Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 47
Filter
1.
J Clin Epidemiol ; : 111471, 2024 Jul 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39032589

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Registration in the Dutch national COVID-19 vaccination register requires consent from the vaccinee. This causes misclassification of non-consenting vaccinated persons as being unvaccinated. We quantified and corrected the resulting information bias in vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: National data were used for the period dominated by the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant (11 July to 15 November 2021). VE ((1-relative risk)*100%) against COVID-19 hospitalization and intensive care unit (ICU) admission was estimated for individuals 12-49, 50-69, and ≥70 years of age using negative binomial regression. Anonymous data on vaccinations administered by the Municipal Health Services were used to determine informed consent percentages and estimate corrected VEs by iteratively imputing corrected vaccination status. Absolute bias was calculated as the absolute change in VE; relative bias as uncorrected / corrected relative risk. RESULTS: A total of 8,804 COVID-19 hospitalizations and 1,692 COVID-19 ICU admissions were observed. The bias was largest in the 70+ age group where the non-consent proportion was 7.0% and observed vaccination coverage was 87%: VE of primary vaccination against hospitalization changed from 75.5% (95% CI 73.5-77.4) before to 85.9% (95% CI 84.7-87.1) after correction (absolute bias -10.4 percentage point, relative bias 1.74). VE against ICU admission in this group was 88.7% (95% CI 86.2-90.8) before and 93.7% (95% CI 92.2-94.9) after correction (absolute bias -5.0 percentage point, relative bias 1.79). CONCLUSION: VE estimates can be substantially biased with modest non-consent percentages for vaccination data registration. Data on covariate specific non-consent percentages should be available to correct this bias.

2.
Influenza Other Respir Viruses ; 18(4): e13292, 2024 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38654485

ABSTRACT

Using a common protocol across seven countries in the European Union/European Economic Area, we estimated XBB.1.5 monovalent vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19 hospitalisation and death in booster-eligible ≥ 65-year-olds, during October-November 2023. We linked electronic records to construct retrospective cohorts and used Cox models to estimate adjusted hazard ratios and derive VE. VE for COVID-19 hospitalisation and death was, respectively, 67% (95%CI: 58-74) and 67% (95%CI: 42-81) in 65- to 79-year-olds and 66% (95%CI: 57-73) and 72% (95%CI: 51-85) in ≥ 80-year-olds. Results indicate that periodic vaccination of individuals ≥ 65 years has an ongoing benefit and support current vaccination strategies in the EU/EEA.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , European Union , Hospitalization , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccine Efficacy , Humans , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/epidemiology , Aged , Male , Aged, 80 and over , Female , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Retrospective Studies , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Vaccination/statistics & numerical data , Europe/epidemiology , Electronic Health Records
3.
Euro Surveill ; 29(10)2024 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38456217

ABSTRACT

We estimated vaccine effectiveness (VE) of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron XBB.1.5 vaccination against self-reported infection between 9 October 2023 and 9 January 2024 in 23,895 XBB.1.5 vaccine-eligible adults who had previously received at least one booster. VE was 41% (95% CI: 23-55) in 18-59-year-olds and 50% (95% CI: 44-56) in 60-85-year-olds. Sequencing data suggest lower protection against the BA.2.86 (including JN.1) variant from recent prior infection (OR = 2.8; 95% CI:1.2-6.5) and, not statistically significant, from XBB.1.5 vaccination (OR = 1.5; 95% CI:0.8-2.6).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Vaccines , Adult , Humans , Netherlands/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Prospective Studies , COVID-19/prevention & control
4.
Euro Surveill ; 29(1)2024 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38179623

ABSTRACT

We present early vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates of the 2023 seasonal COVID-19 XBB.1.5 vaccine against COVID-19 hospitalisation and admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) in previously vaccinated adults ≥ 60 years in the Netherlands. We compared vaccination status of 2,050 hospitalisations including 92 ICU admissions with age group-, sex-, region- and date-specific population vaccination coverage between 9 October and 5 December 2023. VE against hospitalisation was 70.7% (95% CI: 66.6-74.3), VE against ICU admission was 73.3% (95% CI: 42.2-87.6).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Vaccines , Adult , Humans , COVID-19 Vaccines , Netherlands/epidemiology , Vaccine Efficacy , COVID-19/prevention & control , Critical Care , Hospitalization
5.
Euro Surveill ; 29(1)2024 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38179626

ABSTRACT

To monitor relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) against COVID-19-related hospitalisation of the first, second and third COVID-19 booster (vs complete primary vaccination), we performed monthly Cox regression models using retrospective cohorts constructed from electronic health registries in eight European countries, October 2021-July 2023. Within 12 weeks of administration, each booster showed high rVE (≥ 70% for second and third boosters). However, as of July 2023, most of the relative benefit has waned, particularly in persons ≥ 80-years-old, while some protection remained in 65-79-year-olds.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Retrospective Studies , Vaccine Efficacy , Europe/epidemiology , Hospitalization
6.
Nat Commun ; 14(1): 4793, 2023 08 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37558656

ABSTRACT

An increasing proportion of the population has acquired immunity through COVID-19 vaccination and previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, i.e., hybrid immunity, possibly affecting the risk of new infection. We aim to estimate the protective effect of previous infections and vaccinations on SARS-CoV-2 Omicron infection, using data from 43,257 adult participants in a prospective community-based cohort study in the Netherlands, collected between 10 January 2022 and 1 September 2022. Our results show that, for participants with 2, 3 or 4 prior immunizing events (vaccination or previous infection), hybrid immunity is more protective against infection with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron than vaccine-induced immunity, up to at least 30 weeks after the last immunizing event. Differences in risk of infection are partly explained by differences in anti-Spike RBD (S) antibody concentration, which is associated with risk of infection in a dose-response manner. Among participants with hybrid immunity, with one previous pre-Omicron infection, we do not observe a relevant difference in risk of Omicron infection by sequence of vaccination(s) and infection. Additional immunizing events increase the protection against infection, but not above the level of the first weeks after the previous event.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , Humans , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , Cohort Studies , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination
7.
Vaccine ; 41(31): 4488-4496, 2023 07 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37328352

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: We aimed to estimate vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19 mortality, and to explore whether an increased risk of non-COVID-19 mortality exists in the weeks following a COVID-19 vaccine dose. METHODS: National registries of causes of death, COVID-19 vaccination, specialized health care and long-term care reimbursements were linked by a unique person identifier using data from 1 January 2021 to 31 January 2022. We used Cox regression with calendar time as underlying time scale to, firstly, estimate VE against COVID-19 mortality after primary and first booster vaccination, per month since vaccination and, secondly, estimate risk of non-COVID-19 mortality in the 5 or 8 weeks following a first, second or first booster dose, adjusting for birth year, sex, medical risk group and country of origin. RESULTS: VE against COVID-19 mortality was > 90 % for all age groups two months after completion of the primary series. VE gradually decreased thereafter, to around 80 % at 7-8 months post-primary series for most groups, and around 60 % for elderly receiving a high level of long-term care and for people aged 90+ years. Following a first booster dose, the VE increased to > 85 % in all groups. The risk of non-COVID-19 mortality was lower or similar in the 5 or 8 weeks following a first dose compared to no vaccination, as well as following a second dose compared to one dose and a booster compared to two doses, for all age and long-term care groups. CONCLUSION: At the population level, COVID-19 vaccination greatly reduced the risk of COVID-19 mortality and no increased risk of death from other causes was observed.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Aged , Humans , COVID-19/prevention & control , Netherlands/epidemiology , Causality , Vaccination
8.
Microb Genom ; 9(6)2023 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37261428

ABSTRACT

Invasive group A streptococcal (iGAS) disease cases increased in the first half of 2022 in the Netherlands, with a remarkably high proportion of emm4 isolates. Whole-genome sequence analysis of 66 emm4 isolates, 40 isolates from the pre-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic period 2009-2019 and 26 contemporary isolates from 2022, identified a novel Streptococcus pyogenes lineage (M4NL22), which accounted for 85 % of emm4 iGAS cases in 2022. Surprisingly, we detected few isolates of the emm4 hypervirulent clone, which has replaced nearly all other emm4 in the USA and the UK. M4NL22 displayed genetic differences compared to other emm4 strains, although these were of unclear biological significance. In publicly available data, we identified a single Norwegian isolate belonging to M4NL22, which was sampled after the isolates from this study, possibly suggesting export of M4NL22 to Norway. In conclusion, our study identified a novel S. pyogenes emm4 lineage underlying an increase of iGAS disease in early 2022 in the Netherlands and the results have been promptly communicated to public health officials.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Streptococcal Infections , Humans , Antigens, Bacterial/genetics , Netherlands/epidemiology , Bacterial Outer Membrane Proteins/genetics , Carrier Proteins/genetics , Streptococcal Infections/epidemiology , Streptococcus pyogenes/genetics
9.
Vaccine ; 41(26): 3847-3854, 2023 06 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37202273

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Vaccines against COVID-19 have proven effective in preventing COVID-19 hospitalisation. In this study, we aimed to quantify part of the public health impact of COVID-19 vaccination by estimating the number of averted hospitalisations. We present results from the beginning of the vaccination campaign ('entire period', January 6, 2021) and a subperiod starting at August 2, 2021 ('subperiod') when all adults had the opportunity to complete their primary series, both until August 30, 2022. METHODS: Using calendar-time specific vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates and vaccine coverage (VC) by round (primary series, first booster and second booster) and the observed number of COVID-19 associated hospitalisations, we estimated the number of averted hospitalisations per age group for the two study periods. From January 25, 2022, when registration of the indication of hospitalisation started, hospitalisations not causally related to COVID-19 were excluded. RESULTS: In the entire period, an estimated 98,170 (95 % confidence interval (CI) 96,123-99,928) hospitalisations were averted, of which 90,753 (95 % CI 88,790-92,531) were in the subperiod, representing 57.0 % and 67.9 % of all estimated hospital admissions. Estimated averted hospitalisations were lowest for 12-49-year-olds and highest for 70-79-year-olds. More admissions were averted in the Delta period (72.3 %) than in the Omicron period (63.4 %). CONCLUSION: COVID-19 vaccination prevented a large number of hospitalisations. Although the counterfactual of having had no vaccinations while maintaining the same public health measures is unrealistic, these findings underline the public health importance of the vaccination campaign to policy makers and the public.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Adult , Humans , Netherlands , Vaccination , Hospitalization
11.
J Infect Dis ; 228(4): 431-438, 2023 08 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37093964

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: We aimed to estimate vaccine effectiveness against infection (VE-infection) and against further transmission (VE-infectiousness) in a household setting during Delta and Omicron. Knowing these effects can aid policy makers in deciding which groups to prioritize for vaccination. METHODS: Participants with a positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) test were asked about coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination status and SARS-CoV-2 testing of their household members 1 month later. VE-infection and VE-infectiousness were estimated using generalized estimating equation logistic regression adjusting for age, vaccination status, calendar week, and household size. RESULTS: A total of 3399 questionnaires concerning 4105 household members were included. During the Delta period, VE-infection and VE-infectiousness of primary series were 47% (95% confidence interval [CI], -27% to 78%) and 70% (95% CI, 28% to 87%), respectively. During the Omicron period, VE-infection was -36% (95% CI, -88% to 1%) for primary series and -28% (95% CI, -77% to 7%) for booster vaccination. VE-infectiousness was 45% (95% CI, -14% to 74%) for primary series and 64% (95% CI, 31% to 82%) for booster vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that COVID-19 vaccination is effective against infection with SARS-CoV-2 Delta and against infectiousness of SARS-CoV-2 Delta and Omicron. Estimation of VE against infection with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron was limited by several factors. Our results support booster vaccination for those in close contact with vulnerable people to prevent transmission.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Netherlands/epidemiology , COVID-19 Testing , COVID-19 Vaccines , Vaccine Efficacy , Postoperative Complications
12.
Int J Infect Dis ; 133: 36-42, 2023 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37086863

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: We estimated vaccine effectiveness (VE) of primary and booster vaccinations against SARS-CoV-2 infection overall and in four risk groups defined by age and medical risk condition during the Delta and Omicron BA.1/BA.2 periods. METHODS: VAccine Study COvid-19 is an ongoing prospective cohort study among Dutch adults. The primary end point was a self-reported positive SARS-CoV-2 test from July 12, 2021 to June 06, 2022. The analyses included only participants without a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection based on a positive test or serology. We used Cox proportional hazard models with vaccination status as the time-varying exposure and adjustment for age, sex, educational level, and medical risk condition. RESULTS: A total of 37,170 participants (mean age 57 years) were included. In the Delta period, VE <6 weeks after the primary vaccination was 80% (95% confidence interval 69-87) and decreased to 71% (65-77) after 6 months. VE increased to 96% (86-99) shortly after the first booster vaccination. In the Omicron period, these estimates were 46% (22-63), 25% (8-39), and 57% (52-62), respectively. For the Omicron period, an interaction term between vaccination status and risk group significantly improved the model (P <0.001), with generally lower VEs for those with a medical risk condition. CONCLUSION: Our results show the benefit of booster vaccinations against infection, also in risk groups; although, the additional protection wanes quite rapidly.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , Humans , Middle Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Netherlands/epidemiology , Vaccine Efficacy , COVID-19 Vaccines , SARS-CoV-2 , Prospective Studies , Vaccination
13.
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd ; 1672023 03 16.
Article in Dutch | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36928399

ABSTRACT

Group A streptococcal (GAS) infections are caused by the Gram-positive bacterium Streptococcus pyogenes. Infection can occur via droplet infection from the throat and via (in)direct contact with infected people. GAS can cause a wide variety of diseases, ranging from superficial skin infections, pharyngitis and scarlet fever, to serious invasive diseases such as puerperal sepsis, pneumonia, necrotising soft tissue infections (NSTI) (also known as necrotising fasciitis/myositis), meningitis and streptococcal toxic shock syndrome (STSS). In invasive GAS infections, the bacteria has penetrated into a sterile body compartment (such as the bloodstream, deep tissues, or the central nervous system). Invasive GAS infections are rare but serious, with high morbidity and mortality. Since March 2022, the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) reported a national increase in notifiable invasive GAS infections (NSTI, STSS and puerperal fever). Particularly NSTI has increased compared to the years before the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Remarkably, the proportion of children aged 0 to 5 years with invasive GAS-infections is higher in 2022 than in the previous years (12% compared to 4%). While seasonal peaks occur, the current elevation exceeds this variation. To promote early recognition and diagnosis of invasive GAS infections different clinical cases are presented.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Fasciitis, Necrotizing , Puerperal Infection , Shock, Septic , Soft Tissue Infections , Streptococcal Infections , Child , Female , Pregnancy , Humans , Netherlands/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Streptococcal Infections/diagnosis , Streptococcal Infections/epidemiology , Streptococcal Infections/microbiology , Streptococcus pyogenes , Fasciitis, Necrotizing/epidemiology , Fasciitis, Necrotizing/microbiology , Soft Tissue Infections/microbiology , Shock, Septic/epidemiology , Shock, Septic/microbiology
14.
Euro Surveill ; 28(7)2023 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36795499

ABSTRACT

BackgroundIn summer 2022, SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.5 became dominant in Europe. In vitro studies have shown a large reduction of antibody neutralisation for this variant.AimWe aimed to investigate differences in protection from previous infection and/or vaccination against infection with Omicron BA.4/5 vs BA.2.MethodsWe employed a case-only approach including positive PCR tests from community testing between 2 May and 24 July 2022 that were tested for S gene target failure (SGTF), which distinguishes BA.4/5 from BA.2 infection. Previous infections were categorised by variant using whole genome sequencing or SGTF. We estimated by logistic regression the association of SGTF with vaccination and/or previous infection, and of SGTF of the current infection with the variant of the previous infection, adjusting for testing week, age group and sex.ResultsThe percentage of registered previous SARS-CoV-2 infections was higher among 19,836 persons infected with Omicron BA.4/5 than among 7,052 persons infected with BA.2 (31.3% vs 20.0%). Adjusting for testing week, age group and sex, the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) was 1.4 (95% CI: 1.3-1.5). The distribution of vaccination status did not differ for BA.4/5 vs BA.2 infections (aOR = 1.1 for primary and booster vaccination). Among persons with a previous infection, those currently infected with BA4/5 had a shorter interval between infections, and the previous infection was more often caused by BA.1, compared with those currently infected with BA.2 (aOR = 1.9; 95% CI: 1.5-2.6).ConclusionOur results suggest immunity induced by BA.1 is less effective against BA.4/5 infection than against BA.2 infection.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Netherlands/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Europe , Immunization, Secondary
15.
Euro Surveill ; 28(7)2023 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36795500

ABSTRACT

We used data of 32,542 prospective cohort study participants who previously received primary and one or two monovalent booster COVID-19 vaccinations. Between 26 September and 19 December 2022, relative effectiveness of bivalent original/Omicron BA.1 vaccination against self-reported Omicron SARS-CoV-2 infection was 31% in 18-59-year-olds and 14% in 60-85-year-olds. Protection of Omicron infection was higher than of bivalent vaccination without prior infection. Although bivalent booster vaccination increases protection against COVID-19 hospitalisations, we found limited added benefit in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Netherlands/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , RNA, Messenger , Vaccination
16.
Euro Surveill ; 28(1)2023 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36695447

ABSTRACT

In 2022, a sevenfold increase in the number of notifiable invasive Streptococcus pyogenes (iGAS) infections among children aged 0-5 years was observed in the Netherlands compared with pre-COVID-19 pandemic years. Of 42 cases in this age group, seven had preceding or coinciding varicella zoster infections, nine were fatal. This increase is not attributable to a specific emm type. Vigilance for clinical deterioration as iGAS sign is warranted in young children, especially those with varicella zoster infection.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Chickenpox , Herpes Zoster , Streptococcal Infections , Child , Humans , Child, Preschool , Adult , Streptococcus pyogenes , Streptococcal Infections/diagnosis , Streptococcal Infections/epidemiology , Netherlands/epidemiology , Pandemics
17.
J Evid Based Dent Pract ; 22(4): 101779, 2022 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36494106

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: This retrospective analysis aimed to evaluate, among individuals with COVID-19-like symptoms, the percentage of SARS-CoV-2 positive oral health care workers relative to health care workers in general and a non-close-contact occupation reference group in the Netherlands. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data was retrospectively analyzed based on data extracted from the CoronIT database. This contained mass testing data for those experiencing symptoms compatible with COVID-19 recorded from June 2020 up to February 2021. The total number of tests taken and the number of SARS-CoV-2 positive tests were assessed. Sub-analyses were performed for oral health care and health care workers based in professional working locations, long-term care facilities, hospitals, or elsewhere. RESULTS: In total, data from 1,999,390 tests were obtained. Overall, 9.4% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in the three occupational groups. This was 9.2% for oral health care workers, 9.5% for health care workers, and 9.3% for the non-close-contact occupation reference group. For the three occupational groups the adjusted odds ratio with the month as covariate varied from 0.76 to 1.12. The odds ratio for oral health care workers compared to health care workers was 1 [95% CI:0.95;1.05] and 0.97 [95% CI:0.92;1.02] compared to the non-close-contact occupation reference group. Interpretation of the magnitude of the odds ratio indicates that the observed differences are none to very small. CONCLUSION: During the pandemic oral health care providers were required to adhere to the COVID-19-specific amendments to the national infection control guidelines. Based on the data gathered, dentists and dental hygienists with COVID-19-like symptoms do not test SARS-CoV-2 positive more often than other health care workers or those with a non-close-contact occupation. This supports the assumption that working during the pandemic using the Dutch standard hygiene guideline supplemented with the COVID guideline for oral health care is adequately safe.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , Retrospective Studies , Dental Hygienists , Pandemics , Health Personnel
18.
Euro Surveill ; 27(45)2022 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36367011

ABSTRACT

BackgroundDifferential SARS-CoV-2 exposure between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals may confound vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates.AimWe conducted a test-negative case-control study to determine VE against SARS-CoV-2 infection and the presence of confounding by SARS-CoV-2 exposure.MethodsWe included adults tested for SARS-CoV-2 at community facilities between 4 July and 8 December 2021 (circulation period of the Delta variant). The VE against SARS-CoV-2 infection after primary vaccination with an mRNA (Comirnaty or Spikevax) or vector-based vaccine (Vaxzevria or Janssen) was calculated using logistic regression adjusting for age, sex and calendar week (Model 1). We additionally adjusted for comorbidity and education level (Model 2) and SARS-CoV-2 exposure (number of close contacts, visiting busy locations, household size, face mask wearing, contact with SARS-CoV-2 case; Model 3). We stratified by age, vaccine type and time since vaccination.ResultsVE against infection (Model 3) was 64% (95% CI: 50-73), only slightly lower than in Models 1 (68%; 95% CI: 58-76) and 2 (67%; 95% CI: 56-75). Estimates stratified by age group, vaccine and time since vaccination remained similar: mRNA VE (Model 3) among people ≥ 50 years decreased significantly (p = 0.01) from 81% (95% CI: 66-91) at < 120 days to 61% (95% CI: 22-80) at ≥ 120 days after vaccination. It decreased from 83% to 59% in Model 1 and from 81% to 56% in Model 2.ConclusionSARS-CoV-2 exposure did not majorly confound the estimated COVID-19 VE against infection, suggesting that VE can be estimated accurately using routinely collected data without exposure information.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Adult , Humans , Middle Aged , Netherlands/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Case-Control Studies , Vaccine Efficacy , SARS-CoV-2 , RNA, Messenger
19.
R Soc Open Sci ; 9(11): 220030, 2022 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36397968

ABSTRACT

Background. Scarlet fever, an infectious disease caused by Streptococcus pyogenes, largely disappeared in developed countries during the twentieth century. In recent years, scarlet fever is on the rise again, and there is a need for a better understanding of possible factors driving transmission. Methods. Using historical case notification data from the three largest cities in The Netherlands (Amsterdam, Rotterdam and The Hague) from 1906 to 1920, we inferred the transmission rate for scarlet fever using time-series susceptible-infected-recovered (TSIR) methods. Through additive regression modelling, we investigated the contributions of meteorological variables and school term times to transmission rates. Results. Estimated transmission rates varied by city, and were highest overall for Rotterdam, the most densely populated city at that time. High temperature, seasonal precipitation levels and school term timing were associated with transmission rates, but the roles of these factors were limited and not consistent over all three cities. Conclusions. While weather factors alone can only explain a small portion of the variability in transmission rates, these results help understand the historical dynamics of scarlet fever infection in an era with less advanced sanitation and no antibiotic treatment and may offer insights into the driving factors associated with its recent resurgence.

20.
Nat Commun ; 13(1): 4738, 2022 08 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35961956

ABSTRACT

Given the emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 variants and the roll-out of booster COVID-19 vaccination, evidence is needed on protection conferred by primary vaccination, booster vaccination and previous SARS-CoV-2 infection by variant. We employed a test-negative design on S-gene target failure data from community PCR testing in the Netherlands from 22 November 2021 to 31 March 2022 (n = 671,763). Previous infection, primary vaccination or both protected well against Delta infection. Protection against Omicron BA.1 infection was much lower compared to Delta. Protection was similar against Omicron BA.1 compared to BA.2 infection after previous infection, primary and booster vaccination. Higher protection was observed against all variants in individuals with both vaccination and previous infection compared with either one. Protection against all variants decreased over time since last vaccination or infection. We found that primary vaccination with current COVID-19 vaccines and previous SARS-CoV-2 infections offered low protection against Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 infection. Booster vaccination considerably increased protection against Omicron infection, but decreased rapidly after vaccination.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Viral Vaccines , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL