Effectiveness of the adapted bivalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccines against hospitalisation in individuals aged ≥ 60 years during the Omicron XBB lineage-predominant period: VEBIS SARI VE network, Europe, February to August, 2023.

We conducted a multicentre hospital-based test-negative case-control study to measure the effectiveness of adapted bivalent COVID-19 mRNA vaccines against PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection during the Omicron XBB lineage-predominant period in patients aged ≥ 60 years with severe acute respiratory infection from five countries in Europe. Bivalent vaccines provided short-term additional protection compared with those vaccinated > 6 months before the campaign: from 80% (95% CI: 50 to 94) for 14-89 days post-vaccination, 15% (95% CI: -12 to 35) at 90-179 days, and lower to no effect thereafter.

Interim 2023/24 influenza A vaccine effectiveness: VEBIS European primary care and hospital multicentre studies, September 2023 to January 2024.

Influenza A viruses circulated in Europe from September 2023 to January 2024, with influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 predominance. We provide interim 2023/24 influenza vaccine effectiveness (IVE) estimates from two European studies, covering 10 countries across primary care (EU-PC) and hospital (EU-H) settings. Interim IVE was higher against A(H1N1)pdm09 than A(H3N2): EU-PC influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 IVE was 53% (95% CI: 41 to 63) and 30% (95% CI: -3 to 54) against influenza A(H3N2). For EU-H, these were 44% (95% CI: 30 to 55) and 14% (95% CI: -32 to 43), respectively.

Enhanced surveillance of hospitalised COVID-19 patients in Europe: I-MOVE-COVID-19 surveillance network, February 2020 to December 2021.

BackgroundIn early 2020, the I-MOVE-COVID-19 hospital surveillance system was adapted from an existing influenza surveillance system to include hospitalised COVID-19 cases.AimTo describe trends in the demographic and clinical characteristics of hospitalised COVID-19 cases across Europe during the first 2 years of the pandemic, and to identify associations between sex, age and chronic conditions with admission to intensive care or high dependency units (ICU/HDU) and in-hospital mortality.MethodsWe pooled pseudonymised data from all hospitalised COVID-19 cases in 11 surveillance sites in nine European countries, collected between 1 February 2020 and 31 December 2021. Associations between sex, age and chronic conditions, with ICU/HDU admission and in-hospital mortality were examined using Pearson's chi-squared test, and crude odds ratio (OR) estimates with respective 95% confidence intervals (CI).ResultsOf 25,971 hospitalised COVID-19 cases, 55% were male, 35% were 75 years or older and 90% had a chronic underlying condition. Patients with two or more chronic underlying conditions were significantly more likely to die in-hospital from COVID-19 (OR: 10.84; 95% CI: 8.30-14.16) than those without a chronic condition.ConclusionThe surveillance demonstrated that males, those 75 years or older and those with chronic conditions were at greater risk of in-hospital death. Over the surveillance period, outcomes tended to improve, likely because of vaccinations. This surveillance has laid the groundwork for further research studies investigating the risk factors of hospitalised COVID-19 cases and vaccine effectiveness.

Vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 hospitalisation in adults (≥ 20 years) during Alpha- and Delta-dominant circulation: I-MOVE-COVID-19 and VEBIS SARI VE networks, Europe, 2021.

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%.

Vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 hospitalisation in adults (≥ 20 years) during Omicron-dominant circulation: I-MOVE-COVID-19 and VEBIS SARI VE networks, Europe, 2021 to 2022.

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.

Effectiveness of complete primary vaccination against COVID-19 at primary care and community level during predominant Delta circulation in Europe: multicentre analysis, I-MOVE-COVID-19 and ECDC networks, July to August 2021.

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.

Vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in adults aged 65 years and older in primary care: I-MOVE-COVID-19 project, Europe, December 2020 to May 2021.

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.

A cross-sectional study of physical activity and sedentary behaviours in a Caribbean population: combining objective and questionnaire data to guide future interventions.

BACKGROUND: Current understanding of population physical activity (PA) levels and sedentary behaviour in developing countries is limited, and based primarily on self-report. We described PA levels using objective and self-report methods in a developing country population. METHODS: PA was assessed in a cross-sectional, representative sample of the population of Barbados (25-54 years), using a validated questionnaire (RPAQ) and individually calibrated combined heart rate and movement sensing monitors. The RPAQ collects information on recalled activity in 4 domains: home, work, transport, and leisure. Physical inactivity was defined according to World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines; sedentary lifestyle was defined as being sedentary for 8 h or more daily; PA overestimation was defined as perceiving activity to be sufficient, when classified as 'inactive' by objective measurement. RESULTS: According to objective estimates, 90.5 % (95 % CI: 83.3,94.7) of women and 58.9 % (48.4,68.7) of men did not accumulate sufficient activity to meet WHO minimum recommendations. Overall, 50.7 % (43.3,58.1) of the population was sedentary for 8 h or more each day, and 60.1 % (52.8,66.9) overestimated their activity levels. The prevalence of inactivity was underestimated by self-report in both genders by 28 percentage points (95 % CI: 18,38), but the accuracy of reporting differed by age group, education level, occupational grade, and overweight/obesity status. Low PA was greater in more socially privileged groups: higher educational level and higher occupational grade were both associated with less objectively measured PA and more sedentary time. Variation in domain-specific self-reported physical activity energy expenditure (PAEE) by educational attainment was observed: higher education level was associated with more leisure activity and less occupational activity. Occupational PA was the main driver of PAEE for women and men according to self-report, contributing 57 % (95 % CI: 52,61). The most popular leisure activities for both genders were walking and gardening. CONCLUSIONS: The use of both objective and self-report methods to assess PA and sedentary behaviour provides important complementary information to guide public health programmes. Our results emphasize the urgent need to increase PA and reduce sedentary time in this developing country population. Women and those with higher social economic position are particularly at risk from low levels of physical activity.

Prevalence and phenotype of diabetes and prediabetes using fasting glucose vs HbA1c in a Caribbean population.

BACKGROUND: Both fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and HbA1c are recommended for the diagnosis of diabetes and prediabetes by the American Diabetes Association (ADA), and for diabetes by the World Health Organization. The ADA guidance is influential on clinical practice in many developing countries, including in the Caribbean and Latin America. We aimed to compare the prevalence and characteristics of individuals identified as having diabetes and prediabetes by FPG and HbA1c in a predominantly African ancestry Caribbean population. METHODS: A representative population-based sample of 1234 adults (≥25 years of age) resident in Barbados was recruited. Standard methods with appropriate quality control were used to collect data on height, weight, blood pressure, fasting lipids and history of diagnosed diabetes, and to measure fasting glucose and HbA1c. Those with previously diagnosed diabetes (n = 192) were excluded from the analyses. Diabetes was defined as: FPG ≥7.0 mmol/L or HbA1c ≥6.5%; prediabetes as: FPG ≥5.6 to <7mmol/L or HbA1c ≥5.7 to <6.5%. RESULTS: Complete data were available on 939 participants without previously diagnosed diabetes. The prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes was higher, but not significantly so, by HbA1c (4.9%, 95% CI 3.5, 6.8) vs FPG (3.5%, 2.4, 5.1). Overall 79 individuals had diabetes by either measure, but only 21 on both. The prevalence of prediabetes was higher by HbA1c compared to FPG: 41.7% (37.9, 45.6) vs 15.0% (12.8, 17.5). Overall 558 individuals had prediabetes by either measure, but only 107 on both. HbA1c, but not FPG, was significantly higher in women than men; and FPG, but not HbA1c, was significantly associated with raised triglycerides and low HDL cholesterol. CONCLUSION: The agreement between FPG and HbA1c defined hyperglycaemia is poor. In addition, there are some differences in the phenotype of those identified, and HbA1c gives a much higher prevalence of prediabetes. The routine use of HbA1c for screening and diagnosis in this population would have major implications for clinical and public health policies and resources. Given the lack of robust evidence, particularly for prediabetes, on whether intervention in the individuals identified would improve outcomes, this approach to screening and diagnosis cannot be currently recommended for this population.