RESUMO
Under International Health Regulations from 2005, a human infection caused by a novel influenza A virus variant is considered an event that has potential for high public health impact and is immediately notifiable to the World Health Organisation. We here describe the clinical, epidemiological and virological features of a confirmed human case of swine influenza A(H1N2)v in England detected through community respiratory virus surveillance. Swabbing and contact tracing helped refine public health risk assessment, following this unusual and unexpected finding.
Assuntos
Vírus da Influenza A Subtipo H1N1 , Influenza Humana , Infecções por Orthomyxoviridae , Doenças dos Suínos , Animais , Humanos , Suínos , Vírus da Influenza A Subtipo H1N2 , Vírus da Influenza A Subtipo H1N1/genética , Doenças dos Suínos/diagnóstico , Doenças dos Suínos/epidemiologia , Influenza Humana/diagnóstico , Influenza Humana/epidemiologia , Inglaterra/epidemiologiaRESUMO
Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM) has been identified as an Adverse Event of Special Interest in the COVID-19 vaccine programme due to its long-standing temporal association with a wide range of other vaccines. Case reports of ADEM shortly following COVID-19 vaccination have now been documented. There were 217 ADEM admissions in 215 individuals in the period 8th December 2020 to 31st March 2023. An increased risk of ADEM following the first dose of ChAdOx1 vaccine was observed (relative incidence (RI) = 3.13, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) [1.56-6.25]) with a vaccine attributable risk of 0.39 per million doses. When doses 1 and 2 were combined this increased risk remained just significant (1.96 [95%CI 1.01-3.82]). No significant increased risk was observed with any other vaccine or dose. This small, elevated risk after the first dose of ChAdOx1-S vaccine demonstrates how large national electronic datasets can be used to identify very rare risks and provides reassurance that any risk of ADEM following the ChAdOx1-S COVID-19 vaccination is extremely small. Given the rarity of this risk, further studies in settings with access to data on large populations should be carried out to verify these findings.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Encefalomielite Aguda Disseminada , Vacinas , Humanos , Encefalomielite Aguda Disseminada/induzido quimicamente , Encefalomielite Aguda Disseminada/epidemiologia , Vacinas contra COVID-19/efeitos adversos , COVID-19/epidemiologia , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , COVID-19/complicações , Vacinas/efeitos adversos , Vacinação/efeitos adversos , ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 , Inglaterra/epidemiologiaRESUMO
Background: The Sanofi/GSK AS03-adjuvanted (VidPrevtyn Beta) vaccine and the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA (Comirnaty Original/Omicron BA.4-5) bivalent vaccine were offered to adults aged 75 years and over in England from 3rd April 2023. This is the first time an adjuvanted COVID-19 vaccine has been administered as part of a UK COVID-19 vaccination programme. In clinical trials, antibody levels generated were comparable with mRNA vaccines but there are no real-world data on the effectiveness or duration of protection. Methods: We used a test-negative case-control study design to estimate the incremental vaccine effectiveness of the Sanofi/GSK and Pfizer bivalent BA.4-5 boosters against hospitalisation amongst those aged 75 years and older in England. Cases (those testing positive) and controls (those testing negative) were identified from the national COVID-19 PCR testing data undertaken in hospital settings. The study period included tests from 3rd April 2023 to 27th August 2023. Tests were linked to the COVID-19 vaccination register and to the national hospital admission database, restricting to those with an acute respiratory infection coded in the primary diagnosis field. Vaccine effectiveness was estimated using multivariable logistic regression amongst those who had last received an autumn 2022 booster given at least 3 months prior. The test result was the outcome and vaccination status the exposure. Analyses were adjusted for week of test, gender, age, clinical risk group status, care home resident status, region, index of multiple deprivation, ethnicity, influenza vaccination status and recent COVID-19 positivity. Findings: There were 14,169 eligible tests from hospitalised individuals aged 75 years and older; 3005 cases (positive tests) and 11,164 controls (negative tests). Effectiveness was highest in the period 9-13 days post vaccination for both manufacturers at about 50%; 43.7% (95% CI, 20.1-60.3%) and 56.1% (95% CI, 25.2-74.2%) for Sanofi/GSK and Pfizer BA.4-5, respectively. There was evidence of waning with a reduction to about 30% for both manufacturers after 5-9 weeks. The longest time interval post vaccination for which we were able to estimate effectiveness was 10+ weeks post vaccination, at which point vaccine effectiveness was 17.6% (95% CI, -3.6 to 34.5%) and 37.9% (95% CI, 13.2-55.5%) for the Sanofi/GSK and Pfizer BA.4-5 boosters, respectively. Interpretation: Both boosters provided good protection against hospitalisation amongst older adults. The finding that the adjuvanted vaccine targeting the distant Beta strain had similar effectiveness to the bivalent mRNA vaccine targeting more closely matched Omicron sub-lineages is notable and highlights the need for further real-world studies into the effectiveness of vaccines from different vaccine platforms and formulations in the presence of matched and unmatched strains. Funding: No external funding.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: The last COVID-19 vaccine offered to all adults in England became available from November 2021. The most recent booster programme commenced in September 2023. Bivalent BA.4-5 or monovalent XBB.1.5 boosters were given. During the study period, the JN.1 variant became dominant in England. METHODS: Vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation was estimated throughout using the test-negative case-control study design where positive PCR tests from hospitalised individuals are cases and comparable negative PCR tests are controls. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation with the test result as the outcome, vaccination status as the primary exposure variable of interest and confounder adjustment. RESULTS: There was no evidence of residual protection for boosters given as part of previous campaigns. There were 28,916 eligible tests included to estimate the effectiveness of the autumn 2023 boosters in those aged 65 years and older. VE peaked at 50.6% (95% CI: 44.2-56.3%) after 2-4 weeks, followed by waning to 13.6% (95% CI: -11.7 to 33.2%). Estimates were generally higher for the XBB.1.5 booster than the BA.4-5 booster, but this difference was not statistically significant. Point estimates were highest against XBB sub-lineages. Effectiveness was lower against both JN.1 and EG.5.1 variants with confidence intervals non-overlapping with the effectiveness of the XBB sub-lineages at 2-4 weeks for EG.5.1 where VE was 44.5% (95% CI: 20.2-61.4%) and at 5-9 weeks for JN.1 where VE was 26.4% (95%CI: -3.4 to 47.6%). CONCLUSIONS: The recent monovalent XBB.1.5 and bivalent BA.4-5 boosters provided comparable and good protection against hospitalisation, however there was evidence of lower VE against hospitalisation of these boosters against JN.1.
Assuntos
Vacinas contra COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Hospitalização , Imunização Secundária , SARS-CoV-2 , Eficácia de Vacinas , Humanos , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , COVID-19/epidemiologia , Inglaterra/epidemiologia , Hospitalização/estatística & dados numéricos , Estudos de Casos e Controles , Idoso , Masculino , SARS-CoV-2/imunologia , SARS-CoV-2/genética , Feminino , Vacinas contra COVID-19/administração & dosagem , Vacinas contra COVID-19/imunologia , Vacinação/estatística & dados numéricos , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , AdultoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: In the spring of 2022 and 2023 COVID-19 vaccine boosters were recommended for those aged ≥75 years in England as well as those in an immunosuppression risk group. The aim was to reduce severe COVID-19 disease in these groups. METHODS: The large difference in coverage between those above and below age 75 years was the basis for applying an age-discontinuity approach for measuring the impact of vaccination on COVID-19 hospitalisations in both spring 2022 and 2023. Hospitalisations in individuals positive by PCR for COVID-19 were obtained from the national secondary user service hospital dataset. The ratio of hospital counts by each year of age in 8-week periods after compared to before the roll out was modelled using negative binomial regression to estimate the discontinuity at age 75 years. RESULTS: A clear discontinuity was seen at age 75 years of 17.0% (95% CI: 6.1%-26.6%) in 2022 and 18.0% (3.3%-30.4%) in 2023. If applied to those aged ≥75 years this translates to 1302 and 418 averted hospitalisations in the 8-week period in 2022 and 2023, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows a clear impact of vaccination on preventing COVID-19 hospitalisations and compliments other epidemiological methods assessing the impact of COVID-19 vaccines. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: One way to see if the booster vaccines doses given to protect against COVID-19 disease are working is to compare hospital admissions in groups of people who were and were not eligible for the dose. In England the spring booster doses were recommended for those aged 75 years and above. We could therefore compare hospitalisations in those above this age to those just below (aged 65-74) and see if there is a step change in rates from age 74 to 75 in the time after the vaccine was given. The results showed hospitalisations were about 18% lower in the group that were eligible, which is evidence that the vaccine is protecting against severe COVID-19.
Assuntos
Vacinas contra COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Hospitalização , Imunização Secundária , SARS-CoV-2 , Humanos , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , COVID-19/epidemiologia , Idoso , Inglaterra/epidemiologia , Vacinas contra COVID-19/administração & dosagem , Hospitalização/estatística & dados numéricos , SARS-CoV-2/imunologia , Masculino , Imunização Secundária/estatística & dados numéricos , Feminino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Vacinação/estatística & dados numéricosRESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Risk of death after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has fallen during the pandemic, largely due to immunity from vaccination. In England, the timing and extent of this reduction varied due to staggered eligibility during the primary vaccination campaign, based on age and clinical risk group. Duration of protection is less well understood. Our objective was to estimate the case fatality risk (CFR) by vaccination status and time since last dose during a period of widespread community testing, to better understand the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination and duration of protection. DESIGN: SARS-CoV-2 cases diagnosed between May 2020 and February 2022 were linked to vaccine records from the National Immunisation Management System. CFR was calculated as the proportion of cases that died of COVID-19 per the death certificate, aggregated by week of specimen and stratified by 10-year age band and vaccination status. SETTING: England, UK. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 10,616,148 SARS-CoV-2 cases, aged ≥18 years, recorded by England's laboratory reporting system. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Case fatality risk of COVID-19, stratified by age band and vaccination status. RESULTS: Overall, a reduction in CFR was observed for all age bands, with a clear temporal link to when the age group became eligible for primary vaccination and then the first booster. CFR increased with age (0.3% 50-59 years; 1.2% 60-69; 4.7% 70-79; 16.3% 80+) and was highest in the unvaccinated - albeit a reduction was observed over time. The highest CFR was seen in the unvaccinated 80+ group prior to vaccination rollout (30.6%). CFR was consistently lowest in vaccinated populations within 6 months of last dose, yet increased after over 6 months elapsed since last dose, across all age bands. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 CFR reduced after vaccination, with the lowest CFR seen across all age bands when vaccinated up to 6 months prior to specimen date. This provides some evidence for continued booster doses in older age groups.
Assuntos
Vacinas contra COVID-19 , COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humanos , COVID-19/mortalidade , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , COVID-19/epidemiologia , Inglaterra/epidemiologia , Adulto , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Vacinas contra COVID-19/administração & dosagem , Idoso , Masculino , Adulto Jovem , Adolescente , Feminino , Vacinação/estatística & dados numéricos , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Fatores de TempoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: We report 2023/2024 season interim influenza vaccine effectiveness for three studies, namely, primary care in Great Britain, hospital settings in Scotland and hospital settings in England. METHODS: A test negative design was used to estimate vaccine effectiveness. RESULTS: Estimated vaccine effectiveness against all influenzas ranged from 63% (95% confidence interval 46 to 75%) to 65% (41 to 79%) among children aged 2-17, from 36% (20 to 49%) to 55% (43 to 65%) among adults 18-64 and from 40% (29 to 50%) to 55% (32 to 70%) among adults aged 65 and over. CONCLUSIONS: During a period of co-circulation of influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 and A(H3N2) in the United Kingdom, evidence for effectiveness of the influenza vaccine in both children and adults was found.
Assuntos
Vírus da Influenza A Subtipo H1N1 , Vírus da Influenza A Subtipo H3N2 , Vacinas contra Influenza , Influenza Humana , Atenção Primária à Saúde , Atenção Secundária à Saúde , Humanos , Vacinas contra Influenza/imunologia , Vacinas contra Influenza/administração & dosagem , Influenza Humana/prevenção & controle , Influenza Humana/epidemiologia , Adolescente , Adulto , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Adulto Jovem , Reino Unido , Idoso , Vírus da Influenza A Subtipo H3N2/imunologia , Vírus da Influenza A Subtipo H3N2/genética , Masculino , Feminino , Vírus da Influenza A Subtipo H1N1/imunologia , Estações do Ano , Eficácia de Vacinas , Vacinação/estatística & dados numéricosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Prepandemic sentinel surveillance focused on improved management of winter pressures, with influenza-like illness (ILI) being the key clinical indicator. The World Health Organization (WHO) global standards for influenza surveillance include monitoring acute respiratory infection (ARI) and ILI. The WHO's mosaic framework recommends that the surveillance strategies of countries include the virological monitoring of respiratory viruses with pandemic potential such as influenza. The Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioner Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) in collaboration with the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) has provided sentinel surveillance since 1967, including virology since 1993. OBJECTIVE: We aim to describe the RSC's plans for sentinel surveillance in the 2023-2024 season and evaluate these plans against the WHO mosaic framework. METHODS: Our approach, which includes patient and public involvement, contributes to surveillance objectives across all 3 domains of the mosaic framework. We will generate an ARI phenotype to enable reporting of this indicator in addition to ILI. These data will support UKHSA's sentinel surveillance, including vaccine effectiveness and burden of disease studies. The panel of virology tests analyzed in UKHSA's reference laboratory will remain unchanged, with additional plans for point-of-care testing, pneumococcus testing, and asymptomatic screening. Our sampling framework for serological surveillance will provide greater representativeness and more samples from younger people. We will create a biomedical resource that enables linkage between clinical data held in the RSC and virology data, including sequencing data, held by the UKHSA. We describe the governance framework for the RSC. RESULTS: We are co-designing our communication about data sharing and sampling, contextualized by the mosaic framework, with national and general practice patient and public involvement groups. We present our ARI digital phenotype and the key data RSC network members are requested to include in computerized medical records. We will share data with the UKHSA to report vaccine effectiveness for COVID-19 and influenza, assess the disease burden of respiratory syncytial virus, and perform syndromic surveillance. Virological surveillance will include COVID-19, influenza, respiratory syncytial virus, and other common respiratory viruses. We plan to pilot point-of-care testing for group A streptococcus, urine tests for pneumococcus, and asymptomatic testing. We will integrate test requests and results with the laboratory-computerized medical record system. A biomedical resource will enable research linking clinical data to virology data. The legal basis for the RSC's pseudonymized data extract is The Health Service (Control of Patient Information) Regulations 2002, and all nonsurveillance uses require research ethics approval. CONCLUSIONS: The RSC extended its surveillance activities to meet more but not all of the mosaic framework's objectives. We have introduced an ARI indicator. We seek to expand our surveillance scope and could do more around transmissibility and the benefits and risks of nonvaccine therapies.