national seasonal influenza vaccination survey in europe 2008

A cross-sectional survey was undertaken with the European Union (EU) Member States and Norway and Iceland to describe seasonal influenza immunisation in the 2006-7 season, in particular to identify country-specific recommendations for risk groups, obtain vaccine uptake information and allow comparison with global recommendations. A standardised questionnaire was completed electronically by each country's project gatekeeper. Of the 29 countries surveyed, 28 recommended seasonal influenza vaccination for older age groups (22 for those aged > 65 years), and in one country vaccine was recommended for all age groups. All countries recommended vaccinating patients with chronic pulmonary and cardiovascular diseases and most countries advised to immunise patients with haematologic or metabolic disorders (n=28), immunologic disorders (n=27) and renal disease (n=27), as well as residents of long-term care facilities (n=24). Most countries recommended vaccination for staff in hospitals (n=25), long-term care facilities (n=25) and outpatient clinics (n=23), and one-third had such recommendations for workers in essential (n=10), military (n=10) and veterinary services (n=10) and poultry industry (n=13). Eight countries recommended vaccine for pregnant women; and five advised to vaccinate children (with age limits ranging from 6 months to 5 years). Twenty countries measured influenza vaccine uptake among those aged > 65 years (range 1.8%-82.1%), seven reported uptake in healthcare workers (range 14%-48%) and seven assessed coverage in persons with underlying medical conditions (range 27.6%-75.2%). The data provided by this study can assist EU states to assess and compare their influenza vaccination programme performance with other countries. The information provides a comprehensive overview of policies and programmes and their outcomes and can be used to inform joint discussions on how the national policies in the EU might be standardised in the future to achieve optimal coverage. Annual surveys could be used to monitor changes in these national policies

Influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccination policies and coverage in Europe

In August 2010 the Vaccine European New Integrated Collaboration Effort (VENICE) project conducted a survey to collect information on influenza A(H1N1) pdm09 vaccination policies and vaccination coverage in the European Union (EU), Norway and Iceland. Of 29 responding countries, 26 organised national pandemic influenza vaccination and one country had recommendations for vaccination but did not have a specific programme. Of the 27 countries with vaccine recommendations, all recommended it for healthcare workers and pregnant women. Twelve countries recommended vaccine for all ages. Six and three countries had recommendations for specific age groups in children and in adults, countries for specific adult age groups. Most countries recommended vaccine for those in new risk groups identified early in the pandemic such as morbid obese and people with neurologic diseases. Two thirds of countries started their vaccination campaigns within a four week period after week 40/2009. The reported vaccination coverage varied between countries from 0.4% to 59% for the entire population (22 countries); 3% to 68% for healthcare workers (13 countries); 0% to 58% for pregnant women (12 countries); 0.2% to 74% for children (12 countries). Most countries identified similar target groups for pandemic vaccine, but substantial variability in vaccination coverage was seen. The recommendations were in accordance with policy advice from the EU Health Security Committee and the World Health Organization

An analysis of national target groups for monovalent 2009 pandemic influenza vaccine and trivalent seasonal influenza vaccines in 2009-10 and 2010-11

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Vaccination is generally considered to be the best primary prevention measure against influenza virus infection. Many countries encourage specific target groups of people to undertake vaccination, often with financial subsidies or a priority list. To understand differential patterns of national target groups for influenza vaccination before, during and after the 2009 influenza pandemic, we reviewed and analyzed the country-specific policies in the corresponding time periods.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Information on prioritized groups targeted to receive seasonal and pandemic influenza vaccines was derived from a multi-step internet search of official health department websites, press releases, media sources and academic journal articles. We assessed the frequency and consistency of targeting 20 different groups within populations which are associated with age, underlying medical conditions, role or occupations among different countries and vaccines. Information on subsidies provided to specific target groups was also extracted.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We analyzed target groups for 33 (seasonal 2009 and 2009-10 vaccines), 72 (monovalent pandemic 2009-10 vaccine) and 34 (seasonal 2010 and 2010-11 vaccines) countries. In 2009-10, the elderly, those with chronic illness and health care workers were common targets for the seasonal vaccine. Comparatively, the elderly, care home residents and workers, animal contacts and close contacts were less frequently targeted to receive the pandemic vaccine. Pregnant women, obese persons, essential community workers and health care workers, however, were more commonly targeted. After the pandemic, pregnant women, obese persons, health care and care home workers, and close contacts were more commonly targeted to receive the seasonal vaccine compared to 2009-10, showing continued influence from the pandemic. Many of the countries provided free vaccines, partial subsidies, reimbursements or national health insurance coverage to specific target groups and over one-third of the countries offered universal subsidy regarding the pandemic vaccine. There was also some inconsistency between countries in target groups.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Differences in target groups between countries may reflect variable objectives as well as uncertainties regarding the transmission dynamics, severity and age-specific immunity against influenza viruses before and after vaccination. Clarification on these points is essential to elucidate optimal and object-oriented vaccination strategies.</p

Effectiveness of the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine against Invasive Pneumococcal Disease incidence in European adults aged 65 years and above : results of SpIDnet/I-MOVE+ multicentre study (2012-2016)

Background and Aims: We measured the effectiveness of 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharidic vaccine(PPV23) against invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) in 65+ year-olds, pooling surveillance data from seven European sites. PPV23 vaccination is recommended in all sites (8-69% uptake) and PCV13 in high risk groups in two sites (<5%uptake). Methods: We compared the vaccination status of IPD cases caused byPPV23 serotypes (cases) to that of nonPPV23 IPD (controls) notified between2012 and 2016. We defined PPV23 vaccination as at least one dose. PPV23 pooled effectiveness was calculated as (1 –odds ratio of vaccination)*100, adjusted for site, age, sex, underlying conditions and year. We stratified PPV23effectiveness by time since last dose of vaccine: <2, 2-4, 5-9 and 10+years. Results: We included 2011 cases and 878 controls. Compared to controls,cases were younger (p=0.001), less likely to have an underlying condition(p=0.025), more likely to be admitted for intensive care (p=0.038) and to have pneumonia (p=0.005). PPV23 effectiveness was 24% (95%CI: 4; 41) against PPV23-serotypes.By serotype, PPV23 effectiveness ranged between -2% (95%CI: -48; 30) against serotype 3 (n=687) and 55% (95%CI: 15; 76) against serotype 9N IPD (n=540). By years since vaccination, PPV23 effectiveness was 43% (95%CI: 3-66) and 15%(95%CI: -25; 43) for <2 years and 10+ years, respectively. Conclusion: Our findings suggest a low PPV23 effectiveness against IPD caused by PPV23serotypes in the elderly, varying by serotype, and higher in the first two years after vaccination. Despite low effectiveness, PPV23 in the elderly may prevent at least 25% of cases among vaccinated

The current state of introduction of human papillomavirus vaccination into national immunisation schedules in Europe: first results of the VENICE2 2010 survey.

The Venice 2 human papillomavirus vaccination survey evaluates the state of introduction of the HPV vaccination into the national immunisation schedules in the 29 participating countries. As of July 2010, 18 countries have integrated this vaccination. The vaccination policy and achievements vary among those countries regarding target age groups, delivery infrastructures and vaccination coverage reached. Financial constraints remain the major obstacle for the 11 countries who have not yet introduced the vaccination

Changes in Invasive Pneumococcal Disease Caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae Serotype 1 Following Introduction of PCV10 and PCV13: Findings from the PSERENADE Project.

Streptococcus pneumoniae serotype 1 (ST1) was an important cause of invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) globally before the introduction of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs) containing ST1 antigen. The Pneumococcal Serotype Replacement and Distribution Estimation (PSERENADE) project gathered ST1 IPD surveillance data from sites globally and aimed to estimate PCV10/13 impact on ST1 IPD incidence. We estimated ST1 IPD incidence rate ratios (IRRs) comparing the pre-PCV10/13 period to each post-PCV10/13 year by site using a Bayesian multi-level, mixed-effects Poisson regression and all-site IRRs using a linear mixed-effects regression (N = 45 sites). Following PCV10/13 introduction, the incidence rate (IR) of ST1 IPD declined among all ages. After six years of PCV10/13 use, the all-site IRR was 0.05 (95% credibility interval 0.04–0.06) for all ages, 0.05 (0.04–0.05) for <5 years of age, 0.08 (0.06–0.09) for 5–17 years, 0.06 (0.05–0.08) for 18–49 years, 0.06 (0.05–0.07) for 50–64 years, and 0.05 (0.04–0.06) for ≥65 years. PCV10/13 use in infant immunization programs was followed by a 95% reduction in ST1 IPD in all ages after approximately 6 years. Limited data availability from the highest ST1 disease burden countries using a 3+0 schedule constrains generalizability and data from these settings are needed

Effectiveness of influenza vaccine against laboratory-confirmed influenza, in the late 2011-2012 season in Spain, among population targeted for vaccination

Background: In Spain, the influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) was estimated in the last three seasons using the observational study cycEVA conducted in the frame of the existing Spanish Influenza Sentinel Surveillance System. The objective of the study was to estimate influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) against medically attended, laboratory-confirmed influenza-like illness (ILI) among the target groups for vaccination in Spain in the 2011-2012 season. We also studied influenza VE in the early (weeks 52/2011-7/2012) and late (weeks 8-14/2012) phases of the epidemic and according to time since vaccination. Methods: Medically attended patients with ILI were systematically swabbed to collect information on exposure, laboratory outcome and confounding factors. Patients belonging to target groups for vaccination and who were swabbed 4 months, respectively, since vaccination. A decrease in VE with time since vaccination was only observed in individuals aged ≥ 65 years. Regarding the phase of the season, decreasing point estimates were only observed in the early phase, whereas very low or null estimates were obtained in the late phase for the shortest time interval. Conclusions: The 2011-2012 influenza vaccine showed a low-to-moderate protective effect against medically attended, laboratory-confirmed influenza in the target groups for vaccination, in a late season and with a limited match between the vaccine and circulating strains. The suggested decrease in influenza VE with time since vaccination was mostly observed in the elderly population. The decreasing protective effect of the vaccine in the late part of the season could be related to waning vaccine protection because no viral changes were identified throughout the season

Serotype distribution of remaining pneumococcal meningitis in the mature PCV10/13 period: Findings from the PSERENADE Project

Pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) introduction has reduced pneumococcal meningitis incidence. The Pneumococcal Serotype Replacement and Distribution Estimation (PSERENADE) project described the serotype distribution of remaining pneumococcal meningitis in countries using PCV10/13 for least 5-7 years with primary series uptake above 70%. The distribution was estimated using a multinomial Dirichlet regression model, stratified by PCV product and age. In PCV10-using sites (N = 8; cases = 1141), PCV10 types caused 5% of cases <5 years of age and 15% among ≥5 years; the top serotypes were 19A, 6C, and 3, together causing 42% of cases <5 years and 37% ≥5 years. In PCV13-using sites (N = 32; cases = 4503), PCV13 types caused 14% in <5 and 26% in ≥5 years; 4% and 13%, respectively, were serotype 3. Among the top serotypes are five (15BC, 8, 12F, 10A, and 22F) included in higher-valency PCVs under evaluation. Other top serotypes (24F, 23B, and 23A) are not in any known investigational product. In countries with mature vaccination programs, the proportion of pneumococcal meningitis caused by vaccine-in-use serotypes is lower (≤26% across all ages) than pre-PCV (≥70% in children). Higher-valency PCVs under evaluation target over half of remaining pneumococcal meningitis cases, but questions remain regarding generalizability to the African meningitis belt where additional data are needed

Central European Vaccination Advisory Group (CEVAG) guidance statement on recommendations for influenza vaccination in children

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Influenza vaccination in infants and children with existing health complications is current practice in many countries, but healthy children are also susceptible to influenza, sometimes with complications. The under-recognised burden of disease in young children is greater than in elderly populations and the number of paediatric influenza cases reported does not reflect the actual frequency of influenza.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Vaccination of healthy children is not widespread in Europe despite clear demonstration of the benefits of vaccination in reducing the large health and economic burden of influenza. Universal vaccination of infants and children also provides indirect protection in other high-risk groups in the community. This paper contains the Central European Vaccination Advisory Group (CEVAG) guidance statement on recommendations for the vaccination of infants and children against influenza. The aim of CEVAG is to encourage the efficient and safe use of vaccines to prevent and control infectious diseases.</p> <p>Summary</p> <p>CEVAG recommends the introduction of universal influenza vaccination for all children from the age of 6 months. Special attention is needed for children up to 60 months of age as they are at greatest risk. Individual countries should decide on how best to implement this recommendation based on their circumstances.</p