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.

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.