Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness November 2016
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Europe’s journal on infectious disease epidemiology, prevention and control Special edition: Influenza vaccine effectiveness November 2016 Featuring • Influenza vaccine effectiveness in adults 65 years and older, Denmark, 2015/16 – a rapid epidemiological and virological assessment • Concordance of interim and final estimates of influenza vaccine effectiveness: a systematic review • Importance of timely monitoring of seasonal influenza vaccine effectiveness www.eurosurveillance.org Editorial team Editorial advisors Based at the European Centre for Albania: Alban Ylli, Tirana Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), Austria: Maria Paulke-Korinen, Vienna 171 65 Stockholm, Sweden Belgium: Koen de Schrijver; Tinne Lernout, Antwerp Telephone number Bosnia and Herzegovina: Sanjin Musa, Sarajevo +46 (0)8 58 60 11 38 Bulgaria: Iva Christova, Sofia E-mail Croatia: Sanja Music Milanovic, Zagreb [email protected] Cyprus: Maria Koliou, Nicosia Czech Republic: Jan Kynčl, Prague Editor-in-chief Denmark: Peter Henrik Andersen, Copenhagen Dr Ines Steffens Estonia: Kuulo Kutsar, Tallinn Senior editor Finland: Outi Lyytikäinen, Helsinki Kathrin Hagmaier France: Judith Benrekassa, Paris Germany: Jamela Seedat, Berlin Scientific editors Greece: Rengina Vorou, Athens Karen Wilson Hungary: Ágnes Hajdu, Budapest Williamina Wilson Iceland: Thorolfur Gudnason, Reykjavík Assistant editors Ireland: Lelia Thornton, Dublin Alina Buzdugan Italy: Paola De Castro, Rome Ingela Rumenius Latvia: Dzintars Mozgis, Riga Cecilia Silfverling Lithuania: Milda Zygutiene, Vilnius Associate editors Luxembourg: Thérèse Staub, Luxembourg Andrea Ammon, European Centre for Disease Prevention and The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: Aziz Pollozhani, Control (ECDC), Stockholm, Sweden (resting associate editor- Skopje ship during tenure as acting Director of ECDC) Malta: Tanya Melillo Fenech, Msida Tommi Asikainen, Brussels, Belgium Montenegro: Senad BegiĆ, Podgorica Magnus Boman, Stockholm, Sweden Netherlands: Danielle Nijsten, Bilthoven Mike Catchpole, Stockholm, Sweden Norway: Katrine Borgen, Oslo Denis Coulombier, Stockholm, Sweden Poland: Malgorzata Sadkowska-Todys, Warsaw Natasha Crowcroft, Toronto, Canada Portugal: Paulo Jorge Nogueira, Lisbon Christian Drosten, Bonn, Germany Romania: Daniela Pitigoi, Bucharest Karl Ekdahl, Stockholm, Sweden Serbia: Mijomir Pelemis, Belgrade Johan Giesecke, Stockholm, Sweden Slovakia: Lukáš Murajda, Bratislava David Heymann, London, United Kingdom Slovenia: Maja Sočan, Ljubljana Heath Kelly, Canberra, Australia Spain: Rosa Cano Portero, Madrid Irena Klavs, Ljubljana, Slovenia Sweden: Anders Wallensten, Stockholm Karl Kristinsson, Reykjavik, Iceland Turkey: Fehminaz Temel, Ankara Daniel Lévy-Bruhl, Paris, France United Kingdom: Nick Phin, London Jacob Moran-Gilad, Beer-Sheva, Israel World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe: Robb Panayotis T. Tassios, Athens, Greece Butler, Copenhagen Hélène Therre, Paris, France Henriette de Valk, Paris, France Sylvie van der Werf, Paris, France Design / Layout Fabrice Donguy / Dragos Platon Online submission system http://www.editorialmanager.com/eurosurveillance/ www.eurosurveillance.org © Eurosurveillance, 2016 Contents Editorials Vaccine effectiveness in preventing laboratory- confirmed influenza in primary care patients in Decreased effectiveness of the influenza A(H1N1) a season of co-circulation of influenza A(H1N1) pdm09 strain in live attenuated influenza vaccines: an pdm09, B and drifted A(H3N2), I-MOVE observational bias or a technical challenge? 2 Multicentre Case–Control Study, Europe 2014/15 77 Penttinen et al. Valenciano et al. Importance of timely monitoring of seasonal influenza vaccine effectiveness 7 Systematic Review Pebody et al. Concordance of interim and final estimates of influenza vaccine effectiveness: a systematic review 94 Rapid communication Leung et al. Influenza vaccine effectiveness in adults 65 years and Herd effect from influenza vaccination in non- older, Denmark, 2015/16 – a rapid epidemiological healthcare settings: a systematic review of randomised and virological assessment 10 controlled trials and observational studies 110 Emborg et al. Loeb et al. Effectiveness of seasonal influenza vaccine in preventing influenza primary care visits and News hospitalisation in Auckland, New Zealand in 2015: interim estimates 16 Early influenza vaccine effectiveness results 2015-16: I-MOVE multicentre case-control study 119 Turner et al. Kissling et al. Surveillance and outbreak report Effectiveness of the live attenuated and the inactivated influenza vaccine in two-year-olds – a nationwide cohort study Finland, influenza season 2015/16 21 Nohynek et al. Effectiveness of seasonal influenza vaccine for adults and children in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza in primary care in the United Kingdom: 2015/16 end-of-season results 29 Pebody et al. Interim estimates of 2015/16 vaccine effectiveness against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, Canada, February 2016 40 Skowronski et al. Research article Influenza epidemiology, vaccine coverage and vaccine effectiveness in children admitted to sentinel Australian hospitals in 2014: the Influenza Complications Alert Network (FluCAN) 48 Blyth et al. I-MOVE multicentre case–control study 2010/11 to 2014/15: Is there within-season waning of influenza type/subtype vaccine effectiveness with increasing time since vaccination? 57 Kissling et al. Effectiveness of seasonal influenza vaccine in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza in primary care in the United Kingdom: 2015/16 mid-season results 69 Pebody et al. © iStockphoto www.eurosurveillance.org 1 Editorial Decreased effectiveness of the influenza A(H1N1) pdm09 strain in live attenuated influenza vaccines: an observational bias or a technical challenge? PM Penttinen ¹ , MH Friede ² 1. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), Stockholm, Sweden 2. Initiative for Vaccine Research (IVR), World Health Organization (WHO), Geneva, Switzerland Correspondence: Pasi M Penttinen ([email protected]) Citation style for this article: Penttinen PM, Friede MH. Decreased effectiveness of the influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 strain in live attenuated influenza vaccines: an observational bias or a technical challenge?. Euro Surveill. 2016;21(38):pii=30350. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2016.21.38.30350 Article submitted on 19 September 2016 / accepted on 22 September 2016 / published on 22 September 2016 There are currently two types of approved influenza [2]. These decisions were made mainly taking into vaccines: inactivated or recombinant vaccines, and account the lack of demonstrated vaccine effective- live attenuated vaccines. The live attenuated influenza ness (VE) against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 in obser- vaccines (LAIV) constructed on a backbone of an A/ vational studies conducted. The studies by the US Leningrad virus strain into which the seasonal haemag- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and glutinin (HA) and neuraminidase (NA) selected for the the US Department of Defence, suggested a lower rela- vaccine were inserted by reassortment, were used in tive effectiveness in comparison to the inactivated the former Soviet Union for over 50 years [1]. Since the influenza vaccine (IIV) [2]. However, two VE studies early 2000s, a different attenuated virus strain based conducted in Europe and published in this issue of on the A/Ann Arbor strain, has been approved for vac- Eurosurveillance, reported moderate and reasonable, cine manufacturing in the United States (US) and more statistically significant VE in children aged two years recently in the European Union/European Economic and older [8,9]. Furthermore, data from a study funded Area (EU/EEA) [2,3]. The proposed advantages of the by the manufacturer of FluMist (US)/Fluenz (Europe) LAIV were that they had superior efficacy compared to showed similar effectiveness for LAIV in the 2015/16 inactivated vaccines in young children [4], they were season [2]. These data were also considered by the programmatically more suited to immunisation of chil- ACIP. dren [5] and improved cost-effectiveness could poten- tially be achieved with childhood LAIV programmes In Europe, two EU countries, Finland and the United [5-7]. LAIV have also been shown to be of great use in Kingdom (UK), have introduced LAIV into their publicly- pandemic response since the production yield (doses funded routine paediatric vaccination programmes per egg) is much greater than for inactivated vac- [10]. The two National Immunization Technical Advisory cines, and the time between production and release is Groups, the UK Joint Committee on Vaccination and shorter. In addition, the nasal route of delivery could Immunisation and the Finnish National Expert Group facilitate rapid population-wide immunisation during on Vaccines, considered the available evidence of pandemics. effectiveness as sufficient to continue the roll-out of vaccination programmes in their countries [11], (per- The technology to produce pandemic LAIV based on the sonal communication, H Nohynek, September 2016). A/Leningrad backbone has been licensed to the World Health Organization (WHO) for manufacture and use in Any issues related to LAIV effectiveness or future avail- developing countries. It is estimated that a total pro- ability may impact seriously on the roll-out of current duction capacity of pandemic LAIV will be ca 500 mil- and future paediatric and adolescent influenza vac- lion doses by 2018 (data not shown). A loss of seasonal cine