Effectiveness of Immunization Products Against Medically Attended Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infection: Generic Protocol for a Test-Negative Case-Control Study.

Monitoring the real-life effectiveness of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) products is of major public health importance. This generic protocol for a test-negative design study aims to address currently envisioned approaches for RSV prevention (monoclonal antibodies and vaccines) to study effectiveness of these products among target groups: children, older adults, and pregnant women. The generic protocol approach was chosen to allow for flexibility in adapting the protocol to a specific setting. This protocol includes severe acute respiratory infection (SARI) and acute respiratory infection (ARI), both due to RSV, as end points. These end points can be applied to studies in hospitals, primarily targeting patients with more severe disease, but also to studies in general practitioner clinics targeting ARI.

Effectiveness of Vaccines and Monoclonal Antibodies Against Respiratory Syncytial Virus: Generic Protocol for Register-Based Cohort Study.

Several immunization products are currently being developed against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) for children, pregnant females, and older adults, and some products have already received authorization. Therefore, studies to monitor the effectiveness of these products are needed in the following years. To assist researchers to conduct postmarketing studies, we developed a generic protocol for register-based cohort studies to evaluate immunization product effectiveness against RSV-specific and nonspecific outcomes. To conduct a study on the basis of this generic protocol, the researchers can use any relevant databases or healthcare registers that are available at the study site.

Systematic review of the efficacy, effectiveness and safety of recombinant haemagglutinin seasonal influenza vaccines for the prevention of laboratory-confirmed influenza in individuals ≥18 years of age.

The most effective means of preventing seasonal influenza is through vaccination. In this systematic review, we investigated the efficacy, effectiveness and safety of recombinant haemagglutinin (HA) seasonal influenza vaccines to prevent laboratory-confirmed influenza. A systematic literature search was conducted in electronic databases and grey literature sources up to 7 February 2020. Randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies of interventions were eligible for inclusion. The search returned 28,846 records, of which 10 studies on recombinant HA influenza vaccine met our inclusion criteria. One study found that the quadrivalent recombinant HA influenza vaccine had higher relative vaccine efficacy (rVE) in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza during the 2014-15 season compared with traditional quadrivalent vaccination in adults aged ≥50 years (rVE = 30%, 95% CI 10%-47%, moderate-certainty evidence). In a subgroup analysis, higher rVE was reported for influenza A (rVE = 36%, 95% CI 14% to 53%), but not for B (non-significant). Another study reported higher efficacy for the trivalent recombinant HA vaccine compared with placebo (VE = 45%, 95% CI 19-63, 1 RCT, low-certainty evidence) in adults aged 18-55 years. With the exception of a higher rate of chills (RR = 1.33, 95% CI 1.03-1.72), the safety profile of recombinant HA vaccines was comparable to that of traditional influenza vaccines. The evidence base for the efficacy and effectiveness of recombinant HA influenza vaccines is limited at present, although one study found that the quadrivalent recombinant HA influenza vaccine had higher rVE compared with traditional quadrivalent vaccination in adults aged ≥50 years.

Systematic review of the efficacy, effectiveness and safety of high-dose seasonal influenza vaccines for the prevention of laboratory-confirmed influenza in individuals ≥18 years of age.

This review sought to assess the efficacy, effectiveness and safety of high-dose inactivated influenza vaccines (HD-IIV) for the prevention of laboratory-confirmed influenza in individuals aged 18 years or older. A systematic literature search was conducted in electronic databases and grey literature sources up to 7 February 2020. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs) were included. The search returned 28,846 records, of which 36 studies were included. HD-IIV was shown to have higher relative vaccine efficacy in preventing influenza compared with standard-dose influenza vaccines (SD-IIV3) in older adults (Vaccine effectiveness (VE) = 24%, 95% CI 10-37, one RCT). One NRSI demonstrated significant effect for HD-IIV3 against influenza B (VE = 89%, 95% CI 47-100), but not for influenza A(H3N2) (VE = 22%, 95% CI -82 to 66) when compared with no vaccination in older adults. HD-IIV3 showed significant relative effect compared with SD-IIV3 for influenza-related hospitalisation (VE = 11.8%, 95% CI 6.4-17.0, two NRSIs), influenza- or pneumonia-related hospitalisation (VE = 13.7%, 95% CI 9.5-17.7, three NRSIs), influenza-related hospital encounters (VE = 13.1%, 95% CI 8.4-17.7, five NRSIs), and influenza-related office visits (VE = 3.5%, 95% CI 1.5-5.5, two NRSIs). For safety, HD-IIV were associated with significantly higher rates of local and systemic adverse events compared with SD-IIV (combined local reactions, pain at injection site, swelling, induration, headache, chills and malaise). From limited data, compared with SD-IIV, HD-IIV were found to be more effective in the prevention of laboratory-confirmed influenza, for a range of proxy outcome measures, and associated with more adverse events.

Systematic review of the efficacy, effectiveness and safety of cell-based seasonal influenza vaccines for the prevention of laboratory-confirmed influenza in individuals ≥18 years of age.

The most effective means of preventing seasonal influenza is through strain-specific vaccination. In this study, we investigated the efficacy, effectiveness and safety of cell-based trivalent and quadrivalent influenza vaccines. A systematic literature search was conducted in electronic databases and grey literature sources up to 7 February 2020. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs) were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Certainty of evidence for key outcomes was assessed using the GRADE methodology. The search returned 28,846 records, of which 868 full-text articles were assessed for relevance. Of these, 19 studies met the inclusion criteria. No relative efficacy data were identified for the direct comparison of cell-based vaccines compared with traditional vaccines (egg-based). Efficacy data were available comparing cell-based trivalent influenza vaccines with placebo in adults (aged 18-49 years). Overall vaccine efficacy was 70% against any influenza subtype (95% CI 61%-77%, two RCTS), 82% against influenza A(H1N1) (95% CI 71%-89%, 2 RCTs), 72% against influenza A(H3N2) (95% CI 39%-87%, 2 RCTs) and 52% against influenza B (95% CI 30%-68%, 2 RCTs). Limited and heterogeneous data were presented for effectiveness when compared with no vaccination. One NRSI compared cell-based trivalent and quadrivalent vaccination with traditional trivalent and quadrivalent vaccination, finding a small but significant difference in favour of cell-based vaccines for influenza-related hospitalisation, hospital encounters and physician office visits. The safety profile of cell-based trivalent vaccines was comparable to traditional trivalent influenza vaccines. Compared with placebo, cell-based trivalent influenza vaccines have demonstrated greater efficacy in adults aged 18-49 years. Overall cell-based vaccines are well-tolerated in adults, however, evidence regarding the effectiveness of these vaccines compared with traditional seasonal influenza vaccines is limited.

Systematic review of the efficacy, effectiveness and safety of MF59® adjuvanted seasonal influenza vaccines for the prevention of laboratory-confirmed influenza in individuals ≥18 years of age.

The most effective means of preventing seasonal influenza is through vaccination. In this systematic review, we investigated the efficacy, effectiveness and safety of MF59® adjuvanted trivalent and quadrivalent influenza vaccines to prevent laboratory-confirmed influenza. A systematic literature search was conducted in electronic databases and grey literature sources up to 7 February 2020. Randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs) were eligible for inclusion. The search returned 28,846 records, of which 48 studies on MF59® adjuvanted vaccines met our inclusion criteria. No efficacy trials were identified. In terms of vaccine effectiveness (VE), MF59® adjuvanted trivalent influenza vaccines were effective in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza in older adults (aged ≥65 years) compared with no vaccination (VE = 45%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 23%-61%, 5 NRSIs across 3 influenza seasons). By subtype, significant effect was found for influenza A(H1N1) (VE = 61%, 95% CI 44%-73%) and B (VE = 29%, 95% CI 5%-46%), but not for A(H3N2). In terms of relative VE, there was no significant difference comparing MF59® adjuvanted trivalent vaccines with either non-adjuvanted trivalent or quadrivalent vaccines. Compared with traditional trivalent influenza vaccines, MF59® adjuvanted trivalent influenza vaccines were associated with a greater number of local adverse events (RR = 1.90, 95% CI 1.50-2.39) and systemic reactions (RR = 1.18, 95% CI 1.02-1.38). In conclusion, MF59® adjuvanted trivalent influenza vaccines were found to be more effective than 'no vaccination'. Based on limited data, there was no significant difference comparing the effectiveness of MF59® adjuvanted vaccines with their non-adjuvanted counterparts.

Tobacco Use and Uptake of COVID-19 Vaccinations in Finland: A Population-Based Study.

INTRODUCTION: People who smoke are at higher risk of Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) hospitalizations and deaths and might benefit greatly from high COVID-19 vaccination coverage. Studies on tobacco use and COVID-19 vaccine uptake in the general population are lacking. AIMS AND METHODS: We conducted a cohort study utilizing linked data from 42 935 participants from two national surveys in Finland (FinSote 2018 and 2020). Exposures were smoking and smokeless tobacco (snus) use. The primary outcome was the uptake of two COVID-19 vaccine doses. Secondary outcomes were the uptake of one COVID-19 vaccine dose; three COVID-19 vaccine doses; time between the first and second dose; and time between the second and third dose. We examined the association between tobacco use and COVID-19 vaccine uptake and between-dose spacing in Finland. RESULTS: People who smoke had a 7% lower risk of receiving two COVID-19 vaccine doses (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.91; 0.96) and a 14% lower risk of receiving three doses (95% CI = 0.78; 0.94) compared to never smokers. People who smoked occasionally had a lower risk of receiving three vaccine doses. People who currently used snus had a 28% lower uptake of three doses (95% CI = 0.56; 0.93) compared to never users but we did not find evidence of an association for one or two doses. We did not find evidence of an association between tobacco use and spacing between COVID-19 vaccine doses. CONCLUSIONS: People who smoke tobacco products daily, occasionally, and use snus had a lower uptake of COVID-19 vaccines. Our findings support a growing body of literature on lower vaccination uptake among people who use tobacco products. IMPLICATIONS: People who smoke or use snus might be a crucial target group of public health efforts to increase COVID-19 vaccinations and plan future vaccination campaigns. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05479383.

Relative effectiveness of bivalent boosters against severe COVID-19 outcomes among people aged ≥ 65 years in Finland, September 2022 to August 2023.

BackgroundLong-term effectiveness data on bivalent COVID-19 boosters are limited.AimWe evaluated the long-term protection of bivalent boosters against severe COVID-19 among ≥ 65-year-olds in Finland.MethodsIn this register-based cohort analysis, we compared the risk of three severe COVID-19 outcomes among ≥ 65-year-olds who received a bivalent booster (Original/Omicron BA.1 or Original/BA.4-5; exposed group) between 1/9/2022 and 31/8/2023 to those who did not (unexposed). We included individuals vaccinated with at least two monovalent COVID-19 vaccine doses before 1/9/2022 and ≥ 3 months ago. The analysis was divided into two periods: 1/9/2022-28/2/2023 (BA.5 and BQ.1.X predominating) and 1/3/2023-31/8/2023 (XBB predominating). The hazards for the outcomes between exposed and unexposed individuals were compared with Cox regression.ResultsWe included 1,191,871 individuals. From 1/9/2022 to 28/2/2023, bivalent boosters were associated with a reduced risk of hospitalisation due to COVID-19 (hazard ratio (HR): 0.45; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.37-0.55), death due to COVID-19 (HR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.38-0.62), and death in which COVID-19 was a contributing factor (HR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.31-0.51) during 14-60 days since vaccination. From 1/3/2023 to 31/8/2023, bivalent boosters were associated with lower risks of all three severe COVID-19 outcomes during 61-120 days since a bivalent booster (e.g. HR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.39-0.71 for hospitalisation due to COVID-19); thereafter no notable risk reduction was observed. No difference was found between Original/Omicron BA.1 and Original/BA.4-5 boosters.ConclusionBivalent boosters initially reduced the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes by ca 50% among ≥ 65-year-olds, but protection waned over time. These findings help guide vaccine development and vaccination programmes.

Neutralizing antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant after third mRNA vaccination in health care workers and elderly subjects.

The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant (B.1.1.529) with major spike protein mutations has raised concern over potential neutralization escape and breakthrough infections among vaccinated and previously SARS-CoV-2-infected subjects. We measured cross-protective antibodies against variants in health care workers (HCW, n = 20) and nursing home residents (n = 9) from samples collected at 1-2 months, following the booster (3rd) dose. We also assessed the antibody responses in subjects infected before the Omicron era (n = 38) with subsequent administration of a single mRNA vaccine dose. Following booster vaccination, HCWs had high IgG antibody concentrations to the spike protein and neutralizing antibodies (NAb) were detectable against all variants. IgG concentrations among the elderly remained lower, and some lacked NAbs against the Beta and Omicron variants. NAb titers were significantly reduced against Delta, Beta, and Omicron compared to WT virus regardless of age. Vaccination induced high IgG concentrations and variable titers of cross-reactive NAbs in previously infected subjects, whereas NAb titers against Omicron were barely detectable 1 month postinfection. High IgG concentrations with cross-protective neutralizing activity were detected after three Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine doses in HCWs. However, lower NAb titers seen in the frail elderly suggest inadequate protection against Omicron breakthrough infections, yet protection against severe COVID-19 is expected.

Factors associated with parental intention to vaccinate their child against influenza, Finland, February to March, 2022: a web-based survey.

BackgroundInfluenza vaccination for children aged 6 months to 6 years is included in the national vaccination programme in Finland. Although all vaccines in the programme are free of charge, national coverage of influenza vaccination among children under 3 years and 3-6 years during 2020/21 was 43% and 35% respectively, with regional differences.AimTo assess factors underlying parental vaccination intention in order to increase influenza vaccine uptake among children.MethodsWe conducted a web-based survey among parents (n = 17,844) of randomly selected eligible children (aged 6 months-6 years) in February-March 2022 in five Finnish municipalities from regions of high and low coverage. Logistic regressions were used to determine associations between vaccination intention and e.g. sociodemographic factors, attitudes and knowledge. Linkage to the national vaccination register was used to confirm realisation of vaccination intention after the study.ResultsParticipation rate was 13% (n = 2,322 parents). Influenza knowledge, trust in official information, responding parent's education level, adherence to the vaccination programme, number of children and changes in attitudes towards vaccination since COVID-19 were all associated with intention to vaccinate. Vaccination intention for children was 64%, and realised vaccination 51%.ConclusionDespite the low participation rate, both vaccinated and unvaccinated children were represented. Influenza vaccine uptake is not dependent on a single factor. Our results identified the need for open dialogue between parents and healthcare professionals, as the lack of vaccine being offered by healthcare professionals was the most reported reason for not vaccinating.

Age-Specific Estimates of Respiratory Syncytial Virus-Associated Hospitalizations in 6 European Countries: A Time Series Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge on age-specific hospitalizations associated with RSV infection is limited due to limited testing, especially in older children and adults in whom RSV infections are not expected to be severe. Burden estimates based on RSV coding of hospital admissions are known to underestimate the burden of RSV. We aimed to provide robust and reliable age-specific burden estimates of RSV-associated hospital admissions based on data on respiratory infections from national health registers and laboratory-confirmed cases of RSV. METHODS: We conducted multiseason regression analysis of weekly hospitalizations with respiratory infection and weekly laboratory-confirmed cases of RSV and influenza as covariates, based on national health registers and laboratory databases across 6 European countries. The burden of RSV-associated hospitalizations was estimated by age group, clinical diagnosis, and presence of underlying medical conditions. RESULTS: Across the 6 European countries, hospitalizations of children with respiratory infections were clearly associated with RSV, with associated proportions ranging from 28% to 60% in children younger than 3 months and we found substantial proportions of admissions to hospital with respiratory infections associated with RSV in children younger than 3 years. Associated proportions were highest among hospitalizations with ICD-10 codes of "bronchitis and bronchiolitis." In all 6 countries, annual incidence of RSV-associated hospitalizations was >40 per 1000 persons in the age group 0-2 months. In age group 1-2 years the incidence rate ranged from 1.3 to 10.5 hospitalizations per 1000. Adults older than 85 years had hospitalizations with respiratory infection associated to RSV in all 6 countries although incidence rates were low. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight the substantial proportion of RSV infections among hospital admissions across different ages and may help public health professionals and policy makers when planning prevention and control strategies. In addition, our findings provide valuable insights for health care professionals attending to both children and adults presenting with symptoms of viral respiratory infections.

Information nudges for influenza vaccination: Evidence from a large-scale cluster-randomized controlled trial in Finland.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination is the most effective means of preventing the spread of infectious diseases. Despite the proven benefits of vaccination, vaccine hesitancy keeps many people from getting vaccinated. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a large-scale cluster randomized controlled trial in Finland to test the effectiveness of centralized written reminders (distributed via mail) on influenza vaccination coverage. The study included the entire older adult population (aged 65 years and above) in 2 culturally and geographically distinct regions with historically low (31.8%, n = 7,398, mean age 75.5 years) and high (57.7%, n = 40,727, mean age 74.0 years) influenza vaccination coverage. The study population was randomized into 3 treatments: (i) no reminder (only in the region with low vaccination coverage); (ii) an individual-benefits reminder, informing recipients about the individual benefits of vaccination; and (iii) an individual- and social-benefits reminder, informing recipients about the additional social benefits of vaccination in the form of herd immunity. There was no control treatment group in the region with high vaccination coverage as general reminders had been sent in previous years. The primary endpoint was a record of influenza vaccination in the Finnish National Vaccination Register during a 5-month follow-up period (from October 18, 2018 to March 18, 2019). Vaccination coverage after the intervention in the region with historically low coverage was 41.8% in the individual-benefits treatment, 38.9% in the individual- and social-benefits treatment and 34.0% in the control treatment group. Vaccination coverage after the intervention in the region with historically high coverage was 59.0% in the individual-benefits treatment and 59.2% in the individual- and social-benefits treatment. The effect of receiving any type of reminder letter in comparison to control treatment group (no reminder) was 6.4 percentage points (95% CI: 3.6 to 9.1, p < 0.001). The effect of reminders was particularly large among individuals with no prior influenza vaccination (8.8 pp, 95% CI: 6.5 to 11.1, p < 0.001). There was a substantial positive effect (5.3 pp, 95% CI: 2.8 to 7.8, p < 0.001) among the most consistently unvaccinated individuals who had not received any type of vaccine during the 9 years prior to the study. There was no difference in influenza vaccination coverage between the individual-benefit reminder and the individual- and social-benefit reminder (region with low vaccination coverage: 2.9 pp, 95% CI: -0.4 to 6.1, p = 0.087, region with high vaccination coverage: 0.2 pp, 95% CI: -1.0 to 1.3, p = 0.724). Study limitations included potential contamination between the treatments due to information spillovers and the lack of control treatment group in the region with high vaccination coverage. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found that sending reminders was an effective and scalable intervention strategy to increase vaccination coverage in an older adult population with low vaccination coverage. Communicating the social benefits of vaccinations, in addition to individual benefits, did not enhance vaccination coverage. The effectiveness of letter reminders about the benefits of vaccination to improve influenza vaccination coverage may depend on the prior vaccination history of the population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: AEA RCT registry AEARCTR-0003520 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03748160.

Persistence of neutralizing antibodies a year after SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans.

Most subjects develop antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 following infection. In order to estimate the duration of immunity induced by SARS-CoV-2 it is important to understand for how long antibodies persist after infection in humans. Here, we assessed the persistence of serum antibodies following WT SARS-CoV-2 infection at 8 and 13 months after diagnosis in 367 individuals. The SARS-CoV-2 spike IgG (S-IgG) and nucleoprotein IgG (N-IgG) concentrations and the proportion of subjects with neutralizing antibodies (NAb) were assessed. Moreover, the NAb titers among a smaller subset of participants (n = 78) against a WT virus (B) and variants of concern (VOCs): Alpha (B.1.1.7), Beta (B.1.351), and Delta (B.1.617.2) were determined. We found that NAb against the WT virus persisted in 89% and S-IgG in 97% of subjects for at least 13 months after infection. Only 36% had N-IgG by 13 months. The mean S-IgG concentrations declined from 8 to 13 months by less than one third; N-IgG concentrations declined by two-thirds. Subjects with severe infection had markedly higher IgG and NAb levels and are expected to remain seropositive for longer. Significantly lower NAb titers against the variants compared to the WT virus, especially after a mild disease, suggests reduced protection against VOCs.

High vaccine effectiveness against severe COVID-19 in the elderly in Finland before and after the emergence of Omicron.

BACKGROUND: The elderly are highly vulnerable to severe COVID-19. Waning immunity and emergence of Omicron have caused concerns about reduced effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines. The objective was to estimate vaccine effectiveness (VE) against severe COVID-19 among the elderly. METHODS: This nationwide, register-based cohort analysis included all residents aged 70 years and over in Finland. The follow-up started on December 27, 2020, and ended on March 31, 2022. The outcomes of interest were COVID-19-related hospitalization and intensive care unit (ICU) admission timely associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. VE was estimated as one minus the hazard ratio comparing the vaccinated and unvaccinated and taking into account time since vaccination. Omicron-specific VE was evaluated as the effectiveness observed since January 1, 2022. RESULTS: The cohort included 896,220 individuals. Comirnaty (BioNTech/Pfizer) VE against COVID-19-related hospitalization was 93% (95% CI 89-95%) and 85% (95% CI 82-87%) 14-90 and 91-180 days after the second dose; VE increased to 95% (95% CI 94-96%) 14-60 days after the third dose. VE of other homologous and heterologous three dose series was similar. Protection against severe COVID-19 requiring ICU treatment was even better. Since January 1, 2022, Comirnaty VE was 98% (95% CI 92-99%) and 92% (95% CI 87-95%) 14-90 and 91-180 days after the second and 98% (95% CI 95-99%) 14-60 days after the third dose. CONCLUSIONS: VE against severe COVID-19 is high among the elderly. It waned slightly after two doses, but a third restored the protection. VE against severe COVID-19 remained high even after the emergence of Omicron.

High influenza vaccination coverage among healthcare workers in acute care hospitals in Finland, seasons 2017/18, 2018/19 and 2019/20.

BackgroundInfluenza vaccination is widely recommended for healthcare workers (HCWs) in European countries, but the coverage is not always satisfactory. In Finland, a new act was introduced in March 2017, according to which it is the employer's responsibility to appoint only vaccinated HCWs for servicing vulnerable patients.AimWe determined the influenza vaccination coverage among HCWs in Finnish acute care hospitals in three influenza seasons after introduction of the act.MethodsWe analysed data collected by an internet-based survey sent annually to all Finnish acute care hospitals and described the influenza vaccination coverage among HCWs during seasons 2017/18, 2018/19 and 2019/20. We calculated mean coverage per healthcare district and season.ResultsIn season 2017/18, 38 of 39 hospitals, in 2018/19, 35 of 36 hospitals and in 2018/19 31 of 33 hospitals provided data. The mean influenza vaccination coverage was 83.7% (SD: 12.3) in season 2017/18, 90.8% (SD: 8.7) in 2018/19 and 87.6% (SD: 10.9) in season 2019/20. There was no significant increase or decrease in the mean coverage across the three seasons. The differences between districts were only significant in 2018/19 (p < 0.005).ConclusionsThe coverage of influenza-vaccinated HCWs in Finnish hospitals was high in all three seasons and the current legal situation (semi-mandatory system) in Finland seems to provide a good background for this. Data collection should be maintained and improved for further monitoring.

Recommendations for respiratory syncytial virus surveillance at the national level.

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a common cause of acute lower respiratory tract infections and hospitalisations among young children and is globally responsible for many deaths in young children, especially in infants aged <6 months. Furthermore, RSV is a common cause of severe respiratory disease and hospitalisation among older adults. The development of new candidate vaccines and monoclonal antibodies highlights the need for reliable surveillance of RSV. In the European Union (EU), no up-to-date general recommendations on RSV surveillance are currently available. Based on outcomes of a workshop with 29 European experts in the field of RSV virology, epidemiology and public health, we provide recommendations for developing a feasible and sustainable national surveillance strategy for RSV that will enable harmonisation and data comparison at the European level. We discuss three surveillance components: active sentinel community surveillance, active sentinel hospital surveillance and passive laboratory surveillance, using the EU acute respiratory infection and World Health Organization (WHO) extended severe acute respiratory infection case definitions. Furthermore, we recommend the use of quantitative reverse transcriptase PCR-based assays as the standard detection method for RSV and virus genetic characterisation, if possible, to monitor genetic evolution. These guidelines provide a basis for good quality, feasible and affordable surveillance of RSV. Harmonisation of surveillance standards at the European and global level will contribute to the wider availability of national level RSV surveillance data for regional and global analysis, and for estimation of RSV burden and the impact of future immunisation programmes.

An outbreak caused by the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant (B.1.617.2) in a secondary care hospital in Finland, May 2021.

An outbreak caused by the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant (B.1.617.2) spread from one inpatient in a secondary care hospital to three primary care facilities, resulting in 58 infections including 18 deaths in patients and 45 infections in healthcare workers (HCW). Only one of the deceased cases was fully vaccinated. Transmission occurred despite the use of personal protective equipment by the HCW, as advised in national guidelines, and a high two-dose COVID-19 vaccination coverage among permanent staff members in the COVID-19 cohort ward.

Immunisation of healthcare workers in the Nordic countries: Variation in recommendations and practices and a lack of assessment.

Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at increased risk of both exposure and transmission of infectious disease. Two European Union (EU) directives state that health services are responsible for assessing their employees' potential exposure to infectious diseases and offering immunisation free of charge. We assessed current policy for immunisation of HCWs and the availability of vaccine coverage data in the Nordic countries by surveying national vaccination experts in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, as well as Swedish county medical officers (CMOs). All national experts and 17 of 21 Swedish CMOs responded. All EU countries had transposed the European directives into national law, while Norway and Iceland had similar national legislation. Recommendations or guidelines were issued in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and 15 of 17 responding Swedish counties. The range of diseases covered differed by countries and Swedish counties. HCW vaccine coverage data were not systematically collected; incomplete estimates were only available for Finland and two Swedish counties. In conclusion, recommendations or guidelines exist in the Nordic countries, but their impact cannot be assessed, as vaccine uptake among HCWs is not currently measured. Systematic collection of data is a necessary step towards improving HCW immunisation policy and practice in the Nordic countries.

Effectiveness of 2 Influenza Vaccines in Nationwide Cohorts of Finnish 2-Year-Old Children in the Seasons 2015-2016 Through 2017-2018.

BACKGROUND: From 2015-2016 through 2017-2018, injectable, trivalent inactivated influenza vaccines (IIV3) and a nasal spray, tetravalent live-attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV4) were used in parallel in Finland. To understand how well vaccination with each vaccine type protected children against influenza under real-life conditions, vaccine effectiveness in 2-year-olds was estimated for all 3 seasons. METHODS: Each season, a nationwide register-based cohort study was conducted. The study population comprised 60 088, 60 860, and 60 345 children in 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018, respectively. Laboratory-confirmed influenza was the study outcome. Seasonal influenza vaccination with either LAIV4 or IIV3 was the time-dependent exposure of interest. Vaccine effectiveness was defined as 1 minus the hazard ratio comparing vaccinated with unvaccinated children. RESULTS: From 2015-2016 through 2017-2018, the effectiveness of LAIV4 against influenza of any virus type was estimated at 54.2% (95% confidence interval, 32.2-69.0%), 20.3% (-12.7%, 43.6%), and 30.5% (10.9-45.9%); the corresponding effectiveness of IIV3 was 77.2% (48.9-89.8%), 24.5% (-29.8%, 56.1%), and -20.1% (-61.5%, 10.7%). Neither influenza vaccine clearly excelled in protecting children. The LAIV4 effectiveness against type B was greater than against type A and greater than the IIV3 effectiveness against type B. CONCLUSIONS: To understand how influenza vaccines could be improved, vaccine effectiveness must be analyzed by vaccine and virus type. Effectiveness estimates also expressing overall protection levels are needed to guide individual and programmatic decision-making processes. Supported by this analysis, the vaccination program in Finland now recommends LAIV4 and injectable, tetravalent inactivated influenza vaccines replacing IIV3.