Search

After the threat of highly pathogenic avian influenza in 2004, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) began an international capacity-strengthening program with national governments across the globe. The [...]

Background: Laboratory testing is a fundamental component of influenza surveillance for detecting novel strains with pandemic potential and informing biannual vaccine strain selection. The United States (U.S.) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), under the auspices of its WHO Collaborating Center for Influenza, is one of the major public health agencies which provides support globally to build national capacity for influenza surveillance. Our main objective was to determine if laboratory assessments supported capacity building efforts for improved global influenza surveillance.Methods: In 2010, 35 national influenza laboratories were assessed in 34 countries, using a standardized tool. Post-assessment, each laboratory received a report with a list of recommendations for improvement. Uptake of recommendations were reviewed 3.2 mean years after the initial assessments and categorized as complete, in-progress, no action or no update. This was a retrospective study; follow-up took place through routine project management rather than at a set time-point post-assessment. WHO data on National Influenza Centre (NIC) designation, External Quality Assessment Project (EQAP) participation and FluNet reporting was used to measure laboratory capacity longitudinally and independently of the assessments. All data was further stratified by World Bank country income category.Results: At follow-up, 81% of 614 recommendations were either complete (350) or in-progress (145) for 32 laboratories (91% response rate). The number of countries reporting to FluNet and the number of specimens they reported annually increased between 2005, when they were first funded by CDC, and 2010, the assessment year (p < 0.01). Improvements were also seen in EQAP participation and NIC designation over time and more so for low and lower-middle income countries.Conclusions: Assessments using a standardized tool have been beneficial to improving laboratory-based influenza surveillance. Specific recommendations helped countries identify and prioritize areas for improvement. Data from assessments helped CDC focus its technical assistance by country and region. Low and lower-middle income countries made greater improvements in their laboratories compared with upper-middle income countries. Future research could include an analysis of annual funding and technical assistance by country. Our approach serves as an example for capacity building for other diseases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In view of ongoing pandemic threats such as the recent human cases of novel avian influenza A(H7N9) in China, it is important that all countries continue their preparedness efforts. Since 2006, Central American countries have received donor funding and technical assistance from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to build and improve their capacity for influenza surveillance and pandemic preparedness. Our objective was to measure changes in pandemic preparedness in this region, and explore factors associated with these changes, using evaluations conducted between 2008 and 2012. Methods Eight Central American countries scored their pandemic preparedness across 12 capabilities in 2008, 2010 and 2012, using a standardized tool developed by CDC. Scores were calculated by country and capability and compared between evaluation years using the Student's t-test and Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, respectively. Virological data reported to WHO were used to assess changes in testing capacity between evaluation years. Linear regression was used to examine associations between scores, donor funding, technical assistance and WHO reporting. Results All countries improved their pandemic preparedness between 2008 and 2012 and seven made statistically significant gains (p < 0.05). Increases in median scores were observed for all 12 capabilities over the same period and were statistically significant for eight of these (p < 0.05): country planning, communications, routine influenza surveillance, national respiratory disease surveillance, outbreak response, resources for containment, community interventions and health sector response. We found a positive association between preparedness scores and cumulative funding between 2006 and 2011 (R2 = 0.5, p < 0.01). The number of specimens reported to WHO from participating countries increased significantly from 5,551 (2008) to 18,172 (2012) (p < 0.01). Conclusions Central America has made significant improvements in influenza pandemic preparedness between 2008 and 2012. U.S. donor funding and technical assistance provided to the region is likely to have contributed to the improvements we observed, although information on other sources of funding and support was unavailable to study. Gains are also likely the result of countries' response to the 2009 influenza pandemic. Further research is required to determine the degree to which pandemic improvements are sustainable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The World Health Organization (WHO) Global Agenda on Influenza, published in the Weekly Epidemiological Report (WER) on 7 June 2002, was formulated by a consensus of influenza experts and identified strengthening national and international surveillance systems as a major priority. The benefits of improving surveillance include enhancing data available for vaccine strain selection and expanding the “early warning system” for the detection of variant strains of influenza, including those with pandemic potential. Evaluating the activities and physical facilities of the National Influenza Centers (NICs) was one of the key action steps identified in the WHO Global Agenda. An assessment of NICS was conducted using a survey tool developed by WHO. A synopsis of the preliminary results of this survey was published in the Weekly Epidemiological Report on 18 October 2002. A draft Action Plan for strengthening the global influenza surveillance system has been developed as a result of the assessment. A brief description of the assessment tool and key components of the draft Action Plan are outlined here. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: Studies have shown that influenza vaccination during pregnancy reduces the risk of influenza disease in pregnant women and their offspring. Some have proposed that maternal vaccination may also have beneficial effects on birth outcomes. In 2014, we conducted an observational study to test this hypothesis using data from two large hospitals in Managua, Nicaragua. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study to evaluate associations between influenza vaccination and birth outcomes. We carried out interviews and reviewed medical records post-partum to collect data on demographics, influenza vaccination during pregnancy, birth outcomes and other risk factors associated with adverse neonatal outcomes. We used influenza surveillance data to adjust for timing of influenza circulation. We assessed self-reports of influenza vaccination status by further reviewing medical records of those who self-reported but did not have readily available evidence of vaccination status. We performed multiple logistic regression (MLR) and propensity score matching (PSM). Results: A total of 3268 women were included in the final analysis. Of these, 55% had received influenza vaccination in 2014. Overall, we did not observe statistically significant associations between influenza vaccination and birth outcomes after adjusting for risk factors, with either MLR or PSM. With PSM, after adjusting for risk factors, we observed protective associations between influenza vaccination in the second and third trimester and preterm birth (aOR: 0.87; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.75–0.99 and aOR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.45–0.96, respectively) and between influenza vaccination in the second trimester and low birth weight (aOR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.64–0.97). Conclusions: We found evidence to support an association between influenza vaccination and birth outcomes by trimester of receipt with data from an urban population in Nicaragua. The study had significant selection and recall biases. Prospective studies are needed to minimize these biases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Little is known about the cocirculation of influenza and SARS-CoV-2 viruses during the COVID-19 pandemic and the use of respiratory disease sentinel surveillance platforms for monitoring SARS-CoV-2 activity in sub-Saharan Africa., Objective: We aimed to describe influenza and SARS-CoV-2 cocirculation in Kenya and how the SARS-CoV-2 data from influenza sentinel surveillance correlated with that of universal national surveillance., Methods: From April 2020 to March 2022, we enrolled 7349 patients with severe acute respiratory illness or influenza-like illness at 8 sentinel influenza surveillance sites in Kenya and collected demographic, clinical, underlying medical condition, vaccination, and exposure information, as well as respiratory specimens, from them. Respiratory specimens were tested for influenza and SARS-CoV-2 by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction. The universal national-level SARS-CoV-2 data were also obtained from the Kenya Ministry of Health. The universal national-level SARS-CoV-2 data were collected from all health facilities nationally, border entry points, and contact tracing in Kenya. Epidemic curves and Pearson r were used to describe the correlation between SARS-CoV-2 positivity in data from the 8 influenza sentinel sites in Kenya and that of the universal national SARS-CoV-2 surveillance data. A logistic regression model was used to assess the association between influenza and SARS-CoV-2 coinfection with severe clinical illness. We defined severe clinical illness as any of oxygen saturation <90%, in-hospital death, admission to intensive care unit or high dependence unit, mechanical ventilation, or a report of any danger sign (ie, inability to drink or eat, severe vomiting, grunting, stridor, or unconsciousness in children younger than 5 years) among patients with severe acute respiratory illness., Results: Of the 7349 patients from the influenza sentinel surveillance sites, 76.3% (n=5606) were younger than 5 years. We detected any influenza (A or B) in 8.7% (629/7224), SARS-CoV-2 in 10.7% (768/7199), and coinfection in 0.9% (63/7165) of samples tested. Although the number of samples tested for SARS-CoV-2 from the sentinel surveillance was only 0.2% (60 per week vs 36,000 per week) of the number tested in the universal national surveillance, SARS-CoV-2 positivity in the sentinel surveillance data significantly correlated with that of the universal national surveillance (Pearson r=0.58; P<.001). The adjusted odds ratios (aOR) of clinical severe illness among participants with coinfection were similar to those of patients with influenza only (aOR 0.91, 95% CI 0.47-1.79) and SARS-CoV-2 only (aOR 0.92, 95% CI 0.47-1.82)., Conclusions: Influenza substantially cocirculated with SARS-CoV-2 in Kenya. We found a significant correlation of SARS-CoV-2 positivity in the data from 8 influenza sentinel surveillance sites with that of the universal national SARS-CoV-2 surveillance data. Our findings indicate that the influenza sentinel surveillance system can be used as a sustainable platform for monitoring respiratory pathogens of pandemic potential or public health importance., (©Daniel Owusu, Linus K Ndegwa, Jorim Ayugi, Peter Kinuthia, Rosalia Kalani, Mary Okeyo, Nancy A Otieno, Gilbert Kikwai, Bonventure Juma, Peninah Munyua, Francis Kuria, Emmanuel Okunga, Ann C Moen, Gideon O Emukule. Originally published in JMIR Public Health and Surveillance (https://publichealth.jmir.org), 25.03.2024.)

Objective: To characterize influenza seasonality and identify the best time of the year for vaccination against influenza in tropical and subtropical countries of southern and south-eastern Asia that lie north of the equator., Methods: Weekly influenza surveillance data for 2006 to 2011 were obtained from Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, the Lao People's Democratic Republic, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Viet Nam. Weekly rates of influenza activity were based on the percentage of all nasopharyngeal samples collected during the year that tested positive for influenza virus or viral nucleic acid on any given week. Monthly positivity rates were then calculated to define annual peaks of influenza activity in each country and across countries., Findings: Influenza activity peaked between June/July and October in seven countries, three of which showed a second peak in December to February. Countries closer to the equator had year-round circulation without discrete peaks. Viral types and subtypes varied from year to year but not across countries in a given year. The cumulative proportion of specimens that tested positive from June to November was > 60% in Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, the Lao People's Democratic Republic, the Philippines, Thailand and Viet Nam. Thus, these tropical and subtropical countries exhibited earlier influenza activity peaks than temperate climate countries north of the equator., Conclusion: Most southern and south-eastern Asian countries lying north of the equator should consider vaccinating against influenza from April to June; countries near the equator without a distinct peak in influenza activity can base vaccination timing on local factors.