RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: This study estimated the 2022 end-of-season influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) against severe acute respiratory illness (SARI) hospitalization in Chile, Paraguay, and Uruguay. METHODS: We pooled surveillance data from SARI cases in 18 sentinel surveillance hospitals in Chile (n = 9), Paraguay (n = 2), and Uruguay (n = 7) from March 16-November 30, 2022. VE was estimated using a test-negative design and logistic regression models adjusted for country, age, sex, presence of ≥1 comorbidity, and week of illness onset. VE estimates were stratified by influenza virus type and subtype (when available) and influenza vaccine target population, categorized as children, individuals with comorbidities, and older adults, defined per countries' national immunization policies. RESULTS: Among the 3147 SARI cases, there were 382 (12.1%) influenza test-positive case patients; 328 (85.9%) influenza case patients were in Chile, 33 (8.6%) were in Paraguay, and 21 (5.5%) were in Uruguay. In all countries, the predominant subtype was influenza A(H3N2) (92.6% of influenza cases). Adjusted VE against any influenza-associated SARI hospitalization was 33.8% (95% confidence interval: 15.3%, 48.2%); VE against influenza A(H3N2)-associated SARI hospitalization was 30.4% (95% confidence interval: 10.1%, 46.0%). VE estimates were similar across target populations. CONCLUSION: During the 2022 influenza season, influenza vaccination reduced the odds of hospitalization among those vaccinated by one-third. Health officials should encourage influenza vaccination in accordance with national recommendations.
Asunto(s)
Subtipo H1N1 del Virus de la Influenza A , Vacunas contra la Influenza , Gripe Humana , Niño , Humanos , Anciano , Recién Nacido , Gripe Humana/epidemiología , Gripe Humana/prevención & control , Subtipo H3N2 del Virus de la Influenza A , Estaciones del Año , Paraguay/epidemiología , Uruguay/epidemiología , Chile/epidemiología , Eficacia de las Vacunas , Estudios de Casos y Controles , Vacunación , Virus de la Influenza BRESUMEN
To inform World Health Organization recommendations regarding use of Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccines in national immunization programs, a multi-country evaluation of trends in Hib meningitis incidence and prevalence of nasopharyngeal Hib carriage was conducted in four South American countries using either a primary, three-dose immunization schedule without a booster dose or with a booster dose in the second year of life. Surveillance data suggest that high coverage of Hib conjugate vaccine sustained low incidence of Hib meningitis and low prevalence of Hib carriage whether or not a booster dose was used.
Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra Haemophilus/administración & dosificación , Vacunas contra Haemophilus/inmunología , Haemophilus influenzae tipo b/inmunología , Haemophilus influenzae tipo b/aislamiento & purificación , Meningitis por Haemophilus/epidemiología , Meningitis por Haemophilus/prevención & control , Vacunación/métodos , Preescolar , Femenino , Humanos , Inmunización Secundaria/métodos , Incidencia , Lactante , Masculino , Meningitis por Haemophilus/microbiología , América del Sur/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
El objetivo de este trabajo fue caracterizar fenotípica y genotípicamente dos aislamientos deNeisseria meningitidis resistentes a rifampicina relacionados con dos eventos independientes de transmisión de enfermedad meningocócica grave que se presentaron en septiembre y octubre de 2010 en Montevideo, Uruguay. Se revisó también la base de datos de la vigilancia nacional de resistencia a los antimicrobianos de los últimos 10 años, para estimar la frecuencia de la particularidad de los meningococos caracterizados. La resistencia a rifampicina se estudiópor el método epsilométrico. El serotipo y serosubtipo de los aislamientos se determinaron por ELISA y la caracterización genotípica se realizó por digestión del ADN con NheI y electroforesis en gel con campo pulsátil. Ambos aislamientos eran idénticos, B:2a:P1.5, y su fenotipo no figuraba en la colección de 408 cepas de N. meningitidis aisladas en el Uruguayen los últimos 10 años, con la excepción de dos aislamientos sensibles a rifampicina. Los dos aislamientos estudiados también compartían un pulsotipo único, diferente del de otros dos aislamientos resistentes a rifampicina obtenidos en 2003 y 2007. Por lo tanto, ambos eventos detransmisión fueron causados por una única cepa resistente a rifampicina, que podría haberse introducido al país desde otras regiones o haberse originado por un cambio del serogrupo C al B, como producto de la presión selectiva ejercida por vacunas administradas a la población. Es necesario mantener y extremar la vigilancia. No obstante, en vista de que hasta el momento este tipo de hallazgo ha sido esporádico, no se justifica cambiar el fármaco antimicrobiano que se administra a los contactos para la profilaxis, a menos que se identifique un caso secundario.
The objective of this study was to characterize the phenotype and genotype of two isolates of rifampicin-resistant Neisseria meningitidis associated with two independentevents involving transmission of severe meningococcal meningitis that occurredin September and October 2010 in Montevideo, Uruguay. The most recent 10 years of data from the national antimicrobial resistance surveillance system were reviewed to estimate the frequency of the particular meningococcal features thatwere characterized. Rifampicin resistance was studied using the epsilometer test. The serotype and serosubtype of the isolates were determined by ELISA, and thegenotype was characterized using DNA digestion with Nhel and pulse field gelelectrophoresis. The two isolates were identical: B:2a:P1.5. In the collection of 408 strains of N. meningitidis isolated in Uruguay in the past 10 years, the phenotype only appeared in two isolates, which were sensitive to rifampicin. The two isolates studiedalso shared a single pulse type, which was different from that of two other rifampicinresistant isolates obtained in 2003 and 2007. Consequently, it was concluded that both cases of transmission were caused by a single rifampicin-resistant strain, whichcould have been an import from another country or else the result of a drift fromserogroup C to B due to selective pressure exerted by vaccines administered to the population. It is essential to maintain and maximize surveillance. However, since thistype of finding has been sporadic so far, unless a secondary case is identified, there is no justification for changing the antimicrobial drug currently being administered to contacts as prophylaxis.
Asunto(s)
Rifampin/uso terapéutico , Neisseria meningitidis/genética , Neisseria meningitidis/inmunología , Uruguay/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
The objective of this study was to characterize the phenotype and genotype of two isolates of rifampicin-resistant Neisseria meningitidis associated with two independent events involving transmission of severe meningococcal meningitis that occurred in September and October 2010 in Montevideo, Uruguay. The most recent 10 years of data from the national antimicrobial resistance surveillance system were reviewed to estimate the frequency of the particular meningococcal features that were characterized. Rifampicin resistance was studied using the epsilometer test. The serotype and serosubtype of the isolates were determined by ELISA, and the genotype was characterized using DNA digestion with Nhel and pulse field gel electrophoresis. The two isolates were identical: B:2a:P1.5. In the collection of 408 strains of N. meningitidis isolated in Uruguay in the past 10 years, the phenotype only appeared in two isolates, which were sensitive to rifampicin. The two isolates studied also shared a single pulse type, which was different from that of two other rifampicin-resistant isolates obtained in 2003 and 2007. Consequently, it was concluded that both cases of transmission were caused by a single rifampicin-resistant strain, which could have been an import from another country or else the result of a drift from serogroup C to B due to selective pressure exerted by vaccines administered to the population. It is essential to maintain and maximize surveillance. However, since this type of finding has been sporadic so far, unless a secondary case is identified, there is no justification for changing the antimicrobial drug currently being administered to contacts as prophylaxis.