Who Is at Higher Risk of SARS-CoV-2 Reinfection? Results from a Northern Region of Italy.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic continues to spread worldwide, generating a high impact on healthcare systems. The aim of the study was to examine the epidemiological burden of SARS-CoV-2 reinfections and to identify potential related risk factors. A retrospective observational study was conducted in Liguria Region, combining data from National Vaccines Registry and Regional Chronic Condition Data Warehouse. In the study period (September 2021 to May 2022), 335,117 cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection were recorded in Liguria, of which 15,715 were reinfected once. During the Omicron phase (which predominated from 3 January 2022), the risk of reinfection was 4.89 times higher (p < 0.001) than during the Delta phase. Unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals with at least one dose for more than 120 days were at increased risk of reinfection compared with vaccinated individuals with at least one dose for ≤120 days, respectively (odds ratio (OR) of 1.26, p < 0.001; OR of 1.18, p < 0.001). Healthcare workers were more than twice as likely to be reinfected than non-healthcare workers (OR of 2.38, p < 0.001). Lower ORs were seen among people aged 60 to 79 years. Two doses or more of vaccination were found to be protective against the risk of reinfection rather than a single dose (mRNA vaccines: OR of 0.06, p < 0.0001, and OR of 0.1, p < 0.0001; vector vaccines: OR of 0.05, p < 0.0001). Patients with chronic renal failure, cardiovascular disease, bronchopneumopathy, neuropathy and autoimmune diseases were at increased risk of reinfection (OR of 1.38, p = 0.0003; OR of 1.09, p < 0.0296; OR of 1.14, p = 0.0056; OR of 1.78, p < 0.0001; OR of 1.18, p = 0.0205). Estimating the epidemiological burden of SARS-CoV-2 reinfections and the role played by risk factors in reinfections is relevant for identifying risk-based preventive strategies in a pandemic context characterized by a high circulation of the virus and a high rate of pathogen mutations.

Weight of risk factors for mortality and short-term mortality displacement during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: We conducted a population-based cohort study to estimate mortality before, during and after the COVID-19 peak and to compare mortality in 2020 with rates reported in previous years, with a view to helping decision makers to apply containment measures for high-risk groups. Methods: All deaths were collected between 2015 and 2020 from municipal registry database. In 2020, weeks 1-26 were stratified in three periods: before, during and after the COVID mortality peak. The Poisson Generalized Linear regression Model showed the "harvesting effect". Three logistic regressions for 8 dependent variables (age and comorbidities) and a t-test of differences described all-cause mortality risk factors in 2019 and 2020 and differences between COVID and non-COVID patients. Results: A total of 47,876 deaths were collected. All-cause deaths increased by 38.5% during the COVID peak and decreased by 18% during the post-peak period in comparison with the average registered during the control period (2015-19), with significant mortality displacement in 2020. Except for chronic renal injuries in subjects aged 45-64 years, diabetes and chronic cardiovascular diseases in those aged 65-84 years, and neuropathies in those aged > 84 years, the weight of comorbidities in deaths was similar or lower in COVID subjects than in non-COVID subjects. Discussions: Surprisingly, the weight of comorbidities in death, compared to weight in non-COVID subjects allows you to highlight some surprising results such as COPD, IBD and Cancer. The excess mortality that we observed in the entire period were modest in comparison with initial estimates during the peak, owing to the mild influenza season and the harvesting effect starting from the second half of May.

A comparison of coronavirus disease 2019 and seasonal influenza surveillance in five European countries: France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: In response to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak that unfolded across Europe in 2020, the World Health Organisation (WHO) called for repurposing existing influenza surveillance systems to monitor COVID-19. This analysis aimed to compare descriptively the extent to which influenza surveillance systems were adapted and enhanced and how COVID-19 surveillance could ultimately benefit or disrupt routine influenza surveillance. METHODS: We used a previously developed framework in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom to describe COVID-19 surveillance and its impact on influenza surveillance. The framework divides surveillance systems into seven subsystems and 20 comparable outcomes of interest and uses five evaluation criteria based on WHO guidance. Information on influenza and COVID-19 surveillance systems were collected from publicly available resources shared by European and national public health agencies. RESULTS: Overall, non-medically attended, virological, primary care and mortality surveillance were adapted in most countries to monitor COVID-19, although community, outbreak and hospital surveillance were reinforced in all countries. Data granularity improved, with more detailed demographic and medical information recorded. A shift to systematic notification for cases and deaths enhanced both geographic and population representativeness, although the sampling strategy benefited from the roll out of widespread molecular testing. Data communication was greatly enhanced, contributing to improved public awareness. CONCLUSIONS: Well-established influenza surveillance systems are a key component of pandemic preparedness, and their upgrade allowed European countries to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, uncertainties remain on how both influenza and COVID-19 surveillance can be jointly and durably implemented.

Lowering the recommended age for the free and active offer of influenza vaccination in Italy: clinical and economic impact analysis in the Liguria region.

OBJECTIVE: we estimated the epidemiological and budget impact of lowering the recommended age for influenza immunization with quadrivalent vaccine actively offered and administered free of charge to persons over 50 years old by public immunization services. METHODS: a multi-cohort, deterministic, static Markov model was populated by real-world data on the clinical and economic impact of Influenza-Like Illness and Lower Respiratory Tract Infection over 1 year. Four scenarios featuring different vaccine coverage rates were compared with the base case; coverage rates in subjects with and without risk factors were considered separately. RESULTS: compared with the base case, adopting scenarios 1-4 would reduce the annual number of influenza cases by 6.5%, 10.8%, 13.8% and 3.4%, Emergency Department accesses by 10.7%, 9.1%, 15.4% and 4.6%, complications by 8.9%, 9.9%, 14.7% and 4.1%, and the hospitalization of complicated cases by 11%, 9.1%, 15.4% and 4.5%, respectively. The four scenarios would require an additional investment (vaccine purchase and administration) of €316,996, €529,174, €677,539, and €168,633, respectively, in comparison with the base case. Scenario 1 proved to be cost-saving in the 60-64-year age-group. The incremental costs of implementing the other hypothetical scenarios ranged from 2.7% (scenario 4) to 13.2% (scenario 3). CONCLUSIONS: lowering the recommended age for influenza vaccination to 60 years would allow a high proportion of subjects at risk for severe influenza to be reached and would save money.

Attitudes and Beliefs on Influenza Vaccination during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Results from a Representative Italian Survey.

The last 2019/20 northern hemisphere influenza season overlapped with the first wave of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Italy was the first western country where severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spread to a significant extent. In this representative cross-sectional survey, we aimed to describe some opinions and attitudes of the Italian general population towards both influenza vaccination and the COVID-19 pandemic, and to identify potential modifiers of the decision-making process regarding the uptake of the 2020/21 influenza vaccine. A total of 2543 responses were analyzed. Although most (74.8%) participants valued influenza vaccination positively and declared that it should be mandatory, some misconceptions around influenza persist. The general practitioner was the main source of trusted information on influenza vaccines, while social networks were judged to be the least reliable. Younger and less affluent individuals, subjects not vaccinated in the previous season, and those living in smaller communities showed lower odds of receiving the 2020/21 season influenza vaccination. However, the COVID-19 pandemic may have positively influenced the propensity of being vaccinated against 2020/21 seasonal influenza. In order to increase influenza vaccination coverage rates multidisciplinary targeted interventions are needed. The role of general practitioners remains crucial in increasing influenza vaccine awareness and acceptance by effective counselling.