[Role, working methods and recommendations of the Standing Committee on Vaccinations (STIKO) in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic]. / Rolle, Arbeitsweise und Empfehlungen der Ständigen Impfkommission (STIKO) im Kontext der COVID-19-Pandemie.

The Standing Committee on Vaccination (STIKO) is a voluntary body whose 18 experts are appointed by the Federal Ministry of Health. The scientific work of STIKO is supported by a scientific secretariat at the Robert Koch Institute. The STIKO develops independent vaccination recommendations for Germany using the methodology of evidence-based medicine (EBM).During the COVID-19 pandemic, STIKO faced major challenges. Several COVID-19 vaccines based on new technologies were approved within a very short time. The benefit-risk assessment had to be carried out according to the current state of knowledge. The vaccination recommendations had to be continuously adapted to the constantly changing epidemiology of SARS-CoV­2, increasing vaccine availability, new approvals, extensions of indications, and safety signals of vaccines. STIKO has adapted its way of working to the situation; the experts showed an impressive commitment during the pandemic. Even under time pressure, STIKO adhered to the principles of EBM and developed evidence-based vaccination recommendations. Before the final decision was made, STIKO submitted every vaccination recommendation to a commenting procedure with the stakeholders (e.g., medical societies and health authorities). Despite the short deadlines, the stakeholders made extensive and constructive comments and gave STIKO the opportunity to discuss and adapt their recommendations, consider the feedback, and thus build on a broad consensus.The past few months have shown that it is possible and rational to developing vaccination recommendations based on the principles of EBM even during a pandemic. Sufficient human resources in the STIKO office are essential.

Pre-existing health conditions and severe COVID-19 outcomes: an umbrella review approach and meta-analysis of global evidence.

BACKGROUND: This study applies an umbrella review approach to summarise the global evidence on the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes in patients with pre-existing health conditions. METHODS: Systematic reviews (SRs) were identified in PubMed, Embase/Medline and seven pre-print servers until December 11, 2020. Due to the absence of age-adjusted risk effects stratified by geographical regions, a re-analysis of the evidence was conducted. Primary studies were extracted from SRs and evaluated for inclusion in the re-analysis. Studies were included if they reported risk estimates (odds ratio (OR), hazard ratio (HR), relative risk (RR)) for hospitalisation, intensive care unit admission, intubation or death. Estimated associations were extracted from the primary studies for reported pre-existing conditions. Meta-analyses were performed stratified for each outcome by regions of the World Health Organization. The evidence certainty was assessed using GRADE. Registration number CRD42020215846. RESULTS: In total, 160 primary studies from 120 SRs contributed 464 estimates for 42 pre-existing conditions. Most studies were conducted in North America, European, and Western Pacific regions. Evidence from Africa, South/Latin America, and the Eastern Mediterranean region was scarce. No evidence was available from the South-East Asia region. Diabetes (HR range 1.2-2.0 (CI range 1.1-2.8)), obesity (OR range 1.5-1.75 (CI range 1.1-2.3)), heart failure (HR range 1.3-3.3 (CI range 0.9-8.2)), COPD (HR range 1.12-2.2 (CI range 1.1-3.2)) and dementia (HR range 1.4-7.7 (CI range 1.2-39.6)) were associated with fatal COVID-19 in different regions, although the estimates varied. Evidence from Europe and North America showed that liver cirrhosis (OR range 3.2-5.9 (CI range 0.9-27.7)) and active cancer (OR range 1.6-4.7 (CI range 0.5-14.9)) were also associated with increased risk of death. Association between HIV and undesirable COVID-19 outcomes showed regional heterogeneity, with an increased risk of death in Africa (HR 1.7 (CI 1.3-2.2)). GRADE certainty was moderate to high for most associations. CONCLUSION: Risk of undesirable COVID-19 health outcomes is consistently increased in certain patient subgroups across geographical regions, showing high variability in others. The results can be used to inform COVID-19 vaccine prioritisation or other intervention strategies.

Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 infection with the Delta (B.1.617.2) variant: second interim results of a living systematic review and meta-analysis, 1 January to 25 August 2021.

The Delta variant has become the dominant strain of SARS-CoV-2. We summarised the evidence on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) identified in 17 studies that investigated VE against different endpoints. Pooled VE was 63.1% (95% confidence interval (CI): 40.9-76.9) against asymptomatic infection, 75.7% (95% CI: 69.3-80.8) against symptomatic infection and 90.9% (95% CI: 84.5-94.7) against hospitalisation. Compared with the Alpha variant, VE against mild outcomes was reduced by 10-20%, but fully maintained against severe COVID-19.

Efficacy and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 infection: interim results of a living systematic review, 1 January to 14 May 2021.

Evidence on COVID-19 vaccine efficacy/effectiveness (VE) in preventing asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections is needed to guide public health recommendations for vaccinated people. We report interim results of a living systematic review. We identified a total of 30 studies that investigated VE against symptomatic and/or asymptomatic infection. In fully vaccinated individuals, VE against symptomatic and asymptomatic infections was 80-90% in nearly all studies. Fully vaccinated persons are less likely to become infected and contribute to transmission.

Safety and effectiveness of acellular pertussis vaccination during pregnancy: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Infants < 3 months of age are at highest risk for developing severe complications after pertussis. The majority of pregnant women has low concentrations of pertussis-specific antibodies and thus newborns are insufficiently protected by maternally transferred antibodies. Acellular pertussis vaccination during pregnancy was recently implemented in various countries. Here, we assessed the evidence for safety and effectiveness of pertussis vaccination during pregnancy. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov from January 1st 2010 to January 10th 2019. We assessed risk of bias (ROB) using the Cochrane ROB tool and ROBINS-I. We evaluated the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We identified 1273 articles and included 22 studies (14 for safety; 8 for effectiveness), comprising 1.4 million pregnant women in safety studies and 855,546 mother-infant-pairs in effectiveness studies. No significant differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated women and their infants were observed for safety outcomes with the exception of fever and chorioamnionitis. Compared to no vaccination, three studies showed a significantly increased relative risk for the presence of the ICD-9 code for chorioamnionitis in electronic patient data after pertussis vaccination. However, no study reported an increased risk for clinical sequelae of chorioamnionitis after vaccination during pregnancy, such as preterm birth or neonatal intensive care unit admission. Vaccine effectiveness against pertussis in infants of immunized mothers ranged from 69 to 91% for pertussis prevention, from 91 to 94% for prevention of hospitalization and was 95% for prevention of death due to pertussis. Risk of bias was serious to critical for safety outcomes and moderate to serious for effectiveness outcomes. GRADE evidence quality was moderate to very low, depending on outcome. CONCLUSION: Although an increased risk for a diagnosis of fever and chorioamnionitis was detected in pregnant women after pertussis vaccination, there was no association with a higher frequency of clinically relevant sequelae. Vaccine effectiveness for prevention of infant pertussis, hospitalization and death is high. Pertussis vaccination during pregnancy has an overall positive benefit-risk ratio. In view of the overall quality of available evidence ongoing surveillance of chorioamnionitis and its potential sequelae is recommended when pertussis vaccination in pregnancy is implemented. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018087814, CRD42018090357.

Malaria in Eritrean migrants newly arrived in seven European countries, 2011 to 2016.

Global migration has resulted in a large number of asylum applications in Europe. In 2014, clusters of Plasmodium vivax cases were reported among newly arrived Eritreans. This study aimed to assess malaria among Eritrean migrants in Europe from 2011 to 2016. We reviewed European migration numbers and malaria surveillance data for seven countries (Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom) which received 44,050 (94.3%) of 46,730 Eritreans seeking asylum in Europe in 2014. The overall number of malaria cases, predominantly P. vivax, increased significantly in 2014 compared to previous years, with the largest increases in Germany (44 P. vivax cases in 2013 vs 294 in 2014, p < 0.001) and Sweden (18 in 2013 vs 205 in 2014, p < 0.001). Overall, malaria incidence in Eritreans increased from 1-5 to 25 cases per 1,000, and was highest in male teenagers (50 cases/1,000). In conclusion, an exceptional increase of malaria cases occurred in Europe in 2014 and 2015, due to rising numbers of Eritreans with high incidence of P. vivax arriving in Europe. Our results demonstrate potential for rapid changes in imported malaria patterns, highlighting the need for improved awareness, surveillance efforts and timely healthcare in migrants.

Changes in malaria epidemiology in Germany, 2001-2016: a time series analysis.

BACKGROUND: German surveillance data showed a sharp rise of malaria cases in 2014 and 2015 due to the increased arrival of refugees from malaria endemic countries. A time series analysis of data from 2001 to 2016 was performed in order to describe the epidemiology of imported malaria in Germany in general and of the recent increase in particular. RESULTS: In total, 11,678 malaria cases were notified between 2001 and 2016 (range 526-1063 cases/year). Newly arriving refugees averaged 10 cases/year (1.5%) in 2001-13 and 292.5 cases/year (28.3%) in 2014-15. Plasmodium (P.) falciparum was the most frequently reported species (range 57.2-85.8%), followed by P. vivax (range during 2001-2013: 7.6-18.1%; during 2014-2015, mean 31.3%). In 2014-15, 22.3% of all P. vivax cases were refugees from Eritrea and 3.3% from other countries of the Horn of Africa; in 2015 and 2016, 19.5% were refugees from Afghanistan and Pakistan. Five P. knowlesi malaria infections were reportedly acquired in Thailand between 2012 and 2016. Total numbers of malaria notifications among native Germans and residents with migration background showed an increasing trend since 2007. Chemoprophylaxis use was reported for 24.3% (1695/6984) of cases and showed a declining trend. Native German cases took significantly more frequently chemoprophylaxis than cases with migration background (32.6% vs. 17.9%; p < 0.001). DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS: The steep rise in vivax malaria notifications in 2014 and 2015 was mainly due to newly arriving refugees from Eritrea but also from other countries of the Horn of Africa and South Asia. Clinicians should include malaria in their differential diagnosis in case of a febrile illness in the respective population and consider vivax malaria even if arrival to Germany dates back several months. Over the past 10 years, malaria notifications among native Germans and residents with migration background showed an increasing trend. Use of chemoprophylaxis was insufficient in both groups and deteriorating. New strategies need to be found to increase compliance to chemoprophylaxis recommendations. The surveillance provides valuable data for epidemiological assessment of imported malaria in Germany.

Surveillance on speed: Being aware of infectious diseases in migrants mass accommodations - an easy and flexible toolkit for field application of syndromic surveillance, Germany, 2016 to 2017.

Europe received an increased number of migrants in 2015. Housing in inadequate mass accommodations (MA) made migrants prone to infectious disease outbreaks. In order to enhance awareness for infectious diseases (ID) and to detect clusters early, we developed and evaluated a syndromic surveillance system in three MA with medical centres in Berlin, Germany. Healthcare workers transferred daily data on 14 syndromes to the German public health institute (Robert Koch-Institute). Clusters of ID syndromes and single cases of outbreak-prone diseases produced a signal according to a simple aberration-detection algorithm that computes a statistical threshold above which a case count is considered unusually high. Between May 2016-April 2017, 9,364 syndromes were reported; 2,717 (29%) were ID, of those 2,017 (74%) were respiratory infections, 262 (10%) skin parasites, 181 (7%) gastrointestinal infections. The system produced 204 signals, no major outbreak was detected. The surveillance reinforced awareness for public health aspects of ID. It provided real-time data on migrants' health and stressed the burden of non-communicable diseases. The tool is available online and was evaluated as being feasible and flexible. It complements traditional notification systems. We recommend its usage especially when laboratory testing is not available and real-time data are needed.

Retrospective clinical case series study in 2017 identifies Plasmodium knowlesi as most frequent Plasmodium species in returning travellers from Thailand to Germany.

Febrile illnesses are common in travellers returning from south-east Asia. However, malaria is a rare diagnosis in this population. A series of Plasmodium knowlesi infections was noted in German travellers returning from Thailand since 2012. Infectious disease and tropical medicine facilities registered by the German Society for Tropical Medicine and International Health were contacted in March 2017, and asked to report previous P. knowlesi cases. In addition, surveillance data from the Robert Koch-Institute were analysed. The facilities reported a total of six P. knowlesi-positive cases, all were returning travellers from Thailand. The P. knowlesi-positive cases made up 6/9 of all diagnosed malaria cases imported from Thailand in the time period 2012 to 2017. In 4/5 of cases where a malaria rapid diagnostic test had been applied it revealed a negative result. P. knowlesi is an important differential diagnosis in travellers returning from south-east Asia with itineraries that include Thailand. This study highlights the importance of this Plasmodium species in this patient subgroup. Whenever malaria is suspected in a returning traveller from Thailand, P. knowlesi should be taken into consideration and a differential PCR be executed as currently the unequivocal diagnosis of P. knowlesi is based on nuclear amplification techniques.

Molecular Tracing to Find Source of Protracted Invasive Listeriosis Outbreak, Southern Germany, 2012-2016.

We investigated 543 Listeria monocytogenes isolates from food having a temporal and spatial distribution compatible with that of the invasive listeriosis outbreak occurring 2012-2016 in southern Germany. Using forensic microbiology, we identified several products from 1 manufacturer contaminated with the outbreak genotype. Continuous molecular surveillance of food isolates could prevent such outbreaks.

Response to fever and utilization of standby emergency treatment (SBET) for malaria in travellers to Southeast Asia: a questionnaire-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines in several European countries recommend standby emergency treatment (SBET) for travellers to regions with low or medium malaria transmission instead of continuous chemoprophylaxis: travellers are advised to seek medical assistance within 24 h in case of fever and to self-administer SBET only if they are not able to consult a doctor within the time period specified. Data on healthcare-seeking behaviour of febrile travellers and utilization of SBET is however scarce as only two studies were performed in the mid-1990s. Since tourism is constantly increasing and malaria epidemiology has dramatically changed in the meantime more knowledge is urgently needed. METHODS: Some 876 travellers to destinations in South and Southeast Asia with low or medium malaria transmission were recruited in the travel clinic of the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf. Demographic and travel-related data were collected by using questionnaires. Pre-travel advice was carried out and SBET was prescribed in accordance to national guidelines. Post-travel phone interviews were performed to assess health incidents during travel and individual responses of travellers to febrile illness. RESULTS: Out of 714 patients who were monitored, 130 (18%) reported onset of fever during travel or 14 days after return. Of those travellers who reported fever, 100 (80%) carried SBET during travel. The vast majority of 79 (79%) febrile travellers who carried SBET did not seek medical assistance. Overall, 14 (14%) febrile patients who carried SBET and six (20%) patients who did not carry SBET took the correct measure (doctor visit or timely SBET administration) as a response to febrile illness, respectively. Only two travellers self-administered SBET, but both of them applied the wrong regimen. CONCLUSIONS: In view of declining malaria transmission and improving medical infrastructure in most countries of Southeast Asia and obvious obstacles concerning SBET as shown in this study the current strategy should be re-evaluated. Pre-travel advice concerning malaria in SEA should focus on appropriate mosquito bite protection and clearly emphasize the need to see a doctor within 24 h after onset of fever.

Ongoing haemolytic uraemic syndrome (HUS) outbreak caused by sorbitol-fermenting (SF) Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) O157, Germany, December 2016 to May 2017.

We report an ongoing, protracted and geographically dispersed outbreak of haemolytic uraemic syndrome (HUS) and gastroenteritis in Germany, involving 30 cases since December 2016. The outbreak was caused by the sorbitol-fermenting immotile variant of Shiga toxin-producing (STEC) Escherichia coli O157. Molecular typing revealed close relatedness between isolates from 14 cases. One HUS patient died. Results of a case-control study suggest packaged minced meat as the most likely food vehicle. Food safety investigations are ongoing.

Needs and feasibility of living systematic reviews (LSRs): Experience from LSRs on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness.

During 2021 and 2023, a team of researchers at the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) and partnering institutions conducted two living systematic reviews (LSRs) on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in different age groups to inform recommendations of the Standing Committee on Vaccination in Germany (Ständige Impfkommission, STIKO). Based on our experience from the realization of these LSRs, we developed certain criteria to assess the needs and feasibility of conducting LSRs. Combining these with previously established criteria, we developed the following set to inform future planning of LSRs for STIKO: Needs criterion (N)1: Relevance of the research question, N2: Certainty of evidence (CoE) at baseline; N3: Expected need for Population-Intervention-Comparator-Outcome (PICO) adaptations; N4: Expected new evidence over time; N5: Expected impact of new evidence on CoE; Feasibility criterion (F)1: Availability of sufficient human resources; F2: Feasibility of timely dissemination of the results to inform decision-making. For each criterion we suggest rating options which may support the decision to conduct an LSR or other forms of evidence synthesis when following the provided flowchart. The suggested criteria were developed on the basis of the experiences from exemplary reviews in a specific research field (i.e., COVID-19 vaccination), and did not follow a formal development or validation process. However, these criteria might also be useful to assess whether questions from other research fields can and should be answered using the LSR approach, or assist in determining whether the use of an LSR is sensible and feasible for specific questions in health policy and practice.

Safety and effectiveness of vaccines against COVID-19 in children aged 5-11 years: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: To date, more than 761 million confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections have been recorded globally, and more than half of all children are estimated to be seropositive. Despite high SARS-CoV-2 infection incidences, the rate of severe COVID-19 in children is low. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy or effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines approved in the EU for children aged 5-11 years. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we included studies of any design identified through searching the COVID-19 L·OVE (living overview of evidence) platform up to Jan 23, 2023. We included studies with participants aged 5-11 years, with any COVID-19 vaccine approved by the European Medicines Agency-ie, mRNA vaccines BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech), BNT162b2 Bivalent (against original strain and omicron [BA.4 or BA.5]), mRNA-1273 (Moderna), or mRNA-1273.214 (against original strain and omicron BA.1). Efficacy and effectiveness outcomes were SARS-CoV-2 infection (PCR-confirmed or antigen-test confirmed), symptomatic COVID-19, hospital admission due to COVID-19, COVID-19-related mortality, multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), and long-term effects of COVID-19 (long COVID or post-COVID-19 condition as defined by study investigators or per WHO definition). Safety outcomes of interest were serious adverse events, adverse events of special interest (eg, myocarditis), solicited local and systemic events, and unsolicited adverse events. We assessed risk of bias and rated the certainty of evidence (CoE) using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. This study was prospectively registered with PROSPERO, CRD42022306822. FINDINGS: Of 5272 screened records, we included 51 (1·0%) studies (n=17 [33%] in quantitative synthesis). Vaccine effectiveness after two doses against omicron infections was 41·6% (95% CI 28·1-52·6; eight non-randomised studies of interventions [NRSIs]; CoE low), 36·2% (21·5-48·2; six NRSIs; CoE low) against symptomatic COVID-19, 75·3% (68·0-81·0; six NRSIs; CoE moderate) against COVID-19-related hospitalisations, and 78% (48-90, one NRSI; CoE very low) against MIS-C. Vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19-related mortality was not estimable. Crude event rates for deaths in unvaccinated children were less than one case per 100 000 children, and no events were reported for vaccinated children (four NRSIs; CoE low). No study on vaccine effectiveness against long-term effects was identified. Vaccine effectiveness after three doses was 55% (50-60; one NRSI; CoE moderate) against omicron infections, and 61% (55-67; one NRSI; CoE moderate) against symptomatic COVID-19. No study reported vaccine efficacy or effectiveness against hospitalisation following a third dose. Safety data suggested no increased risk of serious adverse events (risk ratio [RR] 0·83 [95% CI 0·21-3·33]; two randomised controlled trials; CoE low), with approximately 0·23-1·2 events per 100 000 administered vaccines reported in real-life observations. Evidence on the risk of myocarditis was uncertain (RR 4·6 [0·1-156·1]; one NRSI; CoE low), with 0·13-1·04 observed events per 100 000 administered vaccines. The risk of solicited local reactions was 2·07 (1·80-2·39; two RCTs; CoE moderate) after one dose and 2·06 (1·70-2·49; two RCTs; CoE moderate) after two doses. The risk of solicited systemic reactions was 1·09 (1·04-1·16; two RCTs; CoE moderate) after one dose and 1·49 (1·34-1·65; two RCTs; CoE moderate) after two doses. The risk of unsolicited adverse events after two doses (RR 1·21 [1·07-1·38]; CoE moderate) was higher among mRNA-vaccinated compared with unvaccinated children. INTERPRETATION: In children aged 5-11 years, mRNA vaccines are moderately effective against infections with the omicron variant, but probably protect well against COVID-19 hospitalisations. Vaccines were reactogenic but probably safe. Findings of this systematic review can serve as a basis for public health policy and individual decision making on COVID-19 vaccination in children aged 5-11 years. FUNDING: German Federal Joint Committee.

Facing the Omicron variant-how well do vaccines protect against mild and severe COVID-19? Third interim analysis of a living systematic review.

Background: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron variant is currently the dominant variant globally. This third interim analysis of a living systematic review summarizes evidence on the effectiveness of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine (vaccine effectiveness, VE) and duration of protection against Omicron. Methods: We systematically searched literature on COVID-19 for controlled studies, evaluating the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines approved in the European Union up to 14/01/2022, complemented by hand searches of websites and metasearch engines up to 11/02/2022. We considered the following comparisons: full primary immunization vs. no vaccination, booster immunization vs. no vaccination, and booster vs. full primary immunization. VE against any confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptomatic, and severe COVID-19 (i.e., COVID-19-related hospitalization, ICU admission, or death) was indicated, providing estimate ranges. Meta-analysis was not performed due to high study heterogeneity. The risk of bias was assessed with ROBINS-I, and the certainty of the evidence was evaluated using GRADE. Results: We identified 26 studies, including 430 to 2.2 million participants, which evaluated VE estimates against infections with the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant. VE against any confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection ranged between 0-62% after full primary immunization and between 34-66% after a booster dose compared to no vaccination. VE range for booster vs. full primary immunization was 34-54.6%. After full primary immunization VE against symptomatic COVID-19 ranged between 6-76%. After booster immunization VE ranged between 3-84% compared to no vaccination and between 56-69% compared to full primary immunization. VE against severe COVID-19 ranged between 3-84% after full primary immunization and between 12-100% after booster immunization compared to no vaccination, and 100% (95% CI 71.4-100) compared to full primary immunization (data from only one study). VE was characterized by a moderate to strong decline within 3-6 months for SARS-CoV-2 infections and symptomatic COVID-19. Against severe COVID-19, protection remained robust for at least up to 6 months. Waning immunity was more profound after primary than booster immunization. The risk of bias was moderate to critical across studies and outcomes. GRADE certainty was very low for all outcomes. Conclusions: Under the Omicron variant, the effectiveness of EU-licensed COVID-19 vaccines in preventing any SARS-CoV-2 infection is low and only short-lasting after full primary immunization, but can be improved by booster vaccination. VE against severe COVID-19 remains high and is long-lasting, especially after receiving the booster vaccination.