Association between work sick-leave absenteeism and SARS-CoV-2 notifications in the Netherlands during the COVID-19 epidemic.

BACKGROUND: Alternative data sources for surveillance have gained importance in maintaining coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) situational awareness as nationwide testing has drastically decreased. Therefore, we explored whether rates of sick-leave from work are associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) notification trends and at which lag, to indicate the usefulness of sick-leave data for COVID-19 surveillance. METHODS: We explored trends during the COVID-19 epidemic of weekly sick-leave rates and SARS-CoV-2 notification rates from 1 June 2020 to 10 April 2022. Separate time series were inspected visually. Then, Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated at different lag and lead times of zero to four weeks between sick-leave and SARS-CoV-2 notification rates. We distinguished between four SARS-CoV-2 variant periods, two labour sectors and overall, and all-cause sick-leave versus COVID-19-specific sick-leave. RESULTS: The correlation coefficients between weekly all-cause sick-leave and SARS-CoV-2 notification rate at optimal lags were between 0.58 and 0.93, varying by the variant period and sector (overall: 0.83, lag -1; 95% CI [0.76, 0.88]). COVID-19-specific sick-leave correlations were higher than all-cause sick-leave correlations. Correlations were slightly lower in healthcare and education than overall. The highest correlations were mostly at lag -2 and -1 for all-cause sick-leave, meaning that sick-leave preceded SARS-CoV-2 notifications. Correlations were highest mostly at lag zero for COVID-19-specific sick-leave (coinciding with SARS-CoV-2 notifications). CONCLUSION: All-cause sick-leave might offer an earlier indication and evolution of trends in SARS-CoV-2 rates, especially when testing is less available. Sick-leave data may complement COVID-19 and other infectious disease surveillance systems as a syndromic data source.

Sex differences in COVID-19 mortality in the Netherlands.

INTRODUCTION: Since the first reports of COVID-19 cases, sex-discrepancies have been reported in COVID-19 mortality. We provide a detailed description of these sex differences in relation to age and comorbidities among notified cases as well as in relation to age and sex-specific mortality in the general Dutch population. METHODS: Data on COVID-19 cases and mortality until May 31st 2020 was extracted from the national surveillance database with exclusion of healthcare workers. Association between sex and case fatality was analyzed with multivariable logistic regression. Subsequently, male-female ratio in standardized mortality ratios and population mortality rates relative to all-cause and infectious disease-specific mortality were computed stratified by age. RESULTS: Male-female odds ratio for case fatality was 1.33 [95% CI 1.26-1.41] and among hospitalized cases 1.27 [95% CI 1.16-1.40]. This remained significant after adjustment for age and comorbidities. The male-female ratio of the standardized mortality ratio was 1.70 [95%CI 1.62-1.78]. The population mortality rate for COVID-19 was 35.1 per 100.000, with a male-female rate ratio of 1.25 (95% CI 1.18-1.31) which was higher than in all-cause population mortality and infectious disease mortality. CONCLUSION: Our study confirms male sex is a predisposing factor for severe outcomes of COVID-19, independent of age and comorbidities. In addition to general male-female-differences, COVID-19 specific mechanisms likely contribute to this mortality discrepancy.

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.

Low 2016/17 season vaccine effectiveness against hospitalised influenza A(H3N2) among elderly: awareness warranted for 2017/18 season.

In a multicentre European hospital study we measured influenza vaccine effectiveness (IVE) against A(H3N2) in 2016/17. Adjusted IVE was 17% (95% confidence interval (CI): 1 to 31) overall; 25% (95% CI: 2 to 43) among 65-79-year-olds and 13% (95% CI: -15 to 30) among those ≥ 80 years. As the A(H3N2) vaccine component has not changed for 2017/18, physicians and public health experts should be aware that IVE could be low where A(H3N2) viruses predominate.

2015/16 seasonal vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation with influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 and B among elderly people in Europe: results from the I-MOVE+ project.

We conducted a multicentre test-negative case-control study in 27 hospitals of 11 European countries to measure 2015/16 influenza vaccine effectiveness (IVE) against hospitalised influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 and B among people aged ≥ 65 years. Patients swabbed within 7 days after onset of symptoms compatible with severe acute respiratory infection were included. Information on demographics, vaccination and underlying conditions was collected. Using logistic regression, we measured IVE adjusted for potential confounders. We included 355 influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 cases, 110 influenza B cases, and 1,274 controls. Adjusted IVE against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 was 42% (95% confidence interval (CI): 22 to 57). It was 59% (95% CI: 23 to 78), 48% (95% CI: 5 to 71), 43% (95% CI: 8 to 65) and 39% (95% CI: 7 to 60) in patients with diabetes mellitus, cancer, lung and heart disease, respectively. Adjusted IVE against influenza B was 52% (95% CI: 24 to 70). It was 62% (95% CI: 5 to 85), 60% (95% CI: 18 to 80) and 36% (95% CI: -23 to 67) in patients with diabetes mellitus, lung and heart disease, respectively. 2015/16 IVE estimates against hospitalised influenza in elderly people was moderate against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 and B, including among those with diabetes mellitus, cancer, lung or heart diseases.

Case-based reported mortality associated with laboratory-confirmed influenza A(H1N1) 2009 virus infection in the Netherlands: the 2009-2010 pandemic season versus the 2010-2011 influenza season.

BACKGROUND: In contrast to seasonal influenza epidemics, where the majority of deaths occur amongst elderly, a considerable part of the 2009 pandemic influenza related deaths concerned relatively young people. In the Netherlands, all deaths associated with laboratory-confirmed influenza A(H1N1) 2009 virus infection had to be notified, both during the 2009-2010 pandemic season and the 2010-2011 influenza season. To assess whether and to what extent pandemic mortality patterns were reverting back to seasonal patterns, a retrospective analyses of all notified fatal cases associated with laboratory-confirmed influenza A(H1N1) 2009 virus infection was performed. METHODS: The notification database, including detailed information about the clinical characteristics of all notified deaths, was used to perform a comprehensive analysis of all deceased patients with a laboratory-confirmed influenza A(H1N1) 2009 virus infection. Characteristics of the fatalities with respect to age and underlying medical conditions were analysed, comparing the 2009-2010 pandemic and the 2010-2011 influenza season. RESULTS: A total of 65 fatalities with a laboratory-confirmed influenza A(H1N1) 2009 virus infection were notified in 2009-2010 and 38 in 2010-2011. During the pandemic season, the population mortality rates peaked in persons aged 0-15 and 55-64 years. In the 2010-2011 influenza season, peaks in mortality were seen in persons aged 0-15 and 75-84 years. During the 2010-2011 influenza season, the height of first peak was lower compared to that during the pandemic season. Underlying immunological disorders were more common in the pandemic season compared to the 2010-2011 season (p = 0.02), and cardiovascular disorders were more common in the 2010-2011 season (p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: The mortality pattern in the 2010-2011 influenza season still resembled the 2009-2010 pandemic season with a peak in relatively young age groups, but concurrently a clear shift toward seasonal patterns was seen, with a peak in mortality in the elderly, i.e. ≥ 75 years of age.

Oseltamivir-resistant pandemic A(H1N1) 2009 influenza viruses detected through enhanced surveillance in the Netherlands, 2009-2010.

Enhanced surveillance of infections due to the pandemic A(H1N1) influenza virus, which included monitoring for antiviral resistance, was carried out in the Netherlands from late April 2009 through late May 2010. More than 1100 instances of infection with the pandemic A(H1N1) influenza virus from 2009 and 2010 [A(H1N1) 2009] distributed across this period were analyzed. Of these, 19 cases of oseltamivir-resistant virus harboring the H275Y mutation in the neuraminidase (NA) were detected. The mean 50% inhibitory concentration (IC50) levels for oseltamivir- and zanamivir-susceptible A(H1N1) 2009 viruses were 1.4-fold and 2-fold, respectively, lower than for the seasonal A(H1N1) influenza viruses from 2007/2008; for oseltamivir-resistant A(H1N1) 2009 virus the IC50 was 2.9-fold lower. Eighteen of the 19 patients with oseltamivir-resistant virus showed prolonged shedding of the virus and developed resistance while on oseltamivir therapy. Sixteen of these 18 patients had an immunodeficiency, of whom 11 had a hematologic disorder. The two other patients had another underlying disease. Six of the patients who had an underlying disease died; of these, five had received cytostatic or immunosuppressive therapy. No indications for onward transmission of resistant viruses were found. This study showed that the main association for the emergence of cases of oseltamivir-resistant A(H1N1) 2009 virus was receiving antiviral therapy and having drug-induced immunosuppression or an hematologic disorder. Except for a single case of a resistant virus not linked to oseltamivir therapy, the absence of detection of resistant variants in community specimens and in specimens from contacts of cases with resistant virus suggested that the spread of resistant A(H1N1) 2009 virus was limited. Containment may have been the cumulative result of impaired NA function, successful isolation of the patients, and prophylactic measures to limit exposure.

Transmission of novel influenza A(H1N1) in households with post-exposure antiviral prophylaxis.

BACKGROUND: Despite impressive advances in our understanding of the biology of novel influenza A(H1N1) virus, little is as yet known about its transmission efficiency in close contact places such as households, schools, and workplaces. These are widely believed to be key in supporting propagating spread, and it is therefore of importance to assess the transmission levels of the virus in such settings. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We estimate the transmissibility of novel influenza A(H1N1) in 47 households in the Netherlands using stochastic epidemic models. All households contained a laboratory confirmed index case, and antiviral drugs (oseltamivir) were given to both the index case and other households members within 24 hours after detection of the index case. Among the 109 household contacts there were 9 secondary infections in 7 households. The overall estimated secondary attack rate is low (0.075, 95%CI: 0.037-0.13). There is statistical evidence indicating that older persons are less susceptible to infection than younger persons (relative susceptibility of older persons: 0.11, 95%CI: 0.024-0.43. Notably, the secondary attack rate from an older to a younger person is 0.35 (95%CI: 0.14-0.61) when using an age classification of 12 years, and 0.28 (95%CI: 0.12-0.50) when using an age classification of 18 years. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Our results indicate that the overall household transmission levels of novel influenza A(H1N1) in antiviral-treated households were low in the early stage of the epidemic. The relatively high rate of adult-to-child transmission indicates that control measures focused on this transmission route will be most effective in minimizing the total number of infections.