Improving preparedness to respond to cross-border hepatitis A outbreaks in the European Union/European Economic Area: towards comparable sequencing of hepatitis A virus.

IntroductionSequence-based typing of hepatitis A virus (HAV) is important for outbreak detection, investigation and surveillance. In 2013, sequencing was central to resolving a large European Union (EU)-wide outbreak related to frozen berries. However, as the sequenced HAV genome regions were only partly comparable between countries, results were not always conclusive.AimThe objective was to gather information on HAV surveillance and sequencing in EU/European Economic Area (EEA) countries to find ways to harmonise their procedures, for improvement of cross-border outbreak responses.MethodsIn 2014, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) conducted a survey on HAV surveillance practices in EU/EEA countries. The survey enquired whether a referral system for confirming primary diagnostics of hepatitis A existed as well as a central collection/storage of hepatitis A cases' samples for typing. Questions on HAV sequencing procedures were also asked. Based on the results, an expert consultation proposed harmonised procedures for cross-border outbreak response, in particular regarding sequencing. In 2016, a follow-up survey assessed uptake of suggested methods.ResultsOf 31 EU/EEA countries, 23 (2014) and 27 (2016) participated. Numbers of countries with central collection and storage of HAV positive samples and of those performing sequencing increased from 12 to 15 and 12 to 14 respectively in 2016, with all countries typing an overlapping fragment of 218 nt. However, variation existed in the sequenced genomic regions and their lengths.ConclusionsWhile HAV sequences in EU/EEA countries are comparable for surveillance, collaboration in sharing and comparing these can be further strengthened.

Hepatitis A outbreak disproportionately affecting men who have sex with men (MSM) in the European Union and European Economic Area, June 2016 to May 2017.

Between 1 June 2016 and 31 May 2017, 17 European Union (EU) and European Economic Area countries reported 4,096 cases associated with a multi-country hepatitis A (HA) outbreak. Molecular analysis identified three co-circulating hepatitis A virus (HAV) strains of genotype IA: VRD_521_2016, V16-25801 and RIVM-HAV16-090. We categorised cases as confirmed, probable or possible, according to the EU outbreak case definitions. Confirmed cases were infected with one of the three outbreak strains. We investigated case characteristics and strain-specific risk factors for transmission. A total of 1,400 (34%) cases were confirmed; VRD_521_2016 and RIVM-HAV16-090 accounted for 92% of these. Among confirmed cases with available epidemiological data, 92% (361/393) were unvaccinated, 43% (83/195) travelled to Spain during the incubation period and 84% (565/676) identified as men who have sex with men (MSM). Results depict an HA outbreak of multiple HAV strains, within a cross-European population, that was particularly driven by transmission between non-immune MSM engaging in high-risk sexual behaviour. The most effective preventive measure to curb this outbreak is HAV vaccination of MSM, supplemented by primary prevention campaigns that target the MSM population and promote protective sexual behaviour.

Seroprevalence and susceptibility to hepatitis A in the European Union and European Economic Area: a systematic review.

Most of the European Union (EU) and European Economic Area (EEA) is considered a region of very low hepatitis A virus (HAV) endemicity; however, geographical differences exist. We did a systematic review with the aim of describing seroprevalence and susceptibility in the general population or special groups in the EU and EEA. We searched databases and public health national institutes websites for HAV seroprevalence records published between Jan 1, 1975, and June 30, 2014, with no language restrictions. An updated search was done on Aug 10, 2016. We defined seroprevalence profiles (very low, low, and intermediate) as the proportion of the population with age-specific anti-HAV antibodies at age 15 and 30 years, and susceptibility profiles (low, moderate, high, and very high) as the proportion of susceptible individuals at age 30 and 50 years. We included 228 studies from 28 of 31 EU and EEA countries. For the period 2000-14, 24 countries had a very low seroprevalence profile, compared with five in 1975-89. The susceptibility among adults ranged between low and very high and had a geographical gradient, with three countries in the low susceptibility category. Since 1975, EU and EEA countries have shown decreasing seropositivity; however, considerable regional variability exists. The main limitations of this study are that the studies retrieved for analysis might not be representative of all EU and EEA publications about HAV and might have poor national representativeness. A large proportion of EU and EEA residents are now susceptible to HAV infection. Our Review supports the need to reconsider specific prevention and control measures, to further decrease HAV circulation while providing protection against the infection in the EU and EEA, and could be used to inform susceptible travellers visiting EU and EEA countries with different HAV endemicity levels.

Hepatitis E virus: Assessment of the epidemiological situation in humans in Europe, 2014/15.

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis E virus (HEV) is endemic in EU/EEA countries, but the understanding of the burden of the infection in humans is inconsistent as the disease is not under EU surveillance but subject to national policies. STUDY: Countries were asked to nominate experts and to complete a standardised questionnaire about the epidemiological situation and surveillance of HEV in their respective EU/EEA country. This study reviewed surveillance systems for human cases of HEV in EU/EEA countries and nominated experts assessed the epidemiology in particular examining the recent increase in the number of autochthonous cases. RESULTS: Surveillance systems and case definitions across EU/EEA countries were shown to be highly variable and testing algorithms were unreliable. Large increases of autochthonous cases were reported from Western EU/EEA countries with lower case numbers seen in Northern and Southern European countries. Lack of clinical awareness and variability in testing strategies might account for the observed differences in hepatitis E incidence across EU/EEA countries. Infections were predominantly caused by HEV genotype 3, the most prevalent virus type in the animal reservoirs. CONCLUSION: Discussions from the expert group supported joint working across countries to better monitor the epidemiology and possible changes in risk of virus acquisition at a European level. There was agreement to share surveillance strategies and algorithms but also importantly the collation of HEV data from human and animal populations. These data collected at a European level would serve the 'One Health' approach to better informing on human exposure to HEV.

London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games: public health surveillance and epidemiology.

Mass gatherings are regarded as potential risks for transmission of infectious diseases, and might compromise the health system of countries in which they are hosted. The evidence for increased transmission of infectious diseases at international sporting mass gatherings that attract many visitors from all over the world is not clear, and the evidence base for public health surveillance, epidemiology, and response at events such as the Olympics is small. However, infectious diseases are a recognised risk, and public health planning is, and should remain, a crucial part of the overall planning of sporting events. In this Series paper, we set out the planning and the surveillance systems that were used to monitor public health risks during the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games in the summer of 2012, and draw attention to the public health issues-infectious diseases and chemical, radiation, and environmental hazards-that arose. Although the absolute risk of health-protection problems, including infectious diseases, at sporting mass gatherings is small, the need for reassurance of the absence of problems is higher than has previously been considered; this could challenge conventional public health surveillance systems. Recognition of the limitations of health-surveillance systems needs to be part of the planning for future sporting events.