Needs and feasibility of living systematic reviews (LSRs): Experience from LSRs on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness.

During 2021 and 2023, a team of researchers at the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) and partnering institutions conducted two living systematic reviews (LSRs) on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in different age groups to inform recommendations of the Standing Committee on Vaccination in Germany (Ständige Impfkommission, STIKO). Based on our experience from the realization of these LSRs, we developed certain criteria to assess the needs and feasibility of conducting LSRs. Combining these with previously established criteria, we developed the following set to inform future planning of LSRs for STIKO: Needs criterion (N)1: Relevance of the research question, N2: Certainty of evidence (CoE) at baseline; N3: Expected need for Population-Intervention-Comparator-Outcome (PICO) adaptations; N4: Expected new evidence over time; N5: Expected impact of new evidence on CoE; Feasibility criterion (F)1: Availability of sufficient human resources; F2: Feasibility of timely dissemination of the results to inform decision-making. For each criterion we suggest rating options which may support the decision to conduct an LSR or other forms of evidence synthesis when following the provided flowchart. The suggested criteria were developed on the basis of the experiences from exemplary reviews in a specific research field (i.e., COVID-19 vaccination), and did not follow a formal development or validation process. However, these criteria might also be useful to assess whether questions from other research fields can and should be answered using the LSR approach, or assist in determining whether the use of an LSR is sensible and feasible for specific questions in health policy and practice.

Use of existing systematic reviews for the development of evidence-based vaccination recommendations: Guidance from the SYSVAC expert panel.

National immunization technical advisory groups (NITAGs) develop immunization-related recommendations and assist policy-makers in making evidence informed decisions. Systematic reviews (SRs) that summarize the available evidence on a specific topic are a valuable source of evidence in the development of such recommendations. However, conducting SRs requires significant human, time, and financial resources, which many NITAGs lack. Given that SRs already exist for many immunization-related topics, and to prevent duplication and overlap of reviews, a more practical approach may be for NITAGs to use existing SRs. Nevertheless, it can be challenging to identify relevant SRs, to select one SR from among multiple SRs, or to critically assess and effectively use them. To support NITAGs, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Robert Koch Institute and collaborators developed the SYSVAC project, which consists of an online registry of systematic reviews on immunization-related topics and an e-learning course, that supports the use of them (both freely accessible at https://www.nitag-resource.org/sysvac-systematic-reviews). Drawing from the e-learning course and recommendations from an expert panel, this paper outlines methods for using existing systematic reviews when making immunization-related recommendations. With specific examples and reference to the SYSVAC registry and other resources, it offers guidance on locating existing systematic reviews; assessing their relevance to a research question, up-to-dateness, and methodological quality and/or risk of bias; and considering the transferability and applicability of their findings to other populations or settings.

Outbreak of imported diphtheria with Corynebacterium diphtheriae among migrants arriving in Germany, 2022.

From July 2022, cases of imported diphtheria with toxigenic Corynebacterium diphtheriae remarkably increased among migrants arriving in Germany. Up to 30 September 2022, 44 cases have been reported to the national public health institute, all laboratory-confirmed, male, and mainly coming from Syria (n = 21) and Afghanistan (n = 17). Phylogeny and available journey information indicate that most cases (n = 19) were infected along the Balkan route. Active case finding, increased laboratory preparedness and epicentre localisation in countries along this route are important.

Facing the Omicron variant-how well do vaccines protect against mild and severe COVID-19? Third interim analysis of a living systematic review.

Background: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron variant is currently the dominant variant globally. This third interim analysis of a living systematic review summarizes evidence on the effectiveness of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine (vaccine effectiveness, VE) and duration of protection against Omicron. Methods: We systematically searched literature on COVID-19 for controlled studies, evaluating the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines approved in the European Union up to 14/01/2022, complemented by hand searches of websites and metasearch engines up to 11/02/2022. We considered the following comparisons: full primary immunization vs. no vaccination, booster immunization vs. no vaccination, and booster vs. full primary immunization. VE against any confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptomatic, and severe COVID-19 (i.e., COVID-19-related hospitalization, ICU admission, or death) was indicated, providing estimate ranges. Meta-analysis was not performed due to high study heterogeneity. The risk of bias was assessed with ROBINS-I, and the certainty of the evidence was evaluated using GRADE. Results: We identified 26 studies, including 430 to 2.2 million participants, which evaluated VE estimates against infections with the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant. VE against any confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection ranged between 0-62% after full primary immunization and between 34-66% after a booster dose compared to no vaccination. VE range for booster vs. full primary immunization was 34-54.6%. After full primary immunization VE against symptomatic COVID-19 ranged between 6-76%. After booster immunization VE ranged between 3-84% compared to no vaccination and between 56-69% compared to full primary immunization. VE against severe COVID-19 ranged between 3-84% after full primary immunization and between 12-100% after booster immunization compared to no vaccination, and 100% (95% CI 71.4-100) compared to full primary immunization (data from only one study). VE was characterized by a moderate to strong decline within 3-6 months for SARS-CoV-2 infections and symptomatic COVID-19. Against severe COVID-19, protection remained robust for at least up to 6 months. Waning immunity was more profound after primary than booster immunization. The risk of bias was moderate to critical across studies and outcomes. GRADE certainty was very low for all outcomes. Conclusions: Under the Omicron variant, the effectiveness of EU-licensed COVID-19 vaccines in preventing any SARS-CoV-2 infection is low and only short-lasting after full primary immunization, but can be improved by booster vaccination. VE against severe COVID-19 remains high and is long-lasting, especially after receiving the booster vaccination.

Supporting National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups in the WHO European Region in developing national COVID-19 vaccination recommendations through online communication platform.

National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups are groups of multi-disciplinary experts that provide scientific advice to policy makers to enable them to make informed immunization policy and programme decisions. NITAGs faced challengesusing their routine approach to develop recommendations for COVID-19 vaccines during the pandemic. In response, the WHORegional Office for Europe (Regional Office), with the support of theRobert Koch Institute, developedan innovative approach of a series of webinars, provision of materials, and remote technical assistance to address these challenges. Polls conducted during webinars were used to tailor future webinars and evaluate the effectiveness of these interventions. According to poll results, 76% of participants found the webinars and resources shared very useful in their work on COVID-19 vaccination.The Regional Office plans to build further upon the scope of online communication and establish a regional online platform for NITAGs to further support NITAGs and build capacity.

Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 infection with the Delta (B.1.617.2) variant: second interim results of a living systematic review and meta-analysis, 1 January to 25 August 2021.

The Delta variant has become the dominant strain of SARS-CoV-2. We summarised the evidence on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) identified in 17 studies that investigated VE against different endpoints. Pooled VE was 63.1% (95% confidence interval (CI): 40.9-76.9) against asymptomatic infection, 75.7% (95% CI: 69.3-80.8) against symptomatic infection and 90.9% (95% CI: 84.5-94.7) against hospitalisation. Compared with the Alpha variant, VE against mild outcomes was reduced by 10-20%, but fully maintained against severe COVID-19.

Efficacy and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 infection: interim results of a living systematic review, 1 January to 14 May 2021.

Evidence on COVID-19 vaccine efficacy/effectiveness (VE) in preventing asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections is needed to guide public health recommendations for vaccinated people. We report interim results of a living systematic review. We identified a total of 30 studies that investigated VE against symptomatic and/or asymptomatic infection. In fully vaccinated individuals, VE against symptomatic and asymptomatic infections was 80-90% in nearly all studies. Fully vaccinated persons are less likely to become infected and contribute to transmission.

[How to assess the elimination of viral hepatitis B, C, and D in Germany? Outcomes of an interdisciplinary workshop]. / Wie lässt sich die Eliminierung von Hepatitis B, C und D in Deutschland messen? Ergebnisse eines interdisziplinären Arbeitstreffens.

BACKGROUND: In 2016, the World Health Organization (WHO) released a strategy to eliminate hepatitis B, C, and D and defined indicators to monitor the progress. The Robert Koch Institute organized an interdisciplinary working meeting in 2019 to identify data sources and gaps. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to network, to create an overview of the data sources available in Germany on hepatitis B and C, and to discuss how to construct indicators. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We extracted the WHO indicators relevant for Germany and determined how they can be constructed on the basis of available data. Stakeholders from public health services, clinics, laboratories, health insurance companies, research institutes, data holders, and registries attended a workshop and discussed methods of constructing the indicators for which data are lacking. Data sources and data were evaluated and prioritized with regard to their quality and completeness. RESULTS: Indicators on prevalence, incidence, prevention, testing and diagnosis, treatment, cure, burden of sequelae, and mortality for the general population can be constructed using secondary data such as diagnosis, health service, and registry data, data from laboratories and hospitals as well as population-based studies. Data sources for vulnerable groups are limited to studies among drug users, men who have sex with men, and about HIV coinfected patients. Data for migrants, prisoners, and sex workers are largely lacking as well as data on burden of disease from chronic viral hepatitis in the general population. CONCLUSIONS: We identified data sources, their limitations, and methods for construction for all selected indicators. The next step is to convert the ideas developed into concrete projects with individual stakeholders.