- Home
- Eurosurveillance
- Previous Issues
- Volume 27, Issue 4, 27/Jan/2022
Eurosurveillance - Volume 27, Issue 4, 27 January 2022
Volume 27, Issue 4, 2022
- Rapid communication
-
-
-
Reduced risk of hospitalisation among reported COVID-19 cases infected with the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 variant compared with the Delta variant, Norway, December 2021 to January 2022
We included 39,524 COVID-19 Omicron and 51,481 Delta cases reported in Norway from December 2021 to January 2022. We estimated a 73% reduced risk of hospitalisation (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.27; 95% confidence interval: 0.20–0.36) for Omicron compared with Delta. Compared with unvaccinated groups, Omicron cases who had completed primary two-dose vaccination 7–179 days before diagnosis had a lower reduced risk than Delta (66% vs 93%). People vaccinated with three doses had a similar risk reduction (86% vs 88%).
-
-
-
Increased risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 compared with Delta in vaccinated and previously infected individuals, the Netherlands, 22 November 2021 to 19 January 2022
Infections with the Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant are rapidly increasing worldwide. Among 174,349 SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals (≥ 12 years), we observed an increased risk of S gene target failure, predictive of the Omicron variant, in vaccinated (odds ratio (OR): 3.6; 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.4–3.7) and previously infected individuals (OR: 4.2; 95% CI: 3.8–4.7) compared with infected naïve individuals. This suggests vaccine- or infection-induced immunity against SARS-CoV-2 infections is less effective against the Omicron than the Delta variant.
-
- Top
-
- Surveillance
-
-
-
Surveillance of leishmaniasis cases from 15 European centres, 2014 to 2019: a retrospective analysis
Gert Van der Auwera , Leigh Davidsson , Pierre Buffet , Marie-Thérèse Ruf , Marina Gramiccia , Stefania Varani , Carmen Chicharro , Aldert Bart , Gundel Harms , Peter L. Chiodini , Hanne Brekke , Florence Robert-Gangneux , Sofia Cortes , Jaco J Verweij , Alessandra Scarabello , Sara Karlsson Söbirk , Romain Guéry , Saskia van Henten , Trentina Di Muccio , Elena Carra , Pieter van Thiel , Martin Vandeputte , Valeria Gaspari , Johannes Blum and LeishMan Surveillance networkBackgroundSurveillance of human leishmaniasis in Europe is mostly limited to country-specific information from autochthonous infections in the southern part. As at the end of 2021, no integrated analysis has been performed for cases seen across centres in different European countries.
AimTo provide a broad perspective on autochthonous and imported leishmaniasis cases in endemic and non-endemic countries in Europe.
MethodsWe retrospectively collected records from cutaneous, mucosal and visceral leishmaniasis cases diagnosed in 15 centres between 2014 and 2019. Centres were located in 11 countries: Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Data on country of infection, reason for travelling, infecting species, age and sex were analysed.
ResultsWe obtained diagnostic files from 1,142 cases, of which 76%, 21% and 3% had cutaneous, visceral, and mucosal disease, respectively. Of these, 68% were men, and 32% women, with the median age of 37 years (range: 0–90) at diagnosis. Visceral leishmaniasis was mainly acquired in Europe (88%; 167/190), while cutaneous leishmaniasis was primarily imported from outside Europe (77%; 575/749). Sixty-two percent of cutaneous leishmaniasis cases from outside Europe were from the Old World, and 38% from the New World. Geographic species distribution largely confirmed known epidemiology, with notable exceptions.
ConclusionsOur study confirms previous reports regarding geographic origin, species, and traveller subgroups importing leishmaniasis into Europe. We demonstrate the importance of pooling species typing data from many centres, even from areas where the aetiology is presumably known, to monitor changing epidemiology.
-
-
-
Is clinical primary care surveillance for tularaemia a useful addition to laboratory surveillance? An analysis of notification data for Finland, 2013 to 2019
BackgroundIn Finland, surveillance of tularaemia relies on laboratory-confirmed case notifications to the National infectious Diseases Register (NIDR).
AimThe aim of the study was to assess the suitability and usefulness of clinical surveillance as an addition to laboratory notification to improve tularaemia surveillance in Finland.
MethodsWe retrieved NIDR tularaemia surveillance and primary healthcare data on clinically diagnosed tularaemia cases in Finland between 2013 and 2019. We compared incidences, demographic distributions and seasonal trends between the two data sources.
ResultsThe median annual incidence was 0.6 (range: 0.1–12.7) and 0.8 (range: 0.6–7.2) per 100,000 for NIDR notifications and primary healthcare notifications, respectively. Cases reported to NIDR were slightly older than cases reported to primary healthcare (median: 53 years vs 50 years, p = 0.04), but had similar sex distribution. Seasonal peaks differed between systems, both in magnitude and in timing. On average, primary healthcare notifications peaked 3 weeks before NIDR. However, peaks in NIDR were more pronounced, for example in 2017, monthly incidence per 100,000 of NIDR notifications peaked at 12.7 cases in September, while primary healthcare notifications peaked at 7.2 (1.8 ratio) in August.
ConclusionsClinically diagnosed cases provide a valuable additional data source for surveillance of tularaemia in Finland. A primary healthcare-based system would allow for earlier detection of increasing incidences and thereby for early warning of outbreaks. This is crucial in order to implement targeted control and prevention measures as early as possible.
-
- Top
-
- Research
-
-
-
Variability in detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody responses following mild infection: a prospective multicentre cross-sectional study, London, United Kingdom, 17 April to 17 July 2020
Scott JC Pallett , Rachael Jones , Ahmed Abdulaal , Mitchell A Pallett , Michael Rayment , Aatish Patel , Sarah J Denny , Nabeela Mughal , Maryam Khan , Carolina Rosadas de Oliveira , Panagiotis Pantelidis , Paul Randell , Christofer Toumazou , Matthew K O’Shea , Richard Tedder , Myra O McClure , Gary W Davies and Luke SP MooreIntroductionImmunoassays targeting different SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies are employed for seroprevalence studies. The degree of variability between immunoassays targeting anti-nucleocapsid (anti-NP; the majority) vs the potentially neutralising anti-spike antibodies (including anti-receptor-binding domain; anti-RBD), particularly in mild or asymptomatic disease, remains unclear.
AimsWe aimed to explore variability in anti-NP and anti-RBD antibody detectability following mild symptomatic or asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and analyse antibody response for correlation with symptomatology.
MethodsA multicentre prospective cross-sectional study was undertaken (April–July 2020). Paired serum samples were tested for anti-NP and anti-RBD IgG antibodies and reactivity expressed as binding ratios (BR). Multivariate linear regression was performed analysing age, sex, time since onset, symptomatology, anti-NP and anti-RBD antibody BR.
ResultsWe included 906 adults. Antibody results (793/906; 87.5%; 95% confidence interval: 85.2–89.6) and BR strongly correlated (ρ = 0.75). PCR-confirmed cases were more frequently identified by anti-RBD (129/130) than anti-NP (123/130). Anti-RBD testing identified 83 of 325 (25.5%) cases otherwise reported as negative for anti-NP. Anti-NP presence (+1.75/unit increase; p < 0.001), fever (≥ 38°C; +1.81; p < 0.001) or anosmia (+1.91; p < 0.001) were significantly associated with increased anti-RBD BR. Age (p = 0.85), sex (p = 0.28) and cough (p = 0.35) were not. When time since symptom onset was considered, we did not observe a significant change in anti-RBD BR (p = 0.95) but did note decreasing anti-NP BR (p < 0.001).
ConclusionSARS-CoV-2 anti-RBD IgG showed significant correlation with anti-NP IgG for absolute seroconversion and BR. Higher BR were seen in symptomatic individuals, particularly those with fever. Inter-assay variability (12.5%) was evident and raises considerations for optimising seroprevalence testing strategies/studies.
-
- Top
-
- Systematic Review
-
-
-
Risk of Guillain–Barré syndrome after vaccination against human papillomavirus: a systematic review and meta-analysis, 1 January 2000 to 4 April 2020
BackgroundGuillain–Barré syndrome (GBS) is a rare autoimmune disease that can follow viral infections and has in a few cases been linked to vaccinations. Pre-licensure clinical trials did not observe an association between human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination and GBS, a post-marketing study from 2017 reported an increased relative risk.
AimWe assessed the risk of GBS after HPV vaccination through a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.
MethodsWe searched Embase, MEDLINE and Cochrane for studies reporting on the risk of GBS after HPV vaccination in individuals aged ≥ 9 years, published between 1 January 2000 and 4 April 2020, excluding studies without a comparator group. Seven studies reporting relative effect sizes were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. We assessed quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. Study protocol was registered (PROSPERO No. #CRD42019123533).
ResultsOf 602 identified records, we included 25 studies. Based on over 10 million reports, cases of GBS were rare. In 22 studies no increased risk was observed, while in three studies a signal of increased risk of GBS after HPV vaccination was identified. Meta-analysis yielded a pooled random-effects ratio of 1.21 (95% CI: 0.60–2.43); I2 = 72% (95% CI: 36–88). This translates to a number needed to harm of one million to be vaccinated to generate one GBS case. Quality of evidence was very low.
ConclusionsThe absolute and relative risk of GBS after HPV vaccination is very low and lacks statistical significance. This is reassuring for the already implemented vaccination programmes and should be used in respective communication activities.
-
-
Volumes & issues
-
Volume 29 (2024)
-
Volume 28 (2023)
-
Volume 27 (2022)
-
Volume 26 (2021)
-
Volume 25 (2020)
-
Volume 24 (2019)
-
Volume 23 (2018)
-
Volume 22 (2017)
-
Volume 21 (2016)
-
Volume 20 (2015)
-
Volume 19 (2014)
-
Volume 18 (2013)
-
Volume 17 (2012)
-
Volume 16 (2011)
-
Volume 15 (2010)
-
Volume 14 (2009)
-
Volume 13 (2008)
-
Volume 12 (2007)
-
Volume 11 (2006)
-
Volume 10 (2005)
-
Volume 9 (2004)
-
Volume 8 (2003)
-
Volume 7 (2002)
-
Volume 6 (2001)
-
Volume 5 (2000)
-
Volume 4 (1999)
-
Volume 3 (1998)
-
Volume 2 (1997)
-
Volume 1 (1996)
-
Volume 0 (1995)
Most Read This Month
-
-
Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR
Victor M Corman , Olfert Landt , Marco Kaiser , Richard Molenkamp , Adam Meijer , Daniel KW Chu , Tobias Bleicker , Sebastian Brünink , Julia Schneider , Marie Luisa Schmidt , Daphne GJC Mulders , Bart L Haagmans , Bas van der Veer , Sharon van den Brink , Lisa Wijsman , Gabriel Goderski , Jean-Louis Romette , Joanna Ellis , Maria Zambon , Malik Peiris , Herman Goossens , Chantal Reusken , Marion PG Koopmans and Christian Drosten
-
- More Less