National influenza surveillance systems in five European countries: a qualitative comparative framework based on WHO guidance.

BACKGROUND: Influenza surveillance systems vary widely between countries and there is no framework to evaluate national surveillance systems in terms of data generation and dissemination. This study aimed to develop and test a comparative framework for European influenza surveillance. METHODS: Surveillance systems were evaluated qualitatively in five European countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom) by a panel of influenza experts and researchers from each country. Seven surveillance sub-systems were defined: non-medically attended community surveillance, virological surveillance, community surveillance, outbreak surveillance, primary care surveillance, hospital surveillance, mortality surveillance). These covered a total of 19 comparable outcomes of increasing severity, ranging from non-medically attended cases to deaths, which were evaluated using 5 comparison criteria based on WHO guidance (granularity, timing, representativeness, sampling strategy, communication) to produce a framework to compare the five countries. RESULTS: France and the United Kingdom showed the widest range of surveillance sub-systems, particularly for hospital surveillance, followed by Germany, Spain, and Italy. In all countries, virological, primary care and hospital surveillance were well developed, but non-medically attended events, influenza cases in the community, outbreaks in closed settings and mortality estimates were not consistently reported or published. The framework also allowed the comparison of variations in data granularity, timing, representativeness, sampling strategy, and communication between countries. For data granularity, breakdown per risk condition were available in France and Spain, but not in the United Kingdom, Germany and Italy. For data communication, there were disparities in the timeliness and accessibility of surveillance data. CONCLUSIONS: This new framework can be used to compare influenza surveillance systems qualitatively between countries to allow the identification of structural differences as well as to evaluate adherence to WHO guidance. The framework may be adapted for other infectious respiratory diseases.

[Covigie, a platform for caregivers and care team coordinators]. / Covigie, une plateforme pour les soignants et les coordonnateurs d'équipes de soins.

Covigie is a free online platform set up in response to the COVID-19 global pandemic. It has enabled all caregivers and coordinators of primary care teams to report in real time the initiatives, observations, questions and problems encountered in the fight against the new coronavirus. The Covigie team summarised the information from the various contributions received, individual or collective, sent them to the health authorities and shared them with the caregivers.

Performance of influenza case definitions for influenza community surveillance: based on the French influenza surveillance network GROG, 2009-2014.

International case definitions recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), and the World Health Organization (WHO) are commonly used for influenza surveillance. We evaluated clinical factors associated with the laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of influenza and the performance of these influenza case definitions by using a complete dataset of 14,994 patients with acute respiratory infection (ARI) from whom a specimen was collected between August 2009 and April 2014 by the Groupes Régionaux d'Observation de la Grippe (GROG), a French national influenza surveillance network. Cough and fever ≥ 39 °C most accurately predicted an influenza infection in all age groups. Several other symptoms were associated with an increased risk of influenza (headache, weakness, myalgia, coryza) or decreased risk (adenopathy, pharyngitis, shortness of breath, otitis/otalgia, bronchitis/ bronchiolitis), but not throughout all age groups. The WHO case definition for influenza-like illness (ILI) had the highest specificity with 21.4%, while the ECDC ILI case definition had the highest sensitivity with 96.1%. The diagnosis among children younger than 5 years remains challenging. The study compared the performance of clinical influenza definitions based on outpatient surveillance and will contribute to improving the comparability of data shared at international level.

Development of Seasonal Influenza Vaccination Recommendations: Relevance and Influence of the Evidence on the Decision-Making Process in France and the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Target groups for seasonal influenza vaccination are defined at the country level and are based on several factors. However, little is known about the national decision-making procedures. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the evidence used for the development of recommendations and its impact on the choice of target groups in France and the Netherlands. METHODS: A preliminary documentary analysis identified institutions to include in the assessment: governmental authorities, research institutions, associations, and manufacturers. At least one expert from each group was invited to our study. Thirty-three semi-structured interviews were conducted in 2013 (16 France, 17 the Netherlands). We used NVivo10® to perform a thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Clinical/epidemiological studies were the evidence most used in both countries. Economic models were increasingly being used; these had greater influence on the decision making in the Netherlands than in France, probably because of the presence of a modeler. Generally, the quality of the evidence used was poor, although no systematic use of standard protocol for its assessment was observed. A general protocol was sometimes used in France; however, the personal judgment of the experts was crucial for the assessment in both countries. CONCLUSIONS: There were differences in the target groups, for example, pregnant women, recommended only in France. France and the Netherlands use similar evidence for developing vaccination recommendations, although different decisions are sometimes made regarding target groups. This could be associated with the lack of systematic standard appraisals, increasing the influence of the experts' judgment on decision making. The development of standards for the appraisal of evidence is recommended.

Ten influenza seasons in France: distribution and timing of influenza A and B circulation, 2003-2013.

BACKGROUND: Describing the circulation of influenza viruses and the characteristics of seasonal epidemics remains an essential tool to optimize the strategies of influenza prevention and control. Special attention has been recently paid to influenza B in the context of the availability of a quadrivalent vaccine, containing two influenza B strains. METHODS: We used data from a practitioners-based influenza surveillance network to describe the circulation of influenza viruses in France from 2003-2004 to 2012-2013. Nasopharyngeal swabs taken from acute respiratory infection (ARI) patients between October and April were tested for influenza. We reported the number of influenza cases by virus type (A, B), subtype (A(H1), A(H3)) and B lineage (Yamagata, Victoria) in each season and determined the frequency of influenza B vaccine mismatch. We estimated weekly incidence of influenza by extrapolating reported influenza cases to the French population. We compared the temporal characteristics of the epidemics caused by influenza A(H1), A(H3) and B. RESULTS: Overall, 49,919 ARI patients were tested, of which 16,287 (32.6 %) were positive for influenza. Type B virus caused 23.7 % of all influenza cases. Virus subtypes A(H1) and A(H3) caused 51.6 % and 48.4 % of influenza A cases, respectively. Viruses of the B-Yamagata and B-Victoria lineage caused 62.8 % and 37.2 % of influenza B cases, respectively. There was an influenza B vaccine mismatch in three of the five seasons where influenza B caused 10 % or more of all influenza cases. Influenza A(H3) had the highest average value of estimated weekly incidence during the study period. Influenza B peaked an average 3.8 weeks later than influenza A when both virus types were circulating. No differences in the duration of influenza A and B epidemics were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Influenza A(H3) was the most prevalent influenza type during the study period. Influenza B caused around one fourth of all influenza cases and tended to circulate later than influenza A. The frequency of influenza B vaccine mismatches was substantial. Timely data on the circulation of influenza viruses collected within influenza surveillance systems are essential to optimize influenza prevention and control strategies.

Economic burden of seasonal influenza B in France during winter 2010-2011.

BACKGROUND: In France, 2-15% of the population is affected annually by influenza, which causes significant socioeconomic disruption. Nevertheless, despite its importance for policy makers, few published studies have evaluated the impact of influenza B. Therefore, we assessed the costs associated with influenza B during 2010-2011 in France. METHODS: Cases of lab-confirmed influenza B were analyzed as part of the Influenza B in General Practice Study. Cost calculations were based on micro-costing methods according to the French Health Insurance (FHI) perspective (in Euros, 2011). Costs were compared between age groups using the Kruskal-Wallis test, and when significant, by multiple comparisons based on rank. Moreover, uncertainties were assessed using one-way sensitivity and probabilistic analyses. Overall economic burden was estimated by multiplying cost per patient, flu attack rate, and the French population. RESULTS: A total of 201 patients were included in the study. We found that the mean cost associated with Influenza B was 72€ (SD: 205) per patient: 70€ (SD: 262) for younger children, 50€ (SD: 195) for older children, 126€ (SD: 180) for adults, and 42€ (SD: 18) for elderly. Thus, we observed significantly different costs between the distinct age groups (p<0.0001). Finally, the economic burden of influenza B for the FHI was estimated to be 145 million Euros (95% CI: 88-201). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight the important impact of influenza B and encourage further investigation on policy regarding vaccination strategies in France.

Coadministration of seasonal influenza and COVID-19 vaccines: A systematic review of clinical studies.

The lifting of non-pharmaceutical measures preventing transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (and other viruses, including influenza viruses) raises concerns about healthcare resources and fears of an increased number of cases of influenza and COVID-19. For the 2021-2022 influenza season, the WHO and >20 European countries promoted coadministration of influenza and COVID-19 vaccines. Recently, the French Health Authority recommended coupling the COVID-19 vaccination with the 2022-2023 influenza vaccination campaign for healthcare professionals and people at risk of severe COVID-19. The present systematic review examines published data on the safety, immunogenicity, efficacy/effectiveness, and acceptability/acceptance of coadministration of influenza and COVID-19 vaccines. No safety concerns or immune interferences were found whatever the vaccines or the age of vaccinated subjects (65- or 65+). No efficacy/effectiveness data were available. The results should reassure vaccinees and vaccinators in case of coadministration and increase vaccine coverage. Healthcare systems promoting coupled campaigns must provide the necessary means for successful coadministration.

The lifting of non-pharmaceutical measures recommended to prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (and other viruses, including influenza viruses) raises concerns about healthcare resources, already under pressure. It also raises fears of an increase in the number of cases of influenza or COVID-19 infection during the winter season. For the 2021­2022 influenza season, the World Health Organization and several European countries promoted concomitant administration in distinct anatomic sites (i.e., coadministration) of influenza and COVID-19 vaccines to avoid additional stress on healthcare systems. In May 2022, the French Health Authority recommended coupling the COVID-19 vaccination with the 2022­2023 influenza vaccination campaign (i.e., starting COVID-19 vaccination at the date of influenza vaccination) for healthcare professionals and people at risk of severe COVID-19, in case of epidemic wave. Coadministration of influenza and COVID-19 vaccines is one of the factors of success for a coupled campaign. The present systematic review examines all published data (articles or reports, clinical trials, or surveys) on the safety, immunogenicity, efficacy/effectiveness, and acceptability/acceptance of coadministration of influenza and COVID-19 vaccines. The PRISMA method was used to collect information. No safety concerns or immune interferences were found whatever the vaccines or the age of vaccinated subjects (65- or 65+). No efficacy/effectiveness data were available. Acceptability and acceptance were good but could be improved. By reassuring vaccinees and vaccinators, these results are expected to favor coadministration and ultimately increase vaccine coverage, thus offering better protection. Healthcare systems promoting coupled campaigns with coadministration must provide the necessary means for their successful implementation.

Estimating the burden of influenza-related and associated hospitalizations and deaths in France: An eight-season data study, 2010-2018.

BACKGROUND: In France, each year, influenza viruses are responsible for seasonal epidemics leading to 2-6 million cases. Influenza can cause severe disease that may lead to hospitalization or death. As severe disease may be due to the virus itself or to disease complications, estimating the burden of severe influenza is complex. The present study aimed at estimating the epidemiological and economic burden of severe influenza in France during eight consecutive influenza seasons (2010-2018). METHODS: Influenza-related hospitalization and mortality data and patient characteristics were taken from the French hospital information database, PMSI. An ecological approach using cyclic regression models integrating the incidence of influenza syndrome from the Sentinelles network supplemented the PMSI data analysis in estimating excess hospitalization and mortality (CépiDc-2010-2015) and medical costs. RESULTS: Each season, the average number of influenza-related hospitalizations was 18,979 (range: 8627-44,024), with an average length of stay of 8 days. The average number of respiratory hospitalizations indirectly related with influenza (i.e., influenza associated) was 31,490 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 24,542-39,012), with an average cost of €141 million (range: 54-217); 70% of these hospitalizations and 77% of their costs concerned individuals ≥65 years of age (65+). More than 90% of excess mortality was in 65+ subjects. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of two complementary approaches allowed estimation of both influenza-related and associated hospitalizations and deaths and their burden in France, showing the substantial impact of complications. The present study highlighted the major public health burden of influenza and its severe complications, especially in 65+ subjects.

A comparison of coronavirus disease 2019 and seasonal influenza surveillance in five European countries: France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: In response to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak that unfolded across Europe in 2020, the World Health Organisation (WHO) called for repurposing existing influenza surveillance systems to monitor COVID-19. This analysis aimed to compare descriptively the extent to which influenza surveillance systems were adapted and enhanced and how COVID-19 surveillance could ultimately benefit or disrupt routine influenza surveillance. METHODS: We used a previously developed framework in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom to describe COVID-19 surveillance and its impact on influenza surveillance. The framework divides surveillance systems into seven subsystems and 20 comparable outcomes of interest and uses five evaluation criteria based on WHO guidance. Information on influenza and COVID-19 surveillance systems were collected from publicly available resources shared by European and national public health agencies. RESULTS: Overall, non-medically attended, virological, primary care and mortality surveillance were adapted in most countries to monitor COVID-19, although community, outbreak and hospital surveillance were reinforced in all countries. Data granularity improved, with more detailed demographic and medical information recorded. A shift to systematic notification for cases and deaths enhanced both geographic and population representativeness, although the sampling strategy benefited from the roll out of widespread molecular testing. Data communication was greatly enhanced, contributing to improved public awareness. CONCLUSIONS: Well-established influenza surveillance systems are a key component of pandemic preparedness, and their upgrade allowed European countries to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, uncertainties remain on how both influenza and COVID-19 surveillance can be jointly and durably implemented.

Estimates of pandemic influenza vaccine effectiveness in Europe, 2009-2010: results of Influenza Monitoring Vaccine Effectiveness in Europe (I-MOVE) multicentre case-control study.

BACKGROUND: A multicentre case-control study based on sentinel practitioner surveillance networks from seven European countries was undertaken to estimate the effectiveness of 2009-2010 pandemic and seasonal influenza vaccines against medically attended influenza-like illness (ILI) laboratory-confirmed as pandemic influenza A (H1N1) (pH1N1). METHODS AND FINDINGS: Sentinel practitioners swabbed ILI patients using systematic sampling. We included in the study patients meeting the European ILI case definition with onset of symptoms >14 days after the start of national pandemic vaccination campaigns. We compared pH1N1 cases to influenza laboratory-negative controls. A valid vaccination corresponded to >14 days between receiving a dose of vaccine and symptom onset. We estimated pooled vaccine effectiveness (VE) as 1 minus the odds ratio with the study site as a fixed effect. Using logistic regression, we adjusted VE for potential confounding factors (age group, sex, month of onset, chronic diseases and related hospitalizations, smoking history, seasonal influenza vaccinations, practitioner visits in previous year). We conducted a complete case analysis excluding individuals with missing values and a multiple multivariate imputation to estimate missing values. The multivariate imputation (n = 2902) adjusted pandemic VE (PIVE) estimates were 71.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 45.6-85.5) overall; 78.4% (95% CI 54.4-89.8) in patients <65 years; and 72.9% (95% CI 39.8-87.8) in individuals without chronic disease. The complete case (n = 1,502) adjusted PIVE were 66.0% (95% CI 23.9-84.8), 71.3% (95% CI 29.1-88.4), and 70.2% (95% CI 19.4-89.0), respectively. The adjusted PIVE was 66.0% (95% CI -69.9 to 93.2) if vaccinated 8-14 days before ILI onset. The adjusted 2009-2010 seasonal influenza VE was 9.9% (95% CI -65.2 to 50.9). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest good protection of the pandemic monovalent vaccine against medically attended pH1N1 and no effect of the 2009-2010 seasonal influenza vaccine. However, the late availability of the pandemic vaccine and subsequent limited coverage with this vaccine hampered our ability to study vaccine benefits during the outbreak period. Future studies should include estimation of the effectiveness of the new trivalent vaccine in the upcoming 2010-2011 season, when vaccination will occur before the influenza season starts.

Prospective screening for significant liver fibrosis by fibrosis-4 in primary care patients without known liver disease.

BACKGROUND: Fibrosis-4 test (FIB-4) is one of the simplest, free of charge, noninvasive scoring tests. We aimed to prospectively measure the prevalence of liver fibrosis in adults with no previously known liver disease and who consulted a general practitioner by FIB-4 score; compare this test to an NAFLD Fibrosis Score (NFS) and Fibrometer (FM); explore the prevalence of risk factors (obesity, diabetes, alcohol, and hypertension) and reconsider a possible cause of liver disease in patients recognized as FIB-4-positive. METHODS: Over a 6-month period, 40 general practitioners (GPs) offered all their consecutive adult primary care patients with no previously known liver pathology and a liver fibrosis screening via a blood test of three scores. RESULTS: Among the consecutive 2121 patients included in the study, 39% had a BMI greater than 25 kg/m2, 13% had an alcohol consumption greater than 100 g/week, 10% had type 2 diabetes, and 29% had hypertension. The prevalence of significant liver fibrosis by FIB-4, according to age was 19.1% (95% confidence interval: 17.5-20.9%). By comparison, prevalence was 16.8% (15.0-18.5%) by the NFS and 8.2% (6.9-9.6%) by the FM. A significant relationship was observed between FIB-4 fibrosis risk stages and NFS and FM scores. GPs identified the cause of disease in 2/3 of FIB-4-positive cases, mainly nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. CONCLUSION: Liver fibrosis was suspected by FIB-4 score in 19.1% of patients with no previously known liver disease. The detection of significant fibrosis by the FIB-4 allowed the GP to suspect liver disease. The FIB-4 score that can be automatically generated should allow earlier recognition of liver disease in the general population.

Estimation of Reduction in Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Due to Egg-Adaptation Changes-Systematic Literature Review and Expert Consensus.

BACKGROUND: Influenza vaccines are the main tool to prevent morbidity and mortality of the disease; however, egg adaptations associated with the choice of the manufacturing process may reduce their effectiveness. This study aimed to estimate the impact of egg adaptations and antigenic drift on the effectiveness of trivalent (TIV) and quadrivalent (QIV) influenza vaccines. METHODS: Nine experts in influenza virology were recruited into a Delphi-style exercise. In the first round, the experts were asked to answer questions on the impact of antigenic drift and egg adaptations on vaccine match (VM) and influenza vaccine effectiveness (IVE). In the second round, the experts were presented with the data from a systematic literature review on the same subject and aggregated experts' responses to round one questions. The experts were asked to review and confirm or amend their responses before the final summary statistics were calculated. RESULTS: The experts estimated that, across Europe, the egg adaptations reduce, on average, VM to circulating viruses by 7-21% and reduce IVE by 4-16%. According to the experts, antigenic drift results in a similar impact on VM (8-24%) and IVE (5-20%). The highest reduction in IVE was estimated for the influenza virus A(H3N2) subtype for the under 65 age group. When asked about the frequency of the phenomena, the experts indicated that, on average, between the 2014 and 19 seasons, egg adaptation and antigenic drift were significant enough to impact IVE that occurred in two and three out of five seasons, respectively. They also agreed that this pattern is likely to reoccur in future seasons. CONCLUSIONS: Expert estimates suggest there is a potential for 9% on average (weighted average of "All strains" over three age groups adjusted by population size) and up to a 16% increase in IVE (against A(H3N2), the <65 age group) if egg adaptations that arise when employing the traditional egg-based manufacturing process are avoided.

Efficacy of oseltamivir-zanamivir combination compared to each monotherapy for seasonal influenza: a randomized placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Neuraminidase inhibitors are thought to be efficacious in reducing the time to alleviation of symptoms in outpatients with seasonal influenza. The objective of this study was to compare the short-term virological efficacy of oseltamivir-zanamivir combination versus each monotherapy plus placebo. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a randomized placebo-controlled trial with 145 general practitioners throughout France during the 2008-2009 seasonal influenza epidemic. Patients, general practitioners, and outcome assessors were all blinded to treatment assignment. Adult outpatients presenting influenza-like illness for less than 36 hours and a positive influenza A rapid test diagnosis were randomized to oseltamivir 75 mg orally twice daily plus zanamivir 10 mg by inhalation twice daily (OZ), oseltamivir plus inhaled placebo (O), or zanamivir plus oral placebo (Z). Treatment efficacy was assessed virologically according to the proportion of patients with nasal influenza reverse transcription (RT)-PCR below 200 copies genome equivalent (cgeq)/µl at day 2 (primary outcome), and clinically to the time to alleviation of symptoms until day 14. Overall 541 patients (of the 900 planned) were included (OZ,  =192; O, n=176; Z, n=173), 49% male, mean age 39 years. In the intention-to-treat analysis conducted in the 447 patients with RT-PCR-confirmed influenza A, 46%, 59%, and 34% in OZ (n=157), O (n=141), and Z (n=149) arms had RT-PCR<200 cgeq/µl (-13.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -23.1 to -2.9, p=0.025; +12.3%, 95% CI 2.39-22.2, p=0.028 for OZ/O and OZ/Z comparisons). Mean day 0 to day 2 viral load decrease was 2.14, 2.49, and 1.68 log(10) cgeq/µl (p=0.060, p=0.016 for OZ/O and OZ/Z). Median time to alleviation of symptoms was 4.0, 3.0, and 4.0 days (+1.0, 95% CI 0.0-4.0, p=0.018; +0.0, 95% CI -3.0 to 3.0, p=0.960 for OZ/O and OZ/Z). Four severe adverse events were observed. Nausea and/or vomiting tended to be more frequent in the combination arm (OZ, n=13; O, n=4; and Z, n=5 patients, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In adults with seasonal influenza A mainly H3N2 virus infection, the oseltamivir-zanamivir combination appeared less effective than oseltamivir monotherapy, and not significantly more effective than zanamivir monotherapy. Despite the theoretical potential for the reduction of the emergence of antiviral resistance, the lower effectiveness of this combination calls for caution in its use in clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.ClinicalTrials.govNCT00799760.

Gastroenteritis and respiratory infection outbreaks in French nursing homes from 2007 to 2018: Morbidity and all-cause lethality according to the individual characteristics of residents.

BACKGROUND: Gastroenteritis (GE) and respiratory tract infection (RTI) outbreaks are a significant issue in nursing homes. This study aimed to describe GE and RTI outbreaks with infection and all-cause lethality rates according to the individual characteristics of nursing home residents. METHODS: Clinical and virological surveillance were conducted (2007 to 2018). Virus stratifications for the analysis were: outbreaks with positive norovirus or influenza identifications (respectively NoV+ or Flu+), episodes with no NoV or influenza identification or testing (respectively NoV- or Flu-). Associations between individual variables (sex, age, length of stay (LOS), autonomy status) and infection and lethality rates were tested with univariate and Mantel-Haenszel (MH) methods. RESULTS: 61 GE outbreaks and 76 RTI oubreaks (total 137 outbreaks) were recorded involving respectively 4309 and 5862 residents. In univariate analysis, higher infection rates and age were associated in NoV+, NoV-, and Flu+ contexts, and lower infection rates were associated with longer stays (NoV+ and NoV-). In MH stratified analysis (virus, sex (female/male)) adjusted for LOS (<4 or ≥4 years), the odds of being infected remained significant among older residents (≥86 years): NoV+/male (Odds ratio (ORMH): 1.64, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.16-2.30) and Flu+/female and male (respectively ORMH: 1.50, CI: 1.27-1.79 and 1.73, CI: 1.28-2.33). In univariate analysis, lower autonomy status (NoV+, Flu+ and Flu-) and increased age (Flu+) were associated with higher lethality. In MH adjusted analysis, significant ORage adjusted for autonomy was: Flu+/ ≥86 years compared with <86 years, 1.97 (1.19-3.25) and ORautonomy adjusted for age for the more autonomous group (compared with the less autonomous group) was: Flu+, 0.41 (0.24-0.69); Flu-, 0.42 (0.20, 0.90). CONCLUSION: The residents of nursing homes are increasingly elderly and dependent. The specific infection and lethality risks according to these two factors indicate that surveillance and infection control measures are essential and of high priority.

[Quadrivalent influenza vaccine: What is changed and what are the benefits?] / Vaccin grippal quadrivalent : quels changements pour quels bénéfices ?

Currently, circulating viruses responsible for annual seasonal influenza epidemics belong to two influenza A subtypes, A(H1N1) and A(H3N2), and to two antigenically distinct type B lineages, B/Yamagata and B/Victoria lineages. Like diseases due to influenza A virus, influenza B virus diseases may have severe consequences and should be prevented. Until now, in France, the vaccines used to prevent seasonal influenza were trivalent, systematically targeting viruses belonging to both A subtypes and to one or other of the B lineages. The protective efficacy of trivalent vaccines is diminished during the seasons when viruses belonging to both B lineages cocirculated or when the circulating dominant type B virus belonged to a lineage different from that targeted by the vaccine strain. By targeting viruses belonging to both B lineages, quadrivalent vaccines improve the antigenic concordance between circulating and vaccine type B strains. Three inactivated quadrivalent vaccines are authorized for marketing in France and should be available for the 2018-2019 season. It is expected that, by providing enlarged protection, these quadrivalent influenza vaccines will improve vaccine efficacy, the confidence in immunization of the public, the satisfaction of health professionals, and ultimately will help to complete immunization coverage.

Exploring the effect of previous inactivated influenza vaccination on seasonal influenza vaccine effectiveness against medically attended influenza: Results of the European I-MOVE multicentre test-negative case-control study, 2011/2012-2016/2017.

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.

Patient safety incidents are common in primary care: A national prospective active incident reporting survey.

BACKGROUND: The study objectives were to describe the incidence and the nature of patient safety incidents (PSIs) in primary care general practice settings, and to explore the association between these incidents and practice or organizational characteristics. METHODS: GPs, randomly selected from a national influenza surveillance network (n = 800) across France, prospectively reported any incidents observed each day over a one-week period between May and July 2013. An incident was an event or circumstance that could have resulted, or did result, in harm to a patient, which the GP would not wish to recur. Primary outcome was the incidence of PSIs which was determined by counting reports per total number of patient encounters. Reports were categorized using existing taxonomies. The association with practice and organizational characteristics was calculated using a negative binomial regression model. RESULTS: 127 GPs (participation rate 79%) reported 317 incidents of which 270 were deemed to be a posteriori judged preventable, among 12,348 encounters. 77% had no consequences for the patient. The incidence of reported PSIs was 26 per 1000 patient encounters per week (95% CI [23‰ -28‰]). Incidents were three times more frequently related to the organization of healthcare than to knowledge and skills of health professionals, and especially to the workflow in the GPs' offices and to the communication between providers and with patients. Among GP characteristics, three were related with an increased incidence in the final multivariable model: length of consultation higher than 15 minutes, method of receiving radiological results (by fax compared to paper or email), and being in a multidisciplinary clinic compared with sole practitioners. CONCLUSIONS: Patient safety incidents (PSIs) occurred in mean once every two days in the sampled GPs and 2% of them were associated with a definite possibility for harm. Studying the association between organizational features of general practices and PSIs remains a major challenge and one of the most important issues for safety in primary care.

Factors associated with non-persistence to oral and inhaled antiviral therapies for seasonal influenza: a secondary analysis of a double-blind, multicentre, randomised clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate and compare non-adherence to oral and inhaled antiviral therapies prescribed of a randomised clinical trial in outpatients with influenza A infection. DESIGN: A parallel, three-arm, double-blinded trial randomly allocated antiviral therapies twice daily for 5 days: (1) oral oseltamivir plus inhaled zanamivir (arm OZ); (2) oseltamivir plus inhaled placebo (arm Opz); or (3) oral placebo plus inhaled zanamivir (arm poZ). Analysis of non-adherence was a secondary objective of the trial. SETTINGS: Outpatients were enrolled by 145 general practitioners throughout France during the 2008-2009 seasonal influenza epidemics. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 541 adults presenting with influenza-like illness for less than 36 hours. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: Non-persistence, the time between inclusion and the last dose treated as a failure time, was used as the primary endpoint. RESULTS: The proportions of patients who persisted on treatment until the end of prescription were estimated at 85.73% (±3.28%) for the oral route and 82.73% (±3.44%) for the inhaled route. Based on multivariable models, non-persistence was associated with a PCR confirmation of influenza for both the oral (HR=0.54, p=0.010) and inhaled (HR=0.59, p=0.018) drugs and antibiotic coprescriptions (HR=2.07, p=0.007; and HR=1.88, p=0.017, respectively) and active combination treatment (HR=1.71, p=0.035; and HR=1.58, p=0.035, respectively). The hazard of non-persistence of the inhaled therapy was increased compared with that of the oral therapy (HR=1.23, p=0.043). CONCLUSION: In addition to the clinical and virological profiles of influenza infection, non-persistence may have been influenced by an active combination and the route of administration. RCT REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00799760. This is a post-result analysis.

Does seasonal vaccination affect the clinical presentation of influenza among the elderly? A cross-sectional analysis in the outpatient setting in France, 2003-2014.

Vaccine-induced protection against influenza is not optimal, however it has been suggested that the vaccine may reduce the severity of symptoms among those who develop illness despite being vaccinated. We tested this hypothesis within a countrywide, sentinel general practitioners-based surveillance system in France. We included 2277 individuals aged 65years or older (of whom 1293 had been vaccinated against influenza, 56.8%) who consulted a general practitioner because of an acute respiratory infection (ARI) during 2003-2014. All patients were taken a nasopharyngeal swab, and information was collected on demographic characteristics and symptoms at disease onset. All specimens were tested for respiratory viruses and, if positive for influenza, the virus type and subtype were determined. We compared the average maximum temperature and the frequency of each symptom, between non-vaccinated and vaccinated influenza patients. We then used logistic regression models to calculate the odds of presenting with each symptom between vaccinated vs. non-vaccinated patients, adjusting by age group, virus (sub)type and season. Overall, 675 ARI patients (29.6%) tested positive for influenza. The A(H3) virus caused the majority of cases (55.1%), followed by influenza B (22.9%), A not-subtyped (11.7%), and A(H1) (10.3%) viruses. Compared to non-vaccinated influenza patients, those who had been vaccinated had a slightly reduced maximum temperature and presented less frequently with myalgia, shivering and headache. In stratified analyses, the observed effect was limited to patients infected with A(H3) or type B viruses. After adjusting by age group, virus (sub)type and season, the difference remained statistically significant only for headache, which was less frequent among vaccinated individuals (odds ratio 0.69, 95% confidence intervals 0.48-0.98). In conclusion, the vaccine was found to be modestly associated with less severe clinical presentation of influenza among the elderly. Our findings reinforce the need for influenza vaccines providing better protection.