Immunisation registers in Italy: a patchwork of computerisation

n/

Vaccino antinfluenzale stagionale in Italia: misurare l’efficacia sul campo e la sicurezza : Stagione 2015-2016

In Italia, nella stagione influenzale 2015-2016 sono stati condotti dall\u2019Istituto Superiore di Sanit\ue0 (ISS), con il supporto dell\u2019Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA), due studi al fine di stimare l\u2019efficacia sul campo (I-MOVE, Influenza - Monitoring Vaccine Effectiveness) e valutare la sicurezza (SVEVA, Studio sulla Valutazione degli Eventi dopo Vaccinazione Antinfluenzale) del vaccino antinfluenzale. Nel complesso hanno aderito 8 Regioni che corrispondono a oltre met\ue0 della popolazione italiana nel 2015 (non tutte le Regioni hanno aderito a entrambi gli obiettivi di studio). Nello studio I-MOVE sono stati reclutati 1.094 casi di ILI (Influenza-Like Illness), dai 64 medici di medicina generale e pediatri di libera scelta partecipanti (506 casi e 498 controlli). I risultati suggeriscono che il vaccino ha conferito una protezione moderata nei confronti del tipo virale A(H1N1)pdm09 e molto bassa per A(H3N2) e B a causa del sostanziale grado di mismatch antigenico osservato, rispetto al ceppo vaccinale. Nello studio SVEVA sono stati monitorati 3.213 soggetti vaccinati e rilevati 854 (26%) eventi dopo 7 giorni dalla vaccinazione, la maggior parte dei quali di lieve entit\ue0. Al fine di ottenere stime di efficacia pi\uf9 solide e descrivere eventi avversi rari, \ue8 necessario tuttavia raggiungere una numerosit\ue0 campionaria maggiore.In Italy, during the 2015/2016 flu season, the National Institute of Health (ISS), with the support of the Italian Drug Agency (AIFA), conducted two studies to estimate vaccine effectiveness (I-MOVE) and evaluate safety (SVEVA) of the flu vaccine. A total of 8 regions, among 21, participated to the study which can correspond to more than 50% of the Italian population in 2015 (not all regions participated to both objectives of the study). For the I-MOVE study, 1094 cases of ILI (506 cases and 498 controls) were recruited by 64 general practitioners and pediatricians. The results indicate that the vaccine gave moderate protection against the virus type A (H1N1) pdm09 and very low protection for A (H3N2) and B due to the antigenic mismatch that was observed, compared to the vaccine strain. For SVEVA study, 3213 vaccinated cases were monitored and 854 (26%) side effects were notified after 7 days of vaccination, the major part were mild. In order to obtain more solid data regarding vaccine effectiveness, and to describe rare adverse events, it is necessary to increase the sample size of both studies

Enhancing Preparedness for Arbovirus Infections with a One Health Approach: The Development and Implementation of Multisectoral Risk Assessment Exercises

10 Pág.One Health is receiving attention for arbovirus infection prevention and control and for defining national "intersectoral" priorities. Increasing awareness of intersectoral priorities through multisectorial risk assessments (MRA) is promising, where data are not systematically shared between sectors. Towards this aim, the MediLabSecure project organized three MRA exercises (hereby called exercises): one on West Nile virus, one on Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever, and one on Rift Valley fever, assessing the added value of this approach.The authors acknowledge the active participation of the members of MediLabSecure network to the MRA exercises. The MediLabSecure project was supported by the European Commission (DEVCO: IFS/21010/23/_194 & IFS/2018/402-247). The funding body was not involved in the design of the study, in collection, analysis, and interpretation of data, and in writing the manuscript.Peer reviewe

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

Pneumococcal conjugate, meningococcal C and varicella vaccination in Italy

n/

Cross-reactive antibody responses to the 2009 A/H1N1v influenza virus in the Italian population in the pre-pandemic period.

To assess in Italy the pre-pandemic susceptibility of the general population to the 2009 A/H1N1v influenza virus, 587 serum samples collected in 2004 were analyzed using haemagglutination-inhibition (HI), single-radial-haemolysis (SRH) and microneutralisation (MN) assays. Serum samples were stratified by age group, gender, and geographic area. Overall, using HI assay, the proportion of subjects showing antibodies cross-reacting with 2009 A/H1N1v virus at seroprotection level (>or=1:40) was estimated to be 6.7%, 12.4%, and 22.4% in individuals born between 2004 and 1949, 1948 and 1939, 1938 and 1909, respectively. With a HI antibody titre of >or=1:10, in the same birth cohort, the seroprotection levels were 13.5%, 19.2%, and 58.2%, respectively. The results suggest that the Italian population was not fully naïf to the current pandemic virus and that the possible previous exposure and immune response increases with age