Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 16 de 16
Filter
1.
Microb Genom ; 9(6)2023 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-20244144

ABSTRACT

Invasive group A streptococcal (iGAS) disease cases increased in the first half of 2022 in the Netherlands, with a remarkably high proportion of emm4 isolates. Whole-genome sequence analysis of 66 emm4 isolates, 40 isolates from the pre-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic period 2009-2019 and 26 contemporary isolates from 2022, identified a novel Streptococcus pyogenes lineage (M4NL22), which accounted for 85 % of emm4 iGAS cases in 2022. Surprisingly, we detected few isolates of the emm4 hypervirulent clone, which has replaced nearly all other emm4 in the USA and the UK. M4NL22 displayed genetic differences compared to other emm4 strains, although these were of unclear biological significance. In publicly available data, we identified a single Norwegian isolate belonging to M4NL22, which was sampled after the isolates from this study, possibly suggesting export of M4NL22 to Norway. In conclusion, our study identified a novel S. pyogenes emm4 lineage underlying an increase of iGAS disease in early 2022 in the Netherlands and the results have been promptly communicated to public health officials.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Streptococcal Infections , Humans , Antigens, Bacterial/genetics , Netherlands/epidemiology , Bacterial Outer Membrane Proteins/genetics , Carrier Proteins/genetics , Streptococcal Infections/epidemiology , Streptococcus pyogenes/genetics
2.
Vaccine ; 2023 Jun 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-20234674

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: We aimed to estimate vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19 mortality, and to explore whether an increased risk of non-COVID-19 mortality exists in the weeks following a COVID-19 vaccine dose. METHODS: National registries of causes of death, COVID-19 vaccination, specialized health care and long-term care reimbursements were linked by a unique person identifier using data from 1 January 2021 to 31 January 2022. We used Cox regression with calendar time as underlying time scale to, firstly, estimate VE against COVID-19 mortality after primary and first booster vaccination, per month since vaccination and, secondly, estimate risk of non-COVID-19 mortality in the 5 or 8 weeks following a first, second or first booster dose, adjusting for birth year, sex, medical risk group and country of origin. RESULTS: VE against COVID-19 mortality was > 90 % for all age groups two months after completion of the primary series. VE gradually decreased thereafter, to around 80 % at 7-8 months post-primary series for most groups, and around 60 % for elderly receiving a high level of long-term care and for people aged 90+ years. Following a first booster dose, the VE increased to > 85 % in all groups. The risk of non-COVID-19 mortality was lower or similar in the 5 or 8 weeks following a first dose compared to no vaccination, as well as following a second dose compared to one dose and a booster compared to two doses, for all age and long-term care groups. CONCLUSION: At the population level, COVID-19 vaccination greatly reduced the risk of COVID-19 mortality and no increased risk of death from other causes was observed.

3.
J Infect Dis ; 2023 Apr 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2327889

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to estimate vaccine effectiveness against infection (VE-infection) and against further transmission (VE-infectiousness) in a household setting during Delta and Omicron. Knowing these effects can aid policy makers in deciding which groups to prioritize for vaccination. METHODS: Participants with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test were asked about COVID-19 vaccination status and SARS-CoV-2 testing of their household members one month later. VE-infection and VE-infectiousness was estimated using GEE logistic regression adjusting for age, vaccination status, calendar week and household size. RESULTS: 3,399 questionnaires concerning 4,105 household members were included. During the Delta-period, VE-infection of primary series was 47% (95% CI: -27%; 78%) and VE-infectiousness of primary series was 70% (95% CI: 28%; 87%). During the Omicron-period, VE-infection was -36% (95% CI: -88%; 1%) for primary series and -28% (95% CI: -77%; 7%) for booster vaccination. The VE-infectiousness was 45% (95% CI: -14%; 74%) for primary series and 64% (95% CI: 31%; 82%) for booster vaccination. DISCUSSION: Our study shows that COVID-19 vaccination is effective against infection with SARS-CoV-2 Delta and against infectiousness of SARS-CoV-2 Delta and Omicron. Estimation of VE against infection with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron was limited by several factors. Our results support booster vaccination for those in close contact with vulnerable people to prevent transmission.

4.
Vaccine ; 41(26): 3847-3854, 2023 06 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2320091

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Vaccines against COVID-19 have proven effective in preventing COVID-19 hospitalisation. In this study, we aimed to quantify part of the public health impact of COVID-19 vaccination by estimating the number of averted hospitalisations. We present results from the beginning of the vaccination campaign ('entire period', January 6, 2021) and a subperiod starting at August 2, 2021 ('subperiod') when all adults had the opportunity to complete their primary series, both until August 30, 2022. METHODS: Using calendar-time specific vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates and vaccine coverage (VC) by round (primary series, first booster and second booster) and the observed number of COVID-19 associated hospitalisations, we estimated the number of averted hospitalisations per age group for the two study periods. From January 25, 2022, when registration of the indication of hospitalisation started, hospitalisations not causally related to COVID-19 were excluded. RESULTS: In the entire period, an estimated 98,170 (95 % confidence interval (CI) 96,123-99,928) hospitalisations were averted, of which 90,753 (95 % CI 88,790-92,531) were in the subperiod, representing 57.0 % and 67.9 % of all estimated hospital admissions. Estimated averted hospitalisations were lowest for 12-49-year-olds and highest for 70-79-year-olds. More admissions were averted in the Delta period (72.3 %) than in the Omicron period (63.4 %). CONCLUSION: COVID-19 vaccination prevented a large number of hospitalisations. Although the counterfactual of having had no vaccinations while maintaining the same public health measures is unrealistic, these findings underline the public health importance of the vaccination campaign to policy makers and the public.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Adult , Humans , Netherlands , Vaccination , Hospitalization
5.
Int J Infect Dis ; 133: 36-42, 2023 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2296740

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: We estimated vaccine effectiveness (VE) of primary and booster vaccinations against SARS-CoV-2 infection overall and in four risk groups defined by age and medical risk condition during the Delta and Omicron BA.1/BA.2 periods. METHODS: VAccine Study COvid-19 is an ongoing prospective cohort study among Dutch adults. The primary end point was a self-reported positive SARS-CoV-2 test from July 12, 2021 to June 06, 2022. The analyses included only participants without a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection based on a positive test or serology. We used Cox proportional hazard models with vaccination status as the time-varying exposure and adjustment for age, sex, educational level, and medical risk condition. RESULTS: A total of 37,170 participants (mean age 57 years) were included. In the Delta period, VE <6 weeks after the primary vaccination was 80% (95% confidence interval 69-87) and decreased to 71% (65-77) after 6 months. VE increased to 96% (86-99) shortly after the first booster vaccination. In the Omicron period, these estimates were 46% (22-63), 25% (8-39), and 57% (52-62), respectively. For the Omicron period, an interaction term between vaccination status and risk group significantly improved the model (P <0.001), with generally lower VEs for those with a medical risk condition. CONCLUSION: Our results show the benefit of booster vaccinations against infection, also in risk groups; although, the additional protection wanes quite rapidly.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , Humans , Middle Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Netherlands/epidemiology , Vaccine Efficacy , COVID-19 Vaccines , SARS-CoV-2 , Prospective Studies , Vaccination
6.
Euro Surveill ; 28(7)2023 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2263556

ABSTRACT

We used data of 32,542 prospective cohort study participants who previously received primary and one or two monovalent booster COVID-19 vaccinations. Between 26 September and 19 December 2022, relative effectiveness of bivalent original/Omicron BA.1 vaccination against self-reported Omicron SARS-CoV-2 infection was 31% in 18-59-year-olds and 14% in 60-85-year-olds. Protection of Omicron infection was higher than of bivalent vaccination without prior infection. Although bivalent booster vaccination increases protection against COVID-19 hospitalisations, we found limited added benefit in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Netherlands/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , RNA, Messenger , Vaccination
7.
Euro Surveill ; 28(7)2023 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2249566

ABSTRACT

BackgroundIn summer 2022, SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.5 became dominant in Europe. In vitro studies have shown a large reduction of antibody neutralisation for this variant.AimWe aimed to investigate differences in protection from previous infection and/or vaccination against infection with Omicron BA.4/5 vs BA.2.MethodsWe employed a case-only approach including positive PCR tests from community testing between 2 May and 24 July 2022 that were tested for S gene target failure (SGTF), which distinguishes BA.4/5 from BA.2 infection. Previous infections were categorised by variant using whole genome sequencing or SGTF. We estimated by logistic regression the association of SGTF with vaccination and/or previous infection, and of SGTF of the current infection with the variant of the previous infection, adjusting for testing week, age group and sex.ResultsThe percentage of registered previous SARS-CoV-2 infections was higher among 19,836 persons infected with Omicron BA.4/5 than among 7,052 persons infected with BA.2 (31.3% vs 20.0%). Adjusting for testing week, age group and sex, the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) was 1.4 (95% CI: 1.3-1.5). The distribution of vaccination status did not differ for BA.4/5 vs BA.2 infections (aOR = 1.1 for primary and booster vaccination). Among persons with a previous infection, those currently infected with BA4/5 had a shorter interval between infections, and the previous infection was more often caused by BA.1, compared with those currently infected with BA.2 (aOR = 1.9; 95% CI: 1.5-2.6).ConclusionOur results suggest immunity induced by BA.1 is less effective against BA.4/5 infection than against BA.2 infection.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Netherlands/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Europe , Immunization, Secondary
8.
Euro Surveill ; 28(1)2023 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2198367

ABSTRACT

In 2022, a sevenfold increase in the number of notifiable invasive Streptococcus pyogenes (iGAS) infections among children aged 0-5 years was observed in the Netherlands compared with pre-COVID-19 pandemic years. Of 42 cases in this age group, seven had preceding or coinciding varicella zoster infections, nine were fatal. This increase is not attributable to a specific emm type. Vigilance for clinical deterioration as iGAS sign is warranted in young children, especially those with varicella zoster infection.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Chickenpox , Herpes Zoster , Streptococcal Infections , Child , Humans , Child, Preschool , Adult , Streptococcus pyogenes , Streptococcal Infections/diagnosis , Streptococcal Infections/epidemiology , Netherlands/epidemiology , Pandemics
9.
J Evid Based Dent Pract ; 22(4): 101779, 2022 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2131430

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: This retrospective analysis aimed to evaluate, among individuals with COVID-19-like symptoms, the percentage of SARS-CoV-2 positive oral health care workers relative to health care workers in general and a non-close-contact occupation reference group in the Netherlands. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data was retrospectively analyzed based on data extracted from the CoronIT database. This contained mass testing data for those experiencing symptoms compatible with COVID-19 recorded from June 2020 up to February 2021. The total number of tests taken and the number of SARS-CoV-2 positive tests were assessed. Sub-analyses were performed for oral health care and health care workers based in professional working locations, long-term care facilities, hospitals, or elsewhere. RESULTS: In total, data from 1,999,390 tests were obtained. Overall, 9.4% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in the three occupational groups. This was 9.2% for oral health care workers, 9.5% for health care workers, and 9.3% for the non-close-contact occupation reference group. For the three occupational groups the adjusted odds ratio with the month as covariate varied from 0.76 to 1.12. The odds ratio for oral health care workers compared to health care workers was 1 [95% CI:0.95;1.05] and 0.97 [95% CI:0.92;1.02] compared to the non-close-contact occupation reference group. Interpretation of the magnitude of the odds ratio indicates that the observed differences are none to very small. CONCLUSION: During the pandemic oral health care providers were required to adhere to the COVID-19-specific amendments to the national infection control guidelines. Based on the data gathered, dentists and dental hygienists with COVID-19-like symptoms do not test SARS-CoV-2 positive more often than other health care workers or those with a non-close-contact occupation. This supports the assumption that working during the pandemic using the Dutch standard hygiene guideline supplemented with the COVID guideline for oral health care is adequately safe.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , Retrospective Studies , Dental Hygienists , Pandemics , Health Personnel
10.
Euro Surveill ; 27(45)2022 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2117963

ABSTRACT

BackgroundDifferential SARS-CoV-2 exposure between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals may confound vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates.AimWe conducted a test-negative case-control study to determine VE against SARS-CoV-2 infection and the presence of confounding by SARS-CoV-2 exposure.MethodsWe included adults tested for SARS-CoV-2 at community facilities between 4 July and 8 December 2021 (circulation period of the Delta variant). The VE against SARS-CoV-2 infection after primary vaccination with an mRNA (Comirnaty or Spikevax) or vector-based vaccine (Vaxzevria or Janssen) was calculated using logistic regression adjusting for age, sex and calendar week (Model 1). We additionally adjusted for comorbidity and education level (Model 2) and SARS-CoV-2 exposure (number of close contacts, visiting busy locations, household size, face mask wearing, contact with SARS-CoV-2 case; Model 3). We stratified by age, vaccine type and time since vaccination.ResultsVE against infection (Model 3) was 64% (95% CI: 50-73), only slightly lower than in Models 1 (68%; 95% CI: 58-76) and 2 (67%; 95% CI: 56-75). Estimates stratified by age group, vaccine and time since vaccination remained similar: mRNA VE (Model 3) among people ≥ 50 years decreased significantly (p = 0.01) from 81% (95% CI: 66-91) at < 120 days to 61% (95% CI: 22-80) at ≥ 120 days after vaccination. It decreased from 83% to 59% in Model 1 and from 81% to 56% in Model 2.ConclusionSARS-CoV-2 exposure did not majorly confound the estimated COVID-19 VE against infection, suggesting that VE can be estimated accurately using routinely collected data without exposure information.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Adult , Humans , Middle Aged , Netherlands/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Case-Control Studies , Vaccine Efficacy , SARS-CoV-2 , RNA, Messenger
11.
The journal of evidence-based dental practice ; 2022.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-2034473

ABSTRACT

Objective This retrospective analysis aimed to evaluate, among individuals with COVID-19-like symptoms, the percentage of SARS-CoV-2 positive oral healthcare workers relative to healthcare workers in general and a non-close-contact occupation reference group in the Netherlands. Material and Methods Data was retrospectively analyzed based on data extracted from the CoronIT database. This contained mass testing data for those experiencing symptoms compatible with COVID-19 recorded from June 2020 up to February 2021. The total number of tests taken and the number of SARS-CoV-2 positive tests were assessed. Sub-analyses were performed for oral healthcare and healthcare workers based in professional working locations, long-term care facilities, hospitals, or elsewhere. Results In total, data from 1,999,390 tests were obtained. Overall, 9.4% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in the three occupational groups. This was 9.2% for oral healthcare workers, 9.5% for healthcare workers, and 9.3% for the non-close-contact occupation reference group. For the three occupational groups the adjusted odds ratio with the month as covariate varied from 0.76 to 1.12. The odds ratio for oral healthcare workers compared to healthcare workers was 1 [95%CI:0.95;1.05] and 0.97 [95%CI:0.92;1.02] compared to the non-close-contact occupation reference group. Interpretation of the magnitude of the odds ratio indicates that the observed differences are none to very small. Conclusion During the pandemic oral healthcare providers were required to adhere to the COVID-19-specific amendments to the national infection control guidelines. Based on the data gathered, dentists and dental hygienists with COVID-19-like symptoms do not test SARS-CoV-2 positive more often than other healthcare workers or those with a non-close-contact occupation. This supports the assumption that working during the pandemic using the Dutch standard hygiene guideline supplemented with the COVID guideline for oral health care is adequately safe.

12.
Nat Commun ; 13(1): 4738, 2022 08 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1991583

ABSTRACT

Given the emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 variants and the roll-out of booster COVID-19 vaccination, evidence is needed on protection conferred by primary vaccination, booster vaccination and previous SARS-CoV-2 infection by variant. We employed a test-negative design on S-gene target failure data from community PCR testing in the Netherlands from 22 November 2021 to 31 March 2022 (n = 671,763). Previous infection, primary vaccination or both protected well against Delta infection. Protection against Omicron BA.1 infection was much lower compared to Delta. Protection was similar against Omicron BA.1 compared to BA.2 infection after previous infection, primary and booster vaccination. Higher protection was observed against all variants in individuals with both vaccination and previous infection compared with either one. Protection against all variants decreased over time since last vaccination or infection. We found that primary vaccination with current COVID-19 vaccines and previous SARS-CoV-2 infections offered low protection against Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 infection. Booster vaccination considerably increased protection against Omicron infection, but decreased rapidly after vaccination.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Viral Vaccines , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination
13.
Euro Surveill ; 27(21)2022 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1875327

ABSTRACT

IntroductionIn July and August 2021, the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant dominated in Europe.AimUsing a multicentre test-negative study, we measured COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) against symptomatic infection.MethodsIndividuals with COVID-19 or acute respiratory symptoms at primary care/community level in 10 European countries were tested for SARS-CoV-2. We measured complete primary course overall VE by vaccine brand and by time since vaccination.ResultsOverall VE was 74% (95% CI: 69-79), 76% (95% CI: 71-80), 63% (95% CI: 48-75) and 63% (95% CI: 16-83) among those aged 30-44, 45-59, 60-74 and ≥ 75 years, respectively. VE among those aged 30-59 years was 78% (95% CI: 75-81), 66% (95% CI: 58-73), 91% (95% CI: 87-94) and 52% (95% CI: 40-61), for Comirnaty, Vaxzevria, Spikevax and COVID-19 Vaccine Janssen, respectively. VE among people 60 years and older was 67% (95% CI: 52-77), 65% (95% CI: 48-76) and 83% (95% CI: 64-92) for Comirnaty, Vaxzevria and Spikevax, respectively. Comirnaty VE among those aged 30-59 years was 87% (95% CI: 83-89) at 14-29 days and 65% (95% CI: 56-71%) at ≥ 90 days between vaccination and onset of symptoms.ConclusionsVE against symptomatic infection with the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant varied among brands, ranging from 52% to 91%. While some waning of the vaccine effect may be present (sample size limited this analysis to only Comirnaty), protection was 65% at 90 days or more between vaccination and onset.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Influenza Vaccines , Influenza, Human , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , Europe/epidemiology , Humans , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , Primary Health Care , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination
14.
Euro Surveill ; 26(44)2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1503826

ABSTRACT

We estimated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine effectiveness against onward transmission by comparing secondary attack rates among household members for vaccinated and unvaccinated index cases, based on source and contact tracing data collected when the Delta variant was dominant. Effectiveness of full vaccination of the index case against transmission to unvaccinated and fully vaccinated household contacts, respectively, was 63% (95% confidence interval (CI): 46-75) and 40% (95% CI: 20-54), in addition to the direct protection of vaccination of contacts against infection.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Vaccines , COVID-19 Vaccines , Family Characteristics , Humans , Netherlands/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2
15.
Euro Surveill ; 26(31)2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1346380

ABSTRACT

Several studies report high effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe disease, however an important knowledge gap is the vaccine effectiveness against transmission (VET). We present estimates of the VET to household and other close contacts in the Netherlands, from February to May 2021, using contact monitoring data. The secondary attack rate among household contacts was lower for fully vaccinated than unvaccinated index cases (11% vs 31%), with an adjusted VET of 71% (95% confidence interval: 63-77).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19 Vaccines , Family Characteristics , Humans , Netherlands/epidemiology
16.
Euro Surveill ; 25(50)2020 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1034850

ABSTRACT

High coronavirus incidence has prompted the Netherlands to implement a second lockdown. To elucidate the epidemic's development preceding this second wave, we analysed weekly test positivity in public test locations by population subgroup between 1 June and 17 October 2020. Hospitality and public transport workers, driving instructors, hairdressers and aestheticians had higher test positivity compared with a reference group of individuals without a close-contact occupation. Workers in childcare, education and healthcare showed lower test positivity.


Subject(s)
Age Distribution , COVID-19 Testing , COVID-19/epidemiology , Communicable Disease Control/methods , Occupations/statistics & numerical data , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/prevention & control , Child , Child, Preschool , Contact Tracing , Female , Health Services Accessibility , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Incidence , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Male , Mass Screening , Middle Aged , Netherlands/epidemiology , Occupational Exposure , Physical Distancing , Quarantine , Risk , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL