IntroductionLiterature on influenza focuses on influenza A, despite influenza B having a large public health impact. The Global Influenza B Study aims to collect information on global epidemiology and burden of disease of influenza B since 2000.MethodsTwenty-six countries in the Southern (n = 5) and Northern (n = 7) hemispheres and intertropical belt (n = 14) provided virological and epidemiological data. We calculated the proportion of influenza cases due to type B and Victoria and Yamagata lineages in each country and season; tested the correlation between proportion of influenza B and maximum weekly influenza-like illness (ILI) rate during the same season; determined the frequency of vaccine mismatches; and described the age distribution of cases by virus type.ResultsThe database included 935 673 influenza cases (2000–2013). Overall median proportion of influenza B was 22·6%, with no statistically significant differences across seasons. During seasons where influenza B was dominant or co-circulated (>20% of total detections), Victoria and Yamagata lineages predominated during 64% and 36% of seasons, respectively, and a vaccine mismatch was observed in ≈25% of seasons. Proportion of influenza B was inversely correlated with maximum ILI rate in the same season in the Northern and (with borderline significance) Southern hemispheres. Patients infected with influenza B were usually younger (5–17 years) than patients infected with influenza A.ConclusionInfluenza B is a common disease with some epidemiological differences from influenza A. This should be considered when optimizing control/prevention strategies in different regions and reducing the global burden of disease due to influenza.

Data on the pre-vaccination patterns of infection for measles, mumps and rubella are collated from a number of European countries in order to compare the epidemiology of the three viruses. Key epidemiological parameters, such as the age-specific force of infection and the basic reproduction number (R0) are estimated from case notification or serological data using standard techniques. A method is described to compare force of infection estimates derived from serological data. Analysis suggests that the pre-vaccination patterns of measles and mumps infection in the different countries were similar. In contrast, the epidemiology of rubella was highly variable between countries. This suggests that it may be acceptable to use parameter values estimated from other countries to model measles and mumps transmission, but that this approach to modelling rubella transmission requires more caution. Estimates of R0 depend on underlying mixing assumptions. Constraints were placed on R0 estimates by utilising knowledge of likely mixing patterns. The estimates for R0 were highest for measles, intermediate for mumps, and generally lowest for rubella. Analysis of within- and between-age-group transmission rates suggested that mumps transmission tends to be more concentrated within young children than the other two viruses. The implications for the design of immunization programmes are that mumps may be the easiest to control via infant immunization since it is predominantly transmitted between the very young and the variability in rubella epidemiology requires that careful consideration of the possible effects of vaccination options should be made using local data when planning rubella immunization programmes.

Background Our understanding of the global scale of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection remains incomplete: Routine surveillance data underestimate infection and cannot infer on population immunity; there is a predominance of asymptomatic infections, and uneven access to diagnostics. We meta-analyzed SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence studies, standardized to those described in the World Health Organization’s Unity protocol (WHO Unity) for general population seroepidemiological studies, to estimate the extent of population infection and seropositivity to the virus 2 years into the pandemic. Methods and findings We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, searching MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, preprints, and grey literature for SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence published between January 1, 2020 and May 20, 2022. The review protocol is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020183634). We included general population cross-sectional and cohort studies meeting an assay quality threshold (90% sensitivity, 97% specificity; exceptions for humanitarian settings). We excluded studies with an unclear or closed population sample frame. Eligible studies—those aligned with the WHO Unity protocol—were extracted and critically appraised in duplicate, with risk of bias evaluated using a modified Joanna Briggs Institute checklist. We meta-analyzed seroprevalence by country and month, pooling to estimate regional and global seroprevalence over time; compared seroprevalence from infection to confirmed cases to estimate underascertainment; meta-analyzed differences in seroprevalence between demographic subgroups such as age and sex; and identified national factors associated with seroprevalence using meta-regression. We identified 513 full texts reporting 965 distinct seroprevalence studies (41% low- and middle-income countries [LMICs]) sampling 5,346,069 participants between January 2020 and April 2022, including 459 low/moderate risk of bias studies with national/subnational scope in further analysis. By September 2021, global SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence from infection or vaccination was 59.2%, 95% CI [56.1% to 62.2%]. Overall seroprevalence rose steeply in 2021 due to infection in some regions (e.g., 26.6% [24.6 to 28.8] to 86.7% [84.6% to 88.5%] in Africa in December 2021) and vaccination and infection in others (e.g., 9.6% [8.3% to 11.0%] in June 2020 to 95.9% [92.6% to 97.8%] in December 2021, in European high-income countries [HICs]). After the emergence of Omicron in March 2022, infection-induced seroprevalence rose to 47.9% [41.0% to 54.9%] in Europe HIC and 33.7% [31.6% to 36.0%] in Americas HIC. In 2021 Quarter Three (July to September), median seroprevalence to cumulative incidence ratios ranged from around 2:1 in the Americas and Europe HICs to over 100:1 in Africa (LMICs). Children 0 to 9 years and adults 60+ were at lower risk of seropositivity than adults 20 to 29 (p < 0.001 and p = 0.005, respectively). In a multivariable model using prevaccination data, stringent public health and social measures were associated with lower seroprevalence (p = 0.02). The main limitations of our methodology include that some estimates were driven by certain countries or populations being overrepresented. Conclusions In this study, we observed that global seroprevalence has risen considerably over time and with regional variation; however, over one-third of the global population are seronegative to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Our estimates of infections based on seroprevalence far exceed reported Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases. Quality and standardized seroprevalence studies are essential to inform COVID-19 response, particularly in resource-limited regions.

Binary file ES_Abstracts_Final_ECDC.txt matches

Phase 3 randomized-controlled trials have provided promising results of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy, ranging from 50-95% against symptomatic disease as the primary endpoints, resulting in emergency use authorization/listing for several vaccines. However, given the short duration of follow-up during the clinical trials, strict eligibility criteria, emerging variants of concern, and the changing epidemiology of the pandemic, many questions still remain unanswered regarding vaccine performance. Post-introduction vaccine effectiveness evaluations can help to understand the effect on reducing infection and disease when used in real-world conditions. They can also address important questions that were either not studied or were incompletely studied in the trials and that will inform evolving vaccine policy, including assessment of the duration of effectiveness; effectiveness in key subpopulations, such as the very old or immunocompromised; against severe disease and death due to COVID-19; against emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern, and with different vaccination schedules, such as number of doses and varying dosing intervals. WHO convened an expert panel to develop interim best practice guidance for COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness evaluations. We present a summary of the interim guidance, including discussion of different study designs, priority outcomes to evaluate, potential biases, existing surveillance platforms that can be used, and recommendations for reporting results.