Lifting COVID-19 mitigation measures in Spain (May-June 2020).

Introduction: The state of alarm was declared in Spain due to the COVID-19 epidemic on March 14, 2020, and established population confinement measures. The objective is to describe the process of lifting these mitigation measures. Methods: The Plan for the Transition to a New Normality, approved on April 28, contained four sequential phases with progressive increase in socio-economic activities and population mobility. In parallel, a new strategy for early diagnosis, surveillance and control was implemented. A bilateral decision mechanism was established between the Spanish Government and the autonomous communities (AC), guided by a set of qualitative and quantitative indicators capturing the epidemiological situation and core capacities. The territorial units were established ad-hoc and could be from Basic Health Zones to entire AC. Results: The process run from May 4 to June 21, 2020. AC implemented plans for reinforcement of core capacities. Incidence decreased from a median (50% of territories) of 7.4 per 100,000 in 7 days at the beginning to 2.5 at the end. Median PCR testing increased from 53% to 89% of suspected cases and PCR total capacity from 4.5 to 9.8 per 1000 inhabitants weekly; positivity rate decreased from 3.5% to 1.8%. Median proportion of cases with traced contacts increased from 82% to 100%. Conclusion: Systematic data collection, analysis, and interterritorial dialogue allowed adequate process control. The epidemiological situation improved but, mostly, the process entailed a great reinforcement of core response capacities nation-wide, under common criteria. Maintaining and further reinforcing capacities remained crucial for responding to future waves.

Introducción: El 14 de marzo de 2020 España declaró el estado de alarma por la pandemia por COVID-19 incluyendo medidas de confinamiento. El objetivo es describir el proceso de desescalada de estas medidas. Métodos: Un plan de transición hacia una nueva normalidad, del 28 de abril, incluía 4 fases secuenciales incrementando progresivamente las actividades socioeconómicas y la movilidad. Concomitantemente, se implementó una nueva estrategia de diagnóstico precoz, vigilancia y control. Se estableció un mecanismo de decisión bilateral entre Gobierno central y comunidades autónomas (CCAA), guiado por un panel de indicadores cualitativos y cuantitativos de la situación epidemiológica y las capacidades básicas. Las unidades territoriales evaluadas comprendían desde zonas básicas de salud hasta CCAA. Resultados: El proceso se extendió del 4 de mayo al 21 de junio y se asoció a planes de refuerzo de las capacidades en las CCAA. La incidencia disminuyó de una mediana inicial de 7,4 por 100.000 en 7 días a 2,5 al final del proceso. La mediana de pruebas PCR aumentó del 53% al 89% de los casos sospechosos, y la capacidad total de 4,5 a 9,8 pruebas semanales por 1.000 habitantes; la positividad disminuyó del 3,5% al 1,8%. La mediana de casos con contactos trazados aumentó del 82% al 100%. Conclusión: La recogida y análisis sistemático de información y el diálogo interterritorial logaron un adecuado control del proceso. La situación epidemiológica mejoró, pero sobre todo, se aumentaron las capacidades, en todo el país y con criterios comunes, cuyo mantenimiento y refuerzo fue clave en olas sucesivas.

Lifting COVID-19 mitigation measures in Spain (May-June 2020).

INTRODUCTION: The state of alarm was declared in Spain due to the COVID-19 epidemic on March 14, 2020, and established population confinement measures. The objective is to describe the process of lifting these mitigation measures. METHODS: The Plan for the Transition to a New Normality, approved on April 28, contained four sequential phases with progressive increase in socio-economic activities and population mobility. In parallel, a new strategy for early diagnosis, surveillance and control was implemented. A bilateral decision mechanism was established between the Spanish Government and the autonomous communities (AC), guided by a set of qualitative and quantitative indicators capturing the epidemiological situation and core capacities. The territorial units were established ad-hoc and could be from Basic Health Zones to entire AC. RESULTS: The process run from May 4 to June 21, 2020. AC implemented plans for reinforcement of core capacities. Incidence decreased from a median (50% of territories) of 7.4 per 100,000 in 7 days at the beginning to 2.5 at the end. Median PCR testing increased from 53% to 89% of suspected cases and PCR total capacity from 4.5 to 9.8 per 1000 inhabitants weekly; positivity rate decreased from 3.5% to 1.8%. Median proportion of cases with traced contacts increased from 82% to 100%. CONCLUSION: Systematic data collection, analysis, and interterritorial dialogue allowed adequate process control. The epidemiological situation improved but, mostly, the process entailed a great reinforcement of core response capacities nation-wide, under common criteria. Maintaining and further reinforcing capacities remained crucial for responding to future waves.

[Pandemic influenza surveillance in the valencian community and seasonal influenza vaccines]. / Vigilancia de la gripe pandémica en la Comunidad Valenciana y vacuna antigripal estacional.

BACKGROUND: Surveillance of Pandemic influenza was carried out in the Valencian Community. Some effectiveness studies of the seasonal vaccine for AnH1N1 virus have presented no consistent results. The objective of the work consists on describing the results of the epidemic surveillance and effectiveness of the seasonal vaccine for pandemic influenza in the weeks 28 to 51, 2009. METHODS: We studied the cases in primary care, hospitalized confirmed, Polimerase Chain Reaction (PCR) and viral isolates and vaccine coverage. Vaccine effectiveness was calculated by the Farrington method of screening method, in three age groups, and two periods: vaccinated 2008-9 and 2009-10 seasons. RESULTS: In the first period (weeks 28-40) the incidence rates were highest in the group of 15-64 years (7207 cases), followed by those under 15 years (1596 cases). In the second period (weeks 45-47) children under 15 years (28218 cases) were the most affected. In both periods incidence in patients older than 65 years was low (rates of 56,3 and 125,1 respectively). In the studied period (weeks 28 at 51) 5481 cases were confirmed, of those that 1746 (31,8%) were hospitalized. The curve of hospitalization rate showed a profile similar to those in primary care and also in microbiological surveillance of the virus. The vaccine effectiveness in the second period was 25% in adults between 15 and 64 years and 51% in those older than 64 years. CONCLUSIONS: There is an age-dependent protection with positive vaccine efficacy in the elderly, although it may be confounded by natural exposure to the virus, previous immunizations or immune response.

Vigilancia de la gripe pandémica en la Comunidad Valenciana y vacuna antigripal estacional / Pandemic influenza surveillance in the Valencian community and seasonal influenza vaccines

Fundamento: En la Comunidad Valenciana se ha llevado a cabo la vigilancia de la Gripe pandémica. Algunos estudios sobre efectividad de la vacuna estacional para Gripe AnH1N1 han presentado resultados no consistentes. El objetivo del trabajo es describir los resultados de la vigilancia epidemiológica y la efectividad de la vacuna estacional para Gripe pandémica en las semanas 28 a 51 de 2009. Métodos: Se estudiaron los casos en atención primaria, hospitalizados confirmados, aislamientos virales y reacción de la cadena de la polimerasa (PCR) y coberturas vacunales. Se calculó la efectividad vacunal por el método de screening de Farrington, en tres grupos de edad y dos periodos: vacunados de las temporadas 2008-9 y 2009-10. Resultados: En el primer periodo (semanas 28 a 40) los casos se concentraron en el grupo de 15 a 64 años (7.207 casos), seguido de los menores de 15 años (1.596 casos). En el segundo periodo (semanas 45 a 47) afectó más a menores de 15 años (28.218 casos). En ambos periodos las tasas de incidencia en mayores de 65 años fue de 56,3 y 125,1 respectivamente. En el periodo estudiado (semanas 28 a 51) se confirmaron 5.481 casos de los que 1.746 (31,8%) fueron hospitalizados. La curva de personas hospitalizadas presentaba un perfil similar al de atención primaria, y también el seguimiento microbiológico del virus. La efectividad vacunal en el segundo periodo fue del 25% en adultos entre 15 y 64 años y del 51% en mayores de 64 años. Conclusiones: Se observó una protección edad dependiente con efectividad vacunal positiva en los mayores de 64 años, aunque puede estar confundida por exposición natural al virus, vacunas previas y o respuesta inmunitaria(AU)

Background: Surveillance of Pandemic influenza was carried out in the Valencian Community. Some effectiveness studies of the seasonal vaccine for AnH1N1 virus have presented no consistent results. The objective of the work consists on describing the results of the epidemic surveillance and effectiveness of the seasonal vaccine for pandemic influenza in the weeks 28 to 51, 2009. Methods: We studied the cases in primary care, hospitalized confirmed, Polimerase Chain Reaction (PCR) and viral isolates and vaccine coverage. Vaccine effectiveness was calculated by the Farrington method of screening method, in three age groups, and two periods: vaccinated 2008-9 and 2009-10 seasons. Results: In the first period (weeks 28-40) the incidence rates were highest in the group of 15-64 years (7207 cases), followed by those under 15 years (1596 cases). In the second period (weeks 45-47) children under 15 years (28218 cases) were the most affected. In both periods incidence in patients older than 65 years was low (rates of 56,3 and 125,1 respectively). In the studied period (weeks 28 at 51) 5481 cases were confirmed, of those that 1746 (31,8%) were hospitalized. The curve of hospitalization rate showed a profile similar to those in primary care and also in microbiological surveillance of the virus. The vaccine effectiveness in the second period was 25% in adults between 15 and 64 years and 51% in those older than 64 years. Conclusions: There is an age-dependent protection with positive vaccine efficacy in the elderly, although it may be confounded by natural exposure to the virus, previous immunizations or immune response(AU)