Immunisation of migrants in EU/EEA countries: Policies and practices

In recent years various EU/EEA countries have experienced an influx of migrants from low and middle-income countries. In 2018, the “Vaccine European New Integrated Collaboration Effort (VENICE)” survey group conducted a survey among 30 EU/EEA countries to investigate immunisation policies and practices targeting irregular migrants, refugees and asylum seekers (later called “migrants” in this report). Twenty-nine countries participated in the survey. Twenty-eight countries reported having national policies targeting children/adolescent and adult migrants, however vaccinations offered to adult migrants are limited to specific conditions in seven countries. All the vaccinations included in the National Immunisation Programme (NIP) are offered to children/adolescents in 27/28 countries and to adults in 13/28 countries. In the 15 countries offering only certain vaccinations to adults, priority is given to diphtheria-tetanus, measles-mumps-rubella and polio vaccinations. Information about the vaccines given to child/adolescent migrants is recorded in 22 countries and to adult migrants in 19 countries with a large variation in recording methods found across countries. Individual and aggregated data are reportedly not shared with other centres/institutions in 13 and 15 countries, respectively. Twenty countries reported not collecting data on vaccination uptake among migrants; only three countries have these data at the national level. Procedures to guarantee migrants’ access to vaccinations at the community level are available in 13 countries. In conclusion, although diversified, strategies for migrant vaccination are in place in all countries except for one, and the strategies are generally in line with international recommendations. Efforts are needed to strengthen partnerships and implement initiatives across countries of origin, transit and destination to develop and better share documentation in order to guarantee a completion of vaccination series and to avoid unnecessary re-vaccination. Development of migrant-friendly strategies to facilitate migrants' access to vaccination and collection of vaccination uptake data among migrants is needed to meet existing gaps

2015/16 seasonal vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation with influenza a(H1N1)pdm09 and B among elderly people in Europe: Results from the I-MOVE+ project

We conducted a multicentre test-negative caseâ\u80\u93control study in 27 hospitals of 11 European countries to measure 2015/16 influenza vaccine effectiveness (IVE) against hospitalised influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 and B among people aged â\u89¥ 65 years. Patients swabbed within 7 days after onset of symptoms compatible with severe acute respiratory infection were included. Information on demographics, vaccination and underlying conditions was collected. Using logistic regression, we measured IVE adjusted for potential confounders. We included 355 influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 cases, 110 influenza B cases, and 1,274 controls. Adjusted IVE against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 was 42% (95% confidence interval (CI): 22 to 57). It was 59% (95% CI: 23 to 78), 48% (95% CI: 5 to 71), 43% (95% CI: 8 to 65) and 39% (95% CI: 7 to 60) in patients with diabetes mellitus, cancer, lung and heart disease, respectively. Adjusted IVE against influenza B was 52% (95% CI: 24 to 70). It was 62% (95% CI: 5 to 85), 60% (95% CI: 18 to 80) and 36% (95% CI: -23 to 67) in patients with diabetes mellitus, lung and heart disease, respectively. 2015/16 IVE estimates against hospitalised influenza in elderly people was moderate against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 and B, including among those with diabetes mellitus, cancer, lung or heart diseases

Low 2018/19 vaccine effectiveness against influenza A(H3N2) among 15–64-year-olds in Europe: exploration by birth cohortexploration.

Introduction Influenza A(H3N2) clades 3C.2a and 3C.3a co-circulated in Europe in 2018/19. Immunological imprinting by first childhood influenza infection may induce future birth cohort differences in vaccine effectiveness (VE). Aim The I-MOVE multicentre primary care test-negative study assessed 2018/19 influenza A(H3N2) VE by age and genetic subgroups to explore VE by birth cohort. Methods We measured VE against influenza A(H3N2) and (sub)clades. We stratified VE by usual age groups (0–14, 15–64, ≥ 65-years). To assess the imprint-regulated effect of vaccine (I-REV) hypothesis, we further stratified the middle-aged group, notably including 32–54-year-olds (1964–86) sharing potential childhood imprinting to serine at haemagglutinin position 159. Results Influenza A(H3N2) VE among all ages was −1% (95% confidence interval (CI): −24 to 18) and 46% (95% CI: 8–68), −26% (95% CI: −66 to 4) and 20% (95% CI: −20 to 46) among 0–14, 15–64 and ≥ 65-year-olds, respectively. Among 15–64-year-olds, VE against clades 3C.2a1b and 3C.3a was 15% (95% CI: −34 to 50) and −74% (95% CI: −259 to 16), respectively. VE was −18% (95% CI: −140 to 41), −53% (95% CI: −131 to −2) and −12% (95% CI: −74 to 28) among 15–31-year-olds (1987–2003), 32–54-yearolds (1964–86) and 55–64-year-olds (1954–63), respectively. Discussion The lowest 2018/19 influenza A(H3N2) VE was against clade 3C.3a and among those born 1964–86, corresponding to the I-REV hypothesis. The low influenza A(H3N2) VE in 15–64-year-olds and the public health impact of the I-REV hypothesis warrant further study

Effectiveness of influenza vaccine against influenza A in Europe in seasons of different A(H1N1)pdm09 and the same A(H3N2) vaccine components (2016-17 and 2017-18).

Introduction Influenza A(H3N2) viruses predominated in Europe in 2016–17. In 2017–18 A(H3N2) and A (H1N1)pdm09 viruses co-circulated. The A(H3N2) vaccine component was the same in both seasons; while the A(H1N1)pdm09 component changed in 2017–18. In both seasons, vaccine seed A(H3N2) viruses developed adaptations/alterations during propagation in eggs, impacting antigenicity. Methods We used the test-negative design in a multicentre primary care case-control study in 12 European countries to measure 2016–17 and 2017–18 influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) against laboratory-confirmed influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 and A(H3N2) overall and by age group. Results During the 2017–18 season, the overall VE against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 was 59% (95% CI: 47–69). Among those aged 0–14, 15–64 and 65 years, VE against A(H1N1)pdm09 was 64% (95% CI: 37–79), 50% (95% CI: 28–66) and 66% (95% CI: 42–80), respectively. Overall VE against influenza A (H3N2) was 28% (95% CI: 17–38) in 2016–17 and 13% (95% CI: 15 to 34) in 2017–18. Among 0–14-year-olds VE against A(H3N2) was 28% (95%CI: 10 to 53) and 29% (95% CI: 87 to 73), among 15–64-year-olds 34% (95% CI: 18–46) and 33% (95% CI: 3 to 56) and among those aged 65 years 15% (95% CI: 10 to 34) and 9% (95% CI: 74 to 32) in 2016–17 and 2017–18, respectively. Conclusions Our study suggests the new A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccine component conferred good protection against circulating strains, while VE against A(H3N2) was <35% in 2016–17 and 2017–18. The egg propagation derived antigenic mismatch of the vaccine seed virus with circulating strains may have contributed to this low effectiveness. A(H3N2) seed viruses for vaccines in subsequent seasons may be subject to the same adaptations; in years with lower than expected VE, recommendations of preventive measures other than vaccination should be given in a timely manner