The 2009 A(H1N1) influenza pandemic in the French Armed Forces: evaluation of three surveillance systems.

BACKGROUND: The French military forces had to modify their epidemiological surveillance systems at the time of the 2009 A(H1N1) influenza pandemic. The aim of this article was to present an evaluation of the different systems used. METHODS: Two influenza surveillance systems are usually used in the French forces: one permanent (Surveillance épidémiologique des armées or SEA) and one seasonal (Système militaire d'observation de la grippe or SMOG). The pandemic required the implementation of a daily surveillance system (Surveillance quotidienne--SQ), which aimed to monitor disrupted activity owing to 2009 A(H1N1) influenza. The qualitative evaluation of these three systems during the period from September 2009 to February 2010 was performed using 11 criteria based on the list defined by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of Atlanta. RESULTS: Although it included only 30 sentinel units vs. 320 for the other systems, the SMOG system was the best-performing system in terms of relevance, feasibility, efficacy, quality of data, usefulness, acceptability, efficiency and cost/benefits/costs ratio. The SQ proved very expensive in terms of logistics. CONCLUSION: The SQ did not bring any significant advantage compared with the weekly surveillance schemes. In the eventuality of another similar episode, influenza surveillance could be significantly improved by using the SMOG system extended to more units for better geographical coverage.

Adverse events following pandemic influenza vaccine Pandemrix® reported in the French military forces--2009-2010.

BACKGROUND: In the face of the A(H1N1) 2009 influenza pandemic, in October 2009 the French military health service (SSA) initiated a large vaccination campaign with Pandemrix(®) vaccine in the military forces. The aim of this study was to describe vaccine adverse events (VAE) reported during this campaign. METHODS: VAE and the number of people vaccinated were surveyed by the SSA Epidemiological network across all military forces during the campaign, from October 2009 to April 2010. For each case, a notification form was completed, providing patient and clinical information. Three types of VAE were considered: non-serious, serious and unexpected. RESULTS: There were 315.4 reported VAE per 100,000 vaccinations. Vaccination and VAE incidence rate peaks coincided with influenza epidemic peak in early December. The number of injected doses was 49,138, corresponding to a 14.5% vaccination coverage among military personnel, and 155 VAE were reported, including 5 serious VAE (1 Guillain-Barre syndrome, 2 malaises and 1 convulsive episode). Most VAE were non-serious (97.1%). Among these, 6 cases of local, rapidly regressive paresthesia were observed. DISCUSSION: The military VAE surveillance system constitutes the only observatory on benign VAE in France. The reporting rate was much higher after the pandemic vaccine than after the seasonal vaccine, which may be a reflection of stimulated reporting. This report provides a useful description of VAE among military personnel during a mass emergency vaccination program, showing that the tolerance of the pandemic vaccine appeared acceptable.