Search

Background: Understanding the attack rate of influenza infection and the proportion who become ill by risk group is key to implementing prevention measures. While population-based studies of antihemagglutinin antibody responses have been described previously, studies examining both antihemagglutinin and antineuraminidase antibodies are lacking., Methods: In 2015, we conducted a seroepidemiologic cohort study of individuals randomly selected from a population in New Zealand. We tested paired sera for hemagglutination inhibition (HAI) or neuraminidase inhibition (NAI) titers for seroconversion. We followed participants weekly and performed influenza polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for those reporting influenza-like illness (ILI)., Results: Influenza infection (either HAI or NAI seroconversion) was found in 321 (35% [95% confidence interval, 32%-38%]) of 911 unvaccinated participants, of whom 100 (31%) seroconverted to NAI alone. Young children and Pacific peoples experienced the highest influenza infection attack rates, but overall only a quarter of all infected reported influenza PCR-confirmed ILI, and one-quarter of these sought medical attention. Seroconversion to NAI alone was higher among children aged <5 years vs those aged ≥5 years (14% vs 4%; P < .001) and among those with influenza B vs A(H3N2) virus infections (7% vs 0.3%; P < .001)., Conclusions: Measurement of antineuraminidase antibodies in addition to antihemagglutinin antibodies may be important in capturing the true influenza infection rates.

Background: Several aggregate data meta-analyses have provided estimates of the effectiveness of influenza vaccination in community-dwelling elderly people. However, these studies ignored the effects of patient-level confounders such as sex, age, and chronic diseases that could bias effectiveness estimates. We aimed to assess the confounder-adjusted effectiveness of influenza vaccines on laboratory-confirmed influenza among elderly people by conducting a global individual participant data meta-analysis., Methods: In this individual participant data meta-analysis, we considered studies included in a previously conducted aggregate data meta-analysis that included test-negative design case-control studies published up to July 13, 2014. We contacted all authors of the included studies on Dec 1, 2014, to request individual participant data. Patients were excluded if their unique identifier was missing, their vaccination status was unknown, their outcome status was unknown, or they had had suspected influenza infection more than once in the same influenza season. Cases were patients with influenza-like illness symptoms who tested positive for at least one of A H1N1, A H1N1 pdm09, A H3N2, or B viruses; controls were patients with influenza-like illness symptoms who tested negative for these virus types or subtypes. Influenza vaccine effectiveness against overall and subtype-specific laboratory-confirmed influenza were the primary and secondary outcomes. We used a generalised linear mixed model to calculate adjusted vaccine effectiveness according to vaccine match to the circulating strains of influenza virus and intensity of the virus activity (epidemic or non-epidemic). Vaccine effectiveness was defined as the relative reduction in risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza in vaccinated patients compared with unvaccinated patients. We did subgroup analyses to estimate vaccine effectiveness according to hemisphere, age category, and health status., Findings: We received 23 of the 53 datasets included in the aggregate data meta-analysis. Furthermore, six additional datasets were provided by data collaborators, which resulted in individual participant data for a total of 5210 participants. A total of 4975 patients had the required data for analysis. Of these, 3146 (63%) were controls and 1829 (37%) were cases. Influenza vaccination was significantly effective during epidemic seasons irrespective of vaccine match status (matched adjusted vaccine effectiveness 44·38%, 95% CI 22·63-60·01; mismatched adjusted vaccine effectiveness 20·00%, 95% CI 3·46-33·68; analyses in the imputed dataset). Seasonal influenza vaccination did not show significant effectiveness during non-epidemic seasons. We found substantial variation in vaccine effectiveness across virus types and subtypes, with the highest estimate for A H1N1 pdm09 (53·19%, 10·25-75·58) and the lowest estimate for B virus types (-1·52%, -39·58 to 26·16). Although we observed no significant differences between subgroups in each category (hemisphere, age, and health status), influenza vaccination showed a protective effect among elderly people with cardiovascular disease, lung disease, or aged 75 years and younger., Interpretation: Influenza vaccination is moderately effective against laboratory-confirmed influenza in elderly people during epidemic seasons. More research is needed to investigate factors affecting vaccine protection (eg, brand-specific or type-specific vaccine effectiveness and repeated annual vaccination) in elderly people., Funding: University Medical Center Groningen., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: We aimed to estimate the protection afforded by inactivated influenza vaccine, in both community and hospital settings, in a well characterised urban population in Auckland during 2014., Methods: We used two different comparison groups, all patients who tested negative for influenza and only those patients who tested negative for influenza and had a non-influenza respiratory virus detected, to calculate the vaccine effectiveness in a test negative study design. Estimates were made separately for general practice outpatient consultations and hospitalised patients, stratified by age group and by influenza type and subtype. Vaccine status was confirmed by electronic record for general practice patients and all respiratory viruses were detected by real time polymerase chain reaction., Results: 1039 hospitalised and 1154 general practice outpatient consultations met all the study inclusion criteria and had a respiratory sample tested for influenza and other respiratory viruses. Compared to general practice patients, hospitalised patients were more likely to be very young or very old, to be Māori or Pacific Islander, to have a low income and to suffer from chronic disease. Vaccine effectiveness (VE) adjusted for age and other participant characteristics using all influenza negative controls was 42% (95% CI: 16 to 60%) for hospitalised and 56% (95% CI: 35 to 70%) for general practice patients. The vaccine appeared to be most effective against the influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 strain with an adjusted VE of 62% (95% CI:38 to 77%) for hospitalised and 59% (95% CI:36 to 74%) for general practice patients, using influenza virus negative controls. Similar results found when patients testing positive for a non-influenza respiratory virus were used as the control group., Conclusion: This study contributes to validation of the test negative design and confirms that inactivated influenza vaccines continue to provide modest but significant protection against laboratory-confirmed influenza., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Few studies report the effectiveness of trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV) in preventing hospitalisation for influenza-confirmed respiratory infections. Using a prospective surveillance platform, this study reports the first such estimate from a well-defined ethnically diverse population in New Zealand (NZ)., Methods: A case test-negative design was used to estimate propensity adjusted vaccine effectiveness. Patients with a severe acute respiratory infection (SARI), defined as a patient of any age requiring hospitalisation with a history of a fever or a measured temperature ≥38°C and cough and onset within the past 7 days, admitted to public hospitals in South and Central Auckland were eligible for inclusion in the study. Cases were SARI patients who tested positive for influenza, while non-cases (controls) were SARI patients who tested negative. Results were adjusted for the propensity to be vaccinated and the timing of the influenza season., Results: The propensity and season adjusted vaccine effectiveness (VE) was estimated as 39% (95% CI 16;56). The VE point estimate against influenza A (H1N1) was lower than for influenza B or influenza A (H3N2) but confidence intervals were wide and overlapping. Estimated VE was 59% (95% CI 26;77) in patients aged 45-64 years but only 8% (-78;53) in those aged 65 years and above., Conclusion: Prospective surveillance for SARI has been successfully established in NZ. This study for the first year, the 2012 influenza season, has shown low to moderate protection by TIV against influenza positive hospitalisation., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Recent experience with pandemic influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 highlighted the importance of global surveillance for severe respiratory disease to support pandemic preparedness and seasonal influenza control. Improved surveillance in the southern hemisphere is needed to provide critical data on influenza epidemiology, disease burden, circulating strains and effectiveness of influenza prevention and control measures. Hospital-based surveillance for severe acute respiratory infection (SARI) cases was established in New Zealand on 30 April 2012. The aims were to measure incidence, prevalence, risk factors, clinical spectrum and outcomes for SARI and associated influenza and other respiratory pathogen cases as well as to understand influenza contribution to patients not meeting SARI case definition., Methods/design: All inpatients with suspected respiratory infections who were admitted overnight to the study hospitals were screened daily. If a patient met the World Health Organization's SARI case definition, a respiratory specimen was tested for influenza and other respiratory pathogens. A case report form captured demographics, history of presenting illness, co-morbidities, disease course and outcome and risk factors. These data were supplemented from electronic clinical records and other linked data sources., Discussion: Hospital-based SARI surveillance has been implemented and is fully functioning in New Zealand. Active, prospective, continuous, hospital-based SARI surveillance is useful in supporting pandemic preparedness for emerging influenza A(H7N9) virus infections and seasonal influenza prevention and control.

Background: Understanding immunity, incidence and risk factors of the 2009 influenza A(H1N1) pandemic (2009 H1N1) through a national seroprevalence study is necessary for informing public health interventions and disease modelling., Methods and Findings: We collected 1687 serum samples and individual risk factor data between November-2009 to March-2010, three months after the end of the 2009 H1N1 wave in New Zealand. Participants were randomly sampled from selected general practices countrywide and hospitals in the Auckland region. Baseline immunity was measured from 521 sera collected during 2004 to April-2009. Haemagglutination inhibition (HI) antibody titres of ≥1:40 against 2009 H1N1 were considered seroprotective as well as seropositive. The overall community seroprevalence was 26.7% (CI:22.6-29.4). The seroprevalence varied across age and ethnicity. Children aged 5-19 years had the highest seroprevalence (46.7%;CI:38.3-55.0), a significant increase from the baseline (14%;CI:7.2-20.8). Older adults aged ≥60 had no significant difference in seroprevalence between the serosurvey (24.8%;CI:18.7-30.9) and baseline (22.6%;CI:15.3-30.0). Pacific peoples had the highest seroprevalence (49.5%;CI:35.1-64.0). There was no significant difference in seroprevalence between both primary (29.6%;CI:22.6-36.5) and secondary healthcare workers (25.3%;CI:20.8-29.8) and community participants. No significant regional variation was observed. Multivariate analysis indicated age as the most important risk factor followed by ethnicity. Previous seasonal influenza vaccination was associated with higher HI titres. Approximately 45.2% of seropositive individuals reported no symptoms., Conclusions: Based on age and ethnicity standardisation to the New Zealand Population, about 29.5% of New Zealanders had antibody titers at a level consistent with immunity to 2009 H1N1. Around 18.3% of New Zealanders were infected with the virus during the first wave including about one child in every three. Older people were protected due to pre-existing immunity. Age was the most important factor associated with infection followed by ethnicity. Healthcare workers did not appear to have an increased risk of infection compared with the general population.