" patients had SARI onset >14 days after vaccination. We measured pooled IVE against influenza, adjusted for study site, age, sex, onset date and chronic conditions., Results: We included 3483 patients: 376 influenza A(H3N2) and 928 B cases, and 2028 controls. Most (>99%) vaccinated patients received the B lineage-mismatched trivalent vaccine. IVE against influenza A(H3N2) was 24% (95% CI: 2 to 40); 35% (95% CI: 6 to 55) in 65- to 79-year-olds and 14% (95% CI: -22 to 39) in ≥80-year-olds. Against influenza B, IVE was 30% (95% CI: 16 to 41); 37% (95% CI: 19 to 51) in 65- to 79-year-olds and 19% (95% CI: -7 to 38) in ≥80-year-olds., Conclusions: IVE against influenza B was similar to A(H3N2) in hospitalised older adults, despite trivalent vaccine and circulating B lineage mismatch, suggesting some cross-protection. IVE was lower in those ≥80 than 65-79 years. We reinforce the importance of influenza vaccination in older adults as, even with a poorly matched vaccine, it still protects one in three to four of this population from severe influenza., (© 2020 The Authors. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

BackgroundInfluenza A(H1N1)pdm09, A(H3N2) and B viruses were co-circulating in Europe between September 2019 and January 2020.AimTo provide interim 2019/20 influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates from six European studies, covering 10 countries and both primary care and hospital settings.MethodsAll studies used the test-negative design, although there were some differences in other study characteristics, e.g. patient selection, data sources, case definitions and included age groups. Overall and influenza (sub)type-specific VE was estimated for each study using logistic regression adjusted for potential confounders.ResultsThere were 31,537 patients recruited across the six studies, of which 5,300 (17%) were cases with 5,310 infections. Most of these (4,466; 84%) were influenza A. The VE point estimates for all ages were 29% to 61% against any influenza in the primary care setting and 35% to 60% in hospitalised older adults (aged 65 years and over). The VE point estimates against A(H1N1)pdm09 (all ages, both settings) was 48% to 75%, and against A(H3N2) ranged from -58% to 57% (primary care) and -16% to 60% (hospital). Against influenza B, VE for all ages was 62% to 83% (primary care only).ConclusionsInfluenza vaccination is of continued benefit during the ongoing 2019/20 influenza season. Robust end-of-season VE estimates and genetic virus characterisation results may help understand the variability in influenza (sub)type-specific results across studies.

BackgroundTo increase the acceptability of influenza vaccine, it is important to quantify the overall benefits of the vaccination programme.AimTo assess the impact of influenza vaccination in Portugal, Spain and the Netherlands, we estimated the number of medically attended influenza-confirmed cases (MAICC) in primary care averted in the seasons 2015/16 to 2017/18 among those ≥ 65 years.MethodsWe used an ecological approach to estimate vaccination impact. We compared the number of observed MAICC (n) to the estimated number that would have occurred without the vaccination programme (N). To estimate N, we used: (i) MAICC estimated from influenza surveillance systems, (ii) vaccine coverage, (iii) pooled (sub)type-specific influenza vaccine effectiveness estimates for seasons 2015/16 to 2017/18, weighted by the proportion of virus circulation in each season and country. We estimated the number of MAICC averted (NAE) and the prevented fraction (PF) by the vaccination programme.ResultsThe annual average of NAE in the population ≥ 65 years was 33, 58 and 204 MAICC per 100,000 in Portugal, Spain and the Netherlands, respectively. On average, influenza vaccination prevented 10.7%, 10.9% and 14.2% of potential influenza MAICC each season in these countries. The lowest PF was in 2016/17 (4.9-6.1%) with an NAE ranging from 24 to 69 per 100,000.ConclusionsOur results suggest that influenza vaccination programmes reduced a substantial number of MAICC. Together with studies on hospitalisations and deaths averted by influenza vaccination programmes, this will contribute to the evaluation of the impact of vaccination strategies and strengthen public health communication.

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.

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.)

Influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 and A(H3N2) viruses both circulated in Europe in October 2018-January 2019. Interim results from six studies indicate that 2018/19 influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates among all ages in primary care was 32-43% against influenza A; higher against A(H1N1)pdm09 and lower against A(H3N2). Among hospitalised older adults, VE estimates were 34-38% against influenza A and slightly lower against A(H1N1)pdm09. Influenza vaccination is of continued benefit during the ongoing 2018/19 influenza season.