Suchergebnisse

Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme (project number 13/34/14). EV was supported by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government under grant (AUKCAR/14/03). This work is carried out with the support of the Asthma UK Centre for Applied Research (AUK-AC-2012–2001) and the Farr Institute. ; Peer reviewed ; Publisher PDF

Financial support. The work was funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government under the grant (AUKCAR/14/03) and the NIHR–Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme (13/34/14) for the Seasonal Influenza Vaccination Effectiveness II (SIVE II) study. As principal investigator, C. R. S. received a grant for the SIVE-II project from the NIHR HTA. This work was carried out with the support of the Asthma UK Centre for Applied Research (AUK-AC-2012-01), the Farr Institute (MR/M501633/2), Health Data Research UK (an initiative funded by UK Research and Innovation, Department of Health and Social Care England and the devolved administrations and leading medical research charities), the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (under grant agreement No 634446) and European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (Influenza-Monitoring Vaccine Effectiveness). Acknowledgments. The authors thank and acknowledge all colleagues at the Asthma UK Centre for Applied Research for their support in this study. Disclaimer. The funding bodies had no role in the design of the study, review process, analysis, interpretation, or reporting of data. The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Health Technology Assessment Programme, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), National Health Service, or the Department of Health. Potential conflicts of interest. The authors: No reported conflicts of interest. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed. ; Peer reviewed ; Publisher PDF ; Publisher PDF

A cross-sectional survey was undertaken with the European Union (EU) Member States and Norway and Iceland to describe seasonal influenza immunisation in the 2006-7 season, in particular to identify country-specific recommendations for risk groups, obtain vaccine uptake information and allow comparison with global recommendations. A standardised questionnaire was completed electronically by each country's project gatekeeper. Of the 29 countries surveyed, 28 recommended seasonal influenza vaccination for older age groups (22 for those aged > 65 years), and in one country vaccine was recommended for all age groups. All countries recommended vaccinating patients with chronic pulmonary and cardiovascular diseases and most countries advised to immunise patients with haematologic or metabolic disorders (n=28), immunologic disorders (n=27) and renal disease (n=27), as well as residents of long-term care facilities (n=24). Most countries recommended vaccination for staff in hospitals (n=25), long-term care facilities (n=25) and outpatient clinics (n=23), and one-third had such recommendations for workers in essential (n=10), military (n=10) and veterinary services (n=10) and poultry industry (n=13). Eight countries recommended vaccine for pregnant women; and five advised to vaccinate children (with age limits ranging from 6 months to 5 years). Twenty countries measured influenza vaccine uptake among those aged > 65 years (range 1.8%-82.1%), seven reported uptake in healthcare workers (range 14%-48%) and seven assessed coverage in persons with underlying medical conditions (range 27.6%-75.2%). The data provided by this study can assist EU states to assess and compare their influenza vaccination programme performance with other countries. The information provides a comprehensive overview of policies and programmes and their outcomes and can be used to inform joint discussions on how the national policies in the EU might be standardised in the future to achieve optimal coverage. Annual surveys could be used to monitor changes in these national policies.

Background: There is substantial burden of seasonal influenza in Kenya, which led the government to consider introducing a national influenza vaccination programme. Given the cost implications of a nationwide programme, local economic evaluation data are needed to inform policy on the design and benefits of influenza vaccination. We set out to estimate the cost-effectiveness of seasonal influenza vaccination in Kenya. Methods: We fitted an age-stratified dynamic transmission model to active surveillance data from patients with influenza from 2010 to 2018. Using a societal perspective, we developed a decision tree cost-effectiveness model and estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted for three vaccine target groups: children 6–23 months (strategy I), 2–5 years (strategy II) and 6–14 years (strategy III) with either the Southern Hemisphere influenza vaccine (Strategy A) or Northern Hemisphere vaccine (Strategy B) or both (Strategy C: twice yearly vaccination campaigns, or Strategy D: year-round vaccination campaigns). We assessed cost-effectiveness by calculating incremental net monetary benefits (INMB) using a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 1–51% of the annual gross domestic product per capita (USD17–USD872). Results: The mean number of infections across all ages was 2–15 million per year. When vaccination was well timed to influenza activity, the annual mean ICER per DALY averted for vaccinating children 6–23 months ranged between USD749 and USD1385 for strategy IA, USD442 and USD1877 for strategy IB, USD678 and USD4106 for strategy IC and USD1147 and USD7933 for strategy ID. For children 2–5 years, it ranged between USD945 and USD1573 for strategy IIA, USD563 and USD1869 for strategy IIB, USD662 and USD4085 for strategy IIC, and USD1169 and USD7897 for strategy IID. For children 6–14 years, it ranged between USD923 and USD3116 for strategy IIIA, USD1005 and USD2223 for strategy IIIB, USD883 and USD4727 for strategy IIIC and USD1467 and ...

BACKGROUND: There is substantial burden of seasonal influenza in Kenya, which led the government to consider introducing a national influenza vaccination programme. Given the cost implications of a nationwide programme, local economic evaluation data are needed to inform policy on the design and benefits of influenza vaccination. We set out to estimate the cost-effectiveness of seasonal influenza vaccination in Kenya. METHODS: We fitted an age-stratified dynamic transmission model to active surveillance data from patients with influenza from 2010 to 2018. Using a societal perspective, we developed a decision tree cost-effectiveness model and estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted for three vaccine target groups: children 6–23 months (strategy I), 2–5 years (strategy II) and 6–14 years (strategy III) with either the Southern Hemisphere influenza vaccine (Strategy A) or Northern Hemisphere vaccine (Strategy B) or both (Strategy C: twice yearly vaccination campaigns, or Strategy D: year-round vaccination campaigns). We assessed cost-effectiveness by calculating incremental net monetary benefits (INMB) using a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 1–51% of the annual gross domestic product per capita ($17–$872). RESULTS: The mean number of infections across all ages was 2–15 million per year. When vaccination was well timed to influenza activity, the annual mean ICER per DALY averted for vaccinating children 6–23 months ranged between $749 and $1385 for strategy IA, $442 and $1877 for strategy IB, $678 and $4106 for strategy IC and $1147 and $7933 for strategy ID. For children 2–5 years, it ranged between $945 and $1573 for strategy IIA, $563 and $1869 for strategy IIB, $662 and $4085 for strategy IIC, and $1169 and $7897 for strategy IID. For children 6–14 years, it ranged between $923 and $3116 for strategy IIIA, $1005 and $2223 for strategy IIIB, $883 and $4727 for strategy IIIC and $1467 and $6813 for strategy IIID. Overall, no vaccination ...

BACKGROUND: There is substantial burden of seasonal influenza in Kenya, which led the government to consider introducing a national influenza vaccination programme. Given the cost implications of a nationwide programme, local economic evaluation data are needed to inform policy on the design and benefits of influenza vaccination. We set out to estimate the cost-effectiveness of seasonal influenza vaccination in Kenya. METHODS: We fitted an age-stratified dynamic transmission model to active surveillance data from patients with influenza from 2010 to 2018. Using a societal perspective, we developed a decision tree cost-effectiveness model and estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted for three vaccine target groups: children 6-23 months (strategy I), 2-5 years (strategy II) and 6-14 years (strategy III) with either the Southern Hemisphere influenza vaccine (Strategy A) or Northern Hemisphere vaccine (Strategy B) or both (Strategy C: twice yearly vaccination campaigns, or Strategy D: year-round vaccination campaigns). We assessed cost-effectiveness by calculating incremental net monetary benefits (INMB) using a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 1-51% of the annual gross domestic product per capita ($17-$872). RESULTS: The mean number of infections across all ages was 2-15 million per year. When vaccination was well timed to influenza activity, the annual mean ICER per DALY averted for vaccinating children 6-23 months ranged between $749 and $1385 for strategy IA, $442 and $1877 for strategy IB, $678 and $4106 for strategy IC and $1147 and $7933 for strategy ID. For children 2-5 years, it ranged between $945 and $1573 for strategy IIA, $563 and $1869 for strategy IIB, $662 and $4085 for strategy IIC, and $1169 and $7897 for strategy IID. For children 6-14 years, it ranged between $923 and $3116 for strategy IIIA, $1005 and $2223 for strategy IIIB, $883 and $4727 for strategy IIIC and $1467 and $6813 for strategy IIID. Overall, no vaccination strategy was cost-effective at the minimum ($17) and median ($445) WTP thresholds. Vaccinating children 6-23 months once a year had the highest mean INMB value at $872 (WTP threshold upper limit); however, this strategy had very low probability of the highest net benefit. CONCLUSION: Vaccinating children 6-23 months once a year was the most favourable vaccination option; however, the strategy is unlikely to be cost-effective given the current WTP thresholds.

In Europe, annual influenza vaccination is recommended to elderly. From 2011 to 2014 and in 2015-16, we conducted a multicentre test negative case control study in hospitals of 11 European countries to measure influenza vaccine effectiveness (IVE) against laboratory confirmed hospitalised influenza among people aged ≥65years. We pooled four seasons data to measure IVE by past exposures to influenza vaccination. We swabbed patients admitted for clinical conditions related to influenza with onset of severe acute respiratory infection ≤7days before admission. Cases were patients RT-PCR positive for influenza virus and controls those negative for any influenza virus. We documented seasonal vaccination status for the current season and the two previous seasons. We recruited 5295 patients over the four seasons, including 465A(H1N1)pdm09, 642A(H3N2), 278 B case-patients and 3910 controls. Among patients unvaccinated in both previous two seasons, current seasonal IVE (pooled across seasons) was 30% (95%CI: -35 to 64), 8% (95%CI: -94 to 56) and 33% (95%CI: -43 to 68) against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, A(H3N2) and B respectively. Among patients vaccinated in both previous seasons, current seasonal IVE (pooled across seasons) was -1% (95%CI: -80 to 43), 37% (95%CI: 7-57) and 43% (95%CI: 1-68) against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, A(H3N2) and B respectively. Our results suggest that, regardless of patients' recent vaccination history, current seasonal vaccine conferred some protection to vaccinated patients against hospitalisation with influenza A(H3N2) and B. Vaccination of patients already vaccinated in both the past two seasons did not seem to be effective against A(H1N1)pdm09. To better understand the effect of repeated vaccination, engaging in large cohort studies documenting exposures to vaccine and natural infection is needed. ; The Lithuanian I-MOVE + study sites were supported by a grant from the Research Council of Lithuania (SEN-03/2015). The I-MOVE + project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 634446. GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur and Sanofi Pasteur MSD financially supported the InNHOVE network. ; Sí

AbstractVaccination is recognised as one of the most effective ways to combat seasonal influenza—a disease that exerts significant social and economic costs, yet is often neglected by policy‐makers and the vaccine target population in developing countries. The situation in China is no exception with seasonal influenza vaccine remaining as a class II vaccine and being financed by citizens' out‐of‐pocket payments. The different cultural backgrounds, climate patterns and living standards across China further complicate the policymaking process of developing national level policy guidelines. Nevertheless, China's recent health care reform that focuses on preventive care, elderly care and equitable health care access has motivated policy‐makers at the local level to formulate policies facilitating seasonal influenza vaccination provision. This article seeks to understand this process at the city level under China's current economic transition background, and aims to identify policy experiences that may be applicable for the larger Asia‐Pacific region.

Members of the I-MOVE+ working group - Portugal: B. Nunes, A. Machado, A.P. Rodrigues, V. Gómez, I. Kislaya, R. Guiomar, P. Pechirra, P. Cristóvão, I. Costa (National Health Institute Doutor Ricardo Jorge, Lisbon), A.Panarra, R. Côrte-Real (Centro Hospitalar de Lisboa Central, Lisbon), J. Poças, M.J. Peres (Centro Hospitalar de Setúbal, Setúbal). ; Between September 2017 and February 2018, influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, A(H3N2) and B viruses (mainly B/Yamagata, not included in 2017/18 trivalent vaccines) co-circulated in Europe. Interim results from five European studies indicate that, in all age groups, 2017/18 influenza vaccine effectiveness was 25 to 52% against any influenza, 55 to 68% against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, -42 to 7% against influenza A(H3N2) and 36 to 54% against influenza B. 2017/18 influenza vaccine should be promoted where influenza still circulates. ; The five studies have received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 634446 to conduct the study in individuals aged 65 years or more. ECDC has contributed to fund some study sites of the EU-PC study under the Framework contract No ECDC/2014/026 for the individuals aged less than 65 years. ; info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

Abstract Background In Germany, annual vaccination against seasonal influenza is recommended for certain target groups (e.g. persons aged ≥60 years, chronically ill persons, healthcare workers (HCW)). In season 2009/10, vaccination against pandemic influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, which was controversially discussed in the public, was recommended for the whole population. The objectives of this study were to assess vaccination coverage for seasonal (seasons 2008/09-2010/11) and pandemic influenza (season 2009/10), to identify predictors of and barriers to pandemic vaccine uptake and whether the controversial discussions on pandemic vaccination has had a negative impact on seasonal influenza vaccine uptake in Germany. Methods We analysed data from the 'German Health Update' (GEDA10) telephone survey (n=22,050) and a smaller GEDA10-follow-up survey (n=2,493), which were both representative of the general population aged ≥18 years living in Germany. Results Overall only 8.8% of the adult population in Germany received a vaccination against pandemic influenza. High socioeconomic status, having received a seasonal influenza shot in the previous season, and belonging to a target group for seasonal influenza vaccination were independently associated with the uptake of pandemic vaccines. The main reasons for not receiving a pandemic vaccination were 'fear of side effects' and the opinion that 'vaccination was not necessary'. Seasonal influenza vaccine uptake in the pre-pandemic season 2008/09 was 52.8% among persons aged ≥60 years; 30.5% among HCW, and 43.3% among chronically ill persons. A decrease in vaccination coverage was observed across all target groups in the first post-pandemic season 2010/11 (50.6%, 25.8%, and 41.0% vaccination coverage, respectively). Conclusions Seasonal influenza vaccination coverage in Germany remains in all target groups below 75%, which is a declared goal of the European Union. Our results suggest that controversial public discussions about safety and the benefits of pandemic influenza vaccination may have contributed to both a very low uptake of pandemic vaccines and a decreased uptake of seasonal influenza vaccines in the first post-pandemic season. In the upcoming years, the uptake of seasonal influenza vaccines should be carefully monitored in all target groups to identify if this trend continues and to guide public health authorities in developing more effective vaccination and communication strategies for seasonal influenza vaccination.

Between September 2017 and February 2018, influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, A(H3N2) and B viruses (mainly B/Yamagata, not included in 2017/18 trivalent vaccines) co-circulated in Europe. Interim results from five European studies indicate that, in all age groups, 2017/18 influenza vaccine effectiveness was 25 to 52% against any influenza, 55 to 68% against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, -42 to 7% against influenza A(H3N2) and 36 to 54% against influenza B. 2017/18 influenza vaccine should be promoted where influenza still circulates. ; Funding: The five studies have received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 634446 to conduct the study in individuals aged 65 years or more. ECDC has contributed to fund some study sites of the EU-PC study under the Framework contract No ECDC/2014/026 for the individuals aged less than 65 years. All study teams are very grateful to all patients, general practitioners, paediatricians, hospital teams, laboratory teams, regional epidemiologists who have contributed to the studies. We acknowledge the authors, originating and submitting laboratories of the sequences from GISAID's EpiFlu Database used for this study. All submitters of data may be contacted directly via the GISAID website www.gisaid.org ; Sí

Free PMC Article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6086844/ ; I‐MOVE primary care multicentre case‐control team - Portugal: Baltazar Nunes, Ausenda Machado, Ana Paula Rodrigues, Verónica Gomez (Departamento de Epidemiologia, Instituto Nacional de Saúde Dr. Ricardo Jorge); Raquel Guiomar, Pedro Pechirra, Paula Cristóvão, Patrícia Conde, Inês Costa (Departamento de Doenças Infeciosas, Instituto Nacional de Saúde Dr. Ricardo Jorge) ; BACKGROUND: Results of previous influenza vaccination effects on current season influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) are inconsistent. OBJECTIVES: To explore previous influenza vaccination effects on current season VE among population targeted for vaccination. METHODS: We used 2011/2012 to 2016/2017 I-MOVE primary care multicentre test-negative data. For each season, we compared current season adjusted VE (aVE) between individuals vaccinated and unvaccinated in previous season. Using unvaccinated in both seasons as a reference, we then compared aVE between vaccinated in both seasons, current only, and previous only. RESULTS: We included 941, 2645 and 959 influenza-like illness patients positive for influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, A(H3N2) and B, respectively, and 5532 controls. In 2011/2012, 2014/2015 and 2016/2017, A(H3N2) aVE point estimates among those vaccinated in previous season were -68%, -21% and -19%, respectively; among unvaccinated in previous season, these were 33%, 48% and 46%, respectively (aVE not computable for influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 and B). Compared to current season vaccination only, VE for both seasons' vaccination was (i) similar in two of four seasons for A(H3N2) (absolute difference [ad] 6% and 8%); (ii) lower in three of four seasons for influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 (ad 18%, 26% and 29%), in two seasons for influenza A(H3N2) (ad 27% and 39%) and in two of three seasons for influenza B (ad 26% and 37%); (iii) higher in one season for influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 (ad 20%) and influenza B (ad 24%). CONCLUSIONS: We did not identify any pattern of previous influenza vaccination effect. Prospective cohort studies documenting influenza infections, vaccinations and vaccine types are needed to understand previous influenza vaccinations' effects. ; European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Grant Number: ECDC/2014/026 European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme. Grant Number: 634446 WHO‐EURO ; info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

Between September 2017 and February 2018, influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, A(H3N2) and B viruses (mainly B/Yamagata, not included in 2017/18 trivalent vaccines) co-circulated in Europe. Interim results from five European studies indicate that, in all age groups, 2017/18 influenza vaccine effectiveness was 25 to 52% against any influenza, 55 to 68% against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, -42 to 7% against influenza A(H3N2) and 36 to 54% against influenza B. 2017/18 influenza vaccine should be promoted where influenza still circulates.

International audience ; BACKGROUND: In October 2009, the French government organized a national-wide, free of charge vaccination campaign against pandemic H1N1 influenza virus, especially targeting pregnant women, a high risk group for severe illness. The study objective was to evaluate pandemic flu vaccine uptake and factors associated with non-vaccination in a population of pregnant women. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: In a prospective cohort conducted in 3 maternity hospitals in Paris, 882 pregnant women were randomly included between October 12, 2009 and February 3, 2010, with the aim to study characteristics of pandemic influenza during pregnancy. At inclusion, socio-demographic, medical, obstetrical factors and those associated with a higher risk of flu exposition and disease-spreading were systematically collected. Pandemic flu vaccine uptake was checked until delivery. 555 (62.9%) women did not get vaccinated. Determinants associated with non-vaccination in a multivariate logistic regression were: geographic origin (Sub-Saharan African origin, adjusted Odd Ratio aOR = 5.4[2.3-12.7], North African origin, aOR = 2.5[1.3-4.7] and Asian origin, aOR = 2.1[1.7-2.6] compared to French and European origin) and socio-professional categories (farmers, craftsmen and tradesmen, aOR = 2.3[2.0-2.6], intermediate professionals, aOR = 1.3[1.0-1.6], employees and manual workers, aOR = 2.5[1.4-4.4] compared to managers and intellectual professionals). The probability of not receiving pandemic flu vaccine was lower among women vaccinated against seasonal flu in the previous 5 years (aOR = 0.6[0.4-0.8]) and among those who stopped smoking before or early during pregnancy (aOR = 0.6[0.4-0.8]). Number of children less than 18 years old living at home, work in contact with children or in healthcare area, or professional contact with the public, were not associated with a higher vaccine uptake. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: In this cohort of pregnant women, vaccine coverage against pandemic 2009 A/H1N1 flu was low, particularly in immigrant women and those having a low socio-economic status. To improve its effectiveness, future vaccination campaign for pregnant women should be more specifically tailored for these populations.

Globally there are an estimated 3–5 million cases of severe influenza illness every year, resulting in 250,000–500,000 deaths. At the World Health Assembly in 2003, World Health Organization (WHO) resolved to increase influenza vaccine coverage rates (VCR) for high-risk groups, particularly focusing on at least 75% of the elderly by 2010. But systematic worldwide data have not been available to assist public health authorities to monitor vaccine uptake and review progress toward vaccination coverage targets. In 2008, the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations Influenza Vaccine Supply task force (IFPMA IVS) developed a survey methodology to assess global influenza vaccine dose distribution. The current survey results represent 2011 data and demonstrate the evolution of the absolute number distributed between 2004 and 2011 inclusive, and the evolution in the per capita doses distributed in 2008–2011. Global distribution of IFPMA IVS member doses increased approximately 86.9% between 2004 and 2011, but only approximately 12.1% between 2008 and 2011. The WHO's regions in Eastern Mediterranean (EMRO), Southeast Asian (SEARO) and Africa (AFRO) together account for about 47% of the global population, but only 3.7% of all IFPMA IVS doses distributed. While distributed doses have globally increased, they have decreased in EURO and EMRO since 2009. Dose distribution can provide a reasonable proxy of vaccine utilization. Based on the dose distribution, we conclude that seasonal influenza VCR in many countries remains well below the WHA's VCR targets and below the recommendations of the Council of the European Union in EURO. Inter- and intra-regional disparities in dose distribution trends call into question the impact of current vaccine recommendations at achieving coverage targets. Additional policy measures, particularly those that influence patients adherence to vaccination programs, such as reimbursement, healthcare provider knowledge, attitudes, practices, and communications, are required for VCR targets to be met and benefit public health.