Interim 2017/18 influenza seasonal vaccine effectiveness: Combined results from five European studies

Between September 2017 and February 2018, influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, A(H3N2) and B viruses (mainly B/Yamagata, not included in 2017/18 trivalent vaccines) co-circulated in Europe. Interim results from five European studies indicate that, in all age groups, 2017/18 influenza vaccine effectiveness was 25 to 52% against any influenza, 55 to 68% against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, -42 to 7% against influenza A(H3N2) and 36 to 54% against influenza B. 2017/18 influenza vaccine should be promoted where influenza still circulates

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

Current challenges and implications for dengue, chikungunya and Zika seroprevalence studies worldwide: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND:Arboviral infections are a public health concern and an escalating problem worldwide. Estimating the burden of these diseases represents a major challenge that is complicated by the large number of unapparent infections, especially those of dengue fever. Serological surveys are thus required to identify the distribution of these diseases and measure their impact. Therefore, we undertook a scoping review of the literature to describe and summarize epidemiological practices, findings and insights related to seroprevalence studies of dengue, chikungunya and Zika virus, which have rapidly expanded across the globe in recent years. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS:Relevant studies were retrieved through a literature search of MEDLINE, WHOLIS, Lilacs, SciELO and Scopus (2000 to 2018). In total, 1389 publications were identified. Studies addressing the seroprevalence of dengue, chikungunya and/or Zika written in English or French and meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria were included. In total, 147 studies were included, from which 185 data points were retrieved, as some studies used several different samples. Most of the studies were exclusively conducted on dengue (66.5%), but 16% were exclusively conducted on chikungunya, and 7 were exclusively conducted on Zika; the remainder were conducted on multiple arboviruses. A wide range of designs were applied, but most studies were conducted in the general population (39%) and in households (41%). Although several assays were used, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) were the predominant test used (77%). The temporal distribution of chikungunya studies followed the virus during its rapid expansion since 2004. The results revealed heterogeneity of arboviruses seroprevalence between continents and within a given country for dengue, chikungunya and Zika viruses, ranging from 0 to 100%, 76% and 73% respectively. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE:Serological surveys provide the most direct measurement for defining the immunity landscape for infectious diseases, but the methodology remains difficult to implement. Overall, dengue, chikungunya and Zika serosurveys followed the expansion of these arboviruses, but there remain gaps in their geographic distribution. This review addresses the challenges for researchers regarding study design biases. Moreover, the development of reliable, rapid and affordable diagnosis tools represents a significant issue concerning the ability of seroprevalence surveys to differentiate infections when multiple viruses co-circulate