The impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on global influenza surveillance: Insights from 18 National Influenza Centers based on a survey conducted between November 2021 and March 2022.

Background: National Influenza Centers (NICs) have played a crucial role in the surveillance of SARS-CoV-2. The FluCov project, covering 22 countries, was initiated to monitor the impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on influenza activity. Methods: This project consisted of an epidemiological bulletin and NIC survey. The survey, designed to assess the impact of the pandemic on the influenza surveillance system, was shared with 36 NICs located across 22 countries. NICs were invited to reply between November 2021 and March 2022. Results: We received 18 responses from NICs in 14 countries. Most NICs (76%) indicated that the number of samples tested for influenza decreased. Yet, many NICs (60%) were able to increase their laboratory testing capacity and the "robustness" (e.g., number of sentinel sites) (59%) of their surveillance systems. In addition, sample sources (e.g., hospital or outpatient setting) shifted. All NICs reported a higher burden of work following the onset of the pandemic, with some NICs hiring additional staff or partial outsourcing to other institutes or departments. Many NICs anticipate the future integration of SARS-CoV-2 surveillance into the existing respiratory surveillance system. Discussion: The survey shows the profound impact of SARS-CoV-2 on national influenza surveillance in the first 27 months of the pandemic. Surveillance activities were temporarily disrupted, whilst priority was given to SARS-CoV-2. However, most NICs have shown rapid adaptive capacity underlining the importance of strong national influenza surveillance systems. These developments have the potential to benefit global respiratory surveillance in the years to come; however, questions about sustainability remain.

Durability of Vaccine-Induced and Natural Immunity Against COVID-19: A Narrative Review.

Vaccines developed against SARS-CoV-2 have proven to be highly effective in preventing symptomatic infection. Similarly, prior infection with SARS-CoV-2 has been shown to provide substantial protection against reinfection. However, it has become apparent that the protection provided to an individual after either vaccination or infection wanes over time. Waning protection is driven by both waning immunity over time since vaccination or initial infection, and the evolution of new variants of SARS-CoV-2. Both antibody and T/B-cells levels have been investigated as potential correlates of protection post-vaccination or post-infection. The activity of antibodies and T/B-cells provide some potential insight into the underlying causes of waning protection. This review seeks to summarise what is currently known about the waning of protection provided by both vaccination and/or prior infection, as well as the current information on the respective antibody and T/B-cell responses.

Dearth of influenza among older adults admitted with respiratory symptoms in Malaysia during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic in 2021

Introduction Influenza is a common respiratory virus which leads to over 400,000 annual deaths globally. Mortality from influenza is highest among those aged 75 years and over living in Africa and Southeast Asia. Objective To determine the burden of influenza among older adults presenting to public hospitals with severe acute respiratory infection (SARI) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Methods This multi-center, prospective, observational study recruited individuals aged 65 years and over who presented to four Malaysian hospitals with SARI from 1 January to 31 December 2021. Those with prior confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection were excluded. SARS-CoV-2 was detected through real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) with routine diagnostic kits. Influenza A, influenza B and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) viruses were detected with Xpress Flu/RSV kits using the GeneXpert rapid real-time PCR system (Cepheid, USA). Results Samples were obtained from 512 participants, comprising 296 (57.8%) men and 216 (42.2%) women, with a mean age (SD) of 74.0 (7.1) years. Inpatient death occurred in 48 (9.6%) individuals. Significant differences existed in age, ethnicity, and comorbidities across study sites. One (0.2%) case of influenza A, two (0.4%) cases of RSV and 63 (12.5%) cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection were detected over the 1-year period. Cases of COVID-19 mirrored national trends derived from open source data, while the dearth of influenza cases mirrored national and global Flunet figures. Conclusion Our observational study conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic detected only one case of influenza, alongside a high SARS-CoV-2 positivity rate. The poor uptake of influenza vaccination nationally, worsened by the recent pandemic restrictions, could lead to waning immunity from the absence of seasonal exposure. Potentially deadly outbreaks may then occur when lockdown and infection control measures are eventually removed.

Experience from five Asia-Pacific countries during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic: Mitigation strategies and epidemiology outcomes.

BACKGROUND: With no vaccines or specific treatments, non-pharmaceutical interventions are the only tools for controlling the human-to-human transmission of the COVID-19 disease, which appeared in Wuhan, China last December and has spread globally since. Here we describe and compare the first-wave mitigation strategies and epidemiology of five Asia-Pacific countries that responded rapidly to the epidemic. METHODS: From January to April 2020, mitigation measures and epidemiological data for Singapore, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong were screened from official local government websites and a review of investigational studies was conducted. Daily case reports and mitigation measures information were extracted. Epidemiological estimates were calculated and compared between countries. RESULTS: All five countries combined measures, focusing on contact tracing, testing, isolation efforts and healthcare management. Epidemiological data varied temporally and geographically: incubation period ranged 3.9-7.1 days, effective reproduction number at time t (Rt) ranged 0.48-1.5, with intensive care admissions 1-3% of hospitalised patients, and case fatality rates were 0.1-3%. Extrinsic estimates to the virus were lower than global estimates. CONCLUSION: Implemented mitigation strategies in these countries allowed a rapid and successful control or delay of the first COVID-19 pandemic wave. These are valuable examples to inform subsequent waves.

Comparison of influenza surveillance systems in Australia, China, Malaysia and expert recommendations for influenza control.

BACKGROUND: The Western Pacific Region (WPR) is exposed each year to seasonal influenza and is often the source of new influenza virus variants and novel pathogen emergence. National influenza surveillance systems play a critical role in detecting emerging viruses, monitoring influenza epidemics, improving public disease awareness and promoting pandemic preparedness, but vary widely across WPR countries. The aim of this study is to improve existing influenza surveillance systems by systematically comparing selected WPR influenza surveillance systems. METHODS: Three national influenza surveillance systems with different levels of development (Australia, China and Malaysia) were compared and their adherence to World Health Organization (WHO) guidance was evaluated using a structured framework previously tested in several European countries consisting of seven surveillance sub-systems, 19 comparable outcomes and five evaluation criteria. Based on the results, experts from the Asia-Pacific Alliance for the Control of Influenza (APACI) issued recommendations for the improvement of existing surveillance systems. RESULTS: Australia demonstrated the broadest scope of influenza surveillance followed by China and Malaysia. In Australia, surveillance tools covered all sub-systems. In China, surveillance did not cover non-medically attended respiratory events, primary care consultations, and excess mortality modelling. In Malaysia, surveillance consisted of primary care and hospital sentinel schemes. There were disparities between the countries across the 5 evaluation criteria, particularly regarding data granularity from health authorities, information on data representativeness, and data communication, especially the absence of publicly available influenza epidemiological reports in Malaysia. This dual approach describing the scope of surveillance and evaluating the adherence to WHO guidance enabled APACI experts to make a number of recommendations for each country that included but were not limited to introducing new surveillance tools, broadening the use of specific existing surveillance tools, collecting and sharing data on virus characteristics, developing immunization status registries, and improving public health communication. CONCLUSIONS: Influenza monitoring in Australia, China, and Malaysia could benefit from the expansion of existing surveillance sentinel schemes, the broadened use of laboratory confirmation and the introduction of excess-mortality modelling. The results from the evaluation can be used as a basis to support expert recommendations and to enhance influenza surveillance capabilities.

Impact of COVID-19 on routine immunisation in South-East Asia and Western Pacific: Disruptions and solutions.

BACKGROUND: Data on COVID-19-induced disruption to routine vaccinations in the South-East Asia and Western Pacific regions (SEAR/WPR) have been sparse. This study aimed to quantify the impact of COVID-19 on routine vaccinations by country, antigen, and sector (public or private), up to 1 June 2020, and to identify the reasons for disruption and possible solutions. METHODS: Sanofi Pasteur teams from 19 countries in SEAR/WPR completed a structured questionnaire reporting on COVID-19 disruptions for 13-19 routinely delivered antigens per country, based on sales data, government reports, and regular physician interactions. Data were analysed descriptively, disruption causes ranked, and solutions evaluated using a modified public health best practices framework. FINDINGS: 95% (18/19) of countries reported vaccination disruption. When stratified by country, a median of 91% (interquartile range 77-94) of antigens were impacted. Infancy and school-entry age vaccinations were most impacted. Both public and private sector healthcare providers experienced disruptions. Vaccination rates had not recovered for 39% of impacted antigens by 1 June 2020. Fear of infection, movement/travel restrictions, and limited healthcare access were the highest-ranked reasons for disruption. Highest-scoring solutions were separating vaccination groups from unwell patients, non-traditional vaccination venues, virtual engagement, and social media campaigns. Many of these solutions were under-utilised. INTERPRETATION: COVID-19-induced disruption of routine vaccination was more widespread than previously reported. Adaptable solutions were identified which could be implemented in SEAR/WPR and elsewhere. Governments and private providers need to act urgently to improve coverage rates and plan for future waves of the pandemic, to avoid a resurgence of vaccine-preventable diseases. FUNDING: Sanofi Pasteur.

Assessment of the benefits of seasonal influenza vaccination: Elements of a framework to interpret estimates of vaccine effectiveness and support robust decision-making and communication.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses confirm that influenza vaccination reduces the risk of influenza illness by between about 40% and 60% in seasons when circulating influenza stains are well matched to vaccine strains. Influenza vaccine effectiveness (IVE) estimates, however, are often discordant and a source of confusion for decision makers. IVE assessments are increasingly publicized and are often used by policy makers to make decisions about the value of seasonal influenza vaccination. But there is limited guidance on how IVE should be interpreted or used to inform policy. There are several limitations to the use of IVE for decision-making: (a) IVE studies have methodological issues that often complicate the interpretation of their value; and (b) the full impact of vaccination will almost always be greater than the impact assessed by a point estimate of IVE in specific populations or settings. Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of study methodologies and the fundamental limitations of IVE estimates is important for the accuracy of interpretations and support of policy makers' decisions. Here, we review a comprehensive set of issues that need to be considered when interpreting IVE and determining the full benefits of influenza vaccination. We propose that published IVE values should be assessed using an evaluative framework that includes influenza-specific outcomes, types of VE study design, and confounders, among other factors. Better interpretation of IVE will improve the broader assessment of the value of influenza vaccination and ultimately optimize the public health benefits in seasonal influenza vaccination.