Dataset Information

Absence of association between 2019-20 influenza vaccination and COVID-19: Results of the European I-MOVE-COVID-19 primary care project, March-August 2020.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Claims of influenza vaccination increasing COVID-19 risk are circulating. Within the I-MOVE-COVID-19 primary care multicentre study, we measured the association between 2019-20 influenza vaccination and COVID-19.

Methods

We conducted a multicentre test-negative case-control study at primary care level, in study sites in five European countries, from March to August 2020. Patients presenting with acute respiratory infection were swabbed, with demographic, 2019-20 influenza vaccination and clinical information documented. Using logistic regression, we measured the adjusted odds ratio (aOR), adjusting for study site and age, sex, calendar time, presence of chronic conditions. The main analysis included patients swabbed ≤7 days after onset from the three countries with <15% of missing influenza vaccination. In secondary analyses, we included five countries, using multiple imputation with chained equations to account for missing data.

Results

We included 257 COVID-19 cases and 1631 controls in the main analysis (three countries). The overall aOR between influenza vaccination and COVID-19 was 0.93 (95% CI: 0.66-1.32). The aOR was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.58-1.46) and 0.92 (95% CI: 0.51-1.67) among those aged 20-59 and ≥60 years, respectively. In secondary analyses, we included 6457 cases and 69 272 controls. The imputed aOR was 0.87 (95% CI: 0.79-0.95) among all ages and any delay between swab and symptom onset.

Conclusions

There was no evidence that COVID-19 cases were more likely to be vaccinated against influenza than controls. Influenza vaccination should be encouraged among target groups for vaccination. I-MOVE-COVID-19 will continue documenting influenza vaccination status in 2020-21, in order to learn about effects of recent influenza vaccination.

SUBMITTER: Kissling E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8013620 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSeveral U.S. hospitals had surges in COVID-19 caseload, but their effect on COVID-19 survival rates remains unclear, especially independent of temporal changes in survival.ObjectiveTo determine the association between hospitals' severity-weighted COVID-19 caseload and COVID-19 mortality risk and identify effect modifiers of this relationship.DesignRetrospective cohort study. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04688372).Setting558 U.S. hospitals in the Premier Healthcare Database.ParticipantsAdult COVID-19-coded inpatients admitted from March to August 2020 with discharge dispositions by October 2020.MeasurementsEach hospital-month was stratified by percentile rank on a surge index (a severity-weighted measure of COVID-19 caseload relative to pre-COVID-19 bed capacity). The effect of surge index on risk-adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of in-hospital mortality or discharge to hospice was calculated using hierarchical modeling; interaction by surge attributes was assessed.ResultsOf 144 116 inpatients with COVID-19 at 558 U.S. hospitals, 78 144 (54.2%) were admitted to hospitals in the top surge index decile. Overall, 25 344 (17.6%) died; crude COVID-19 mortality decreased over time across all surge index strata. However, compared with nonsurging (<50th surge index percentile) hospital-months, aORs in the 50th to 75th, 75th to 90th, 90th to 95th, 95th to 99th, and greater than 99th percentiles were 1.11 (95% CI, 1.01 to 1.23), 1.24 (CI, 1.12 to 1.38), 1.42 (CI, 1.27 to 1.60), 1.59 (CI, 1.41 to 1.80), and 2.00 (CI, 1.69 to 2.38), respectively. The surge index was associated with mortality across ward, intensive care unit, and intubated patients. The surge-mortality relationship was stronger in June to August than in March to May (slope difference, 0.10 [CI, 0.033 to 0.16]) despite greater corticosteroid use and more judicious intubation during later and higher-surging months. Nearly 1 in 4 COVID-19 deaths (5868 [CI, 3584 to 8171]; 23.2%) was potentially attributable to hospitals strained by surging caseload.LimitationResidual confounding.ConclusionDespite improvements in COVID-19 survival between March and August 2020, surges in hospital COVID-19 caseload remained detrimental to survival and potentially eroded benefits gained from emerging treatments. Bolstering preventive measures and supporting surging hospitals will save many lives.Primary funding sourceIntramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the National Cancer Institute.

Project description:During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, governments and public health authorities collected massive amounts of data on daily confirmed positive cases and incidence rates. These data sets provide relevant information to develop a scientific understanding of the pandemic's spatiotemporal dynamics. At the same time, there is a lack of comprehensive approaches to describe and classify patterns underlying the dynamics of COVID-19 incidence across regions over time. This seriously constrains the potential benefits for public health authorities to understand spatiotemporal patterns of disease incidence that would allow for better risk communication strategies and improved assessment of mitigation policies efficacy. Within this context, we propose an exploratory statistical tool that combines functional data analysis with unsupervised learning algorithms to extract meaningful information about the main spatiotemporal patterns underlying COVID-19 incidence on mainland Portugal. We focus on the timeframe spanning from August 2020 to March 2022, considering data at the municipality level. First, we describe the temporal evolution of confirmed daily COVID-19 cases by municipality as a function of time, and outline the main temporal patterns of variability using a functional principal component analysis. Then, municipalities are classified according to their spatiotemporal similarities through hierarchical clustering adapted to spatially correlated functional data. Our findings reveal disparities in disease dynamics between northern and coastal municipalities versus those in the southern and hinterland. We also distinguish effects occurring during the 2020-2021 period from those in the 2021-2022 autumn-winter seasons. The results provide proof-of-concept that the proposed approach can be used to detect the main spatiotemporal patterns of disease incidence. The novel approach expands and enhances existing exploratory tools for spatiotemporal analysis of public health data.

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 outbreak had an important impact on general practice, for example the lack of personal protective equipment (PPE) and the switch to telephone consultations. We installed a monitoring instrument and reported the burden the COVID-19 pandemic placed on Belgian general practitioners (GPs) during the first wave of the pandemic.MethodsWe conducted an observational longitudinal prospective study from the 19th of March until the 17th of August 2020. Daily data were collected by using a structured electronic form integrated into the GPs' electronic medical records (EMRs). Data were collected on the GPs' need for support and workload, epidemiological indicators and the availability of PPE. Reports with graphical presentations were made for GP circles and primary care zones, and governments of different administrative levels had access to all data to guide their policy.ResultsA total of 3.769 different GP centres participated, which included more than 10.000 GPs. Throughout the first three weeks, 20% declared they had insufficient resources (personnel and material) for the following week. Approximately 10% continued to report this during the entire study. The majority reported being able to complete their daily tasks without loss of quality. During the first week, 30% indicated an increased workload. Afterwards, this number decreased and stabilized to an average of 10-20%. More than 70% of the consultations in March 2020 were conducted by telephone. This percentage declined in April and stabilized at approximately 30% in June 2020. Consultations due to respiratory symptoms peaked at 4000/100,000 inhabitants at the beginning of the outbreak, then decreased over time along with the COVID-19 incidence. We noticed a lack of disinfectant hand gel, surgical masks and FFP2 masks, the latter remaining problematic in the long term.ConclusionWe introduced an instrument in Belgian EMR systems to monitor the burden on GPs during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. The lack of PPE and increased workload were considered to be the main obstacles. A large number of the GP offices switched to teleconsultations to provide healthcare. Our monitoring instrument provided information for policy makers to intervene on a local level.

Project description:BackgroundThe serious outcomes of outbreaks of COVID-19 in care homes have been described internationally. The experiences of professionals working through outbreaks has received less attention, missing opportunities to acknowledge and learn lessons. Our aim was to explore the experiences of care home staff in Scotland of managing COVID-19 within their homes to help inform understanding and future practice.MethodsFrom April to August 2022, 34 individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with care home staff working in homes which experienced an outbreak(s) of COVID-19. Reflexive thematic methods were used to analyse verbatim deidentified transcripts.FindingsThere was no singular experience of COVID-19 outbreaks within care homes. We identified four broad groupings of homes with outbreaks (significant outbreaks, managed outbreaks, outbreaks in remote/rural homes & outbreaks in homes supporting younger adults), with overlaps in timing and severity and variation in the support received and impact. The national response to the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in fundamental change to care home relationships. Staff responded by adaptation in uncertainty. However, they were challenged by emerging inequalities influencing residents' care. There were tensions between staff experience and evolving external approaches to regulation and oversight. All this change resulted in psychological impacts on staff. However, there was also widespread evidence of compassionate leadership and teamwork in their responses. Effective sources of support were underpinned by respectful relationships and continuity, tailored to individual contexts.ConclusionsThe lived experiences of care home staff during the COVID-19 pandemic provide valuable insights applicable beyond the pandemic context. This includes: recognition of the specialism, complexity and diversity of care home practice; the value afforded by embedding genuine representation and involvement in planning, policy-making and research; the need for individualising to people in their contexts and the value of fostering respectful relationships across professional groups to support residents.

Project description:BackgroundSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2 or Covid-19), which began as an epidemic in China and spread globally as a pandemic, has necessitated resource management to meet emergency needs of Covid-19 patients and other emergent cases. We have conducted a survey to analyze caseload and measures to adapt indications for a perception of crisis.MethodsWe constructed a questionnaire to survey a snapshot of neurosurgical activity, resources, and indications during 1 week with usual activity in December 2019 and 1 week during SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in March 2020. The questionnaire was sent to 34 neurosurgical departments in Europe; 25 departments returned responses within 5 days.ResultsWe found unexpectedly large differences in resources and indications already before the pandemic. Differences were also large in how much practice and resources changed during the pandemic. Neurosurgical beds and neuro-intensive care beds were significantly decreased from December 2019 to March 2020. The utilization of resources decreased via less demand for care of brain injuries and subarachnoid hemorrhage, postponing surgery and changed surgical indications as a method of rationing resources. Twenty departments (80%) reduced activity extensively, and the same proportion stated that they were no longer able to provide care according to legitimate medical needs.ConclusionNeurosurgical centers responded swiftly and effectively to a sudden decrease of neurosurgical capacity due to relocation of resources to pandemic care. The pandemic led to rationing of neurosurgical care in 80% of responding centers. We saw a relation between resources before the pandemic and ability to uphold neurosurgical services. The observation of extensive differences of available beds provided an opportunity to show how resources that had been restricted already under normal conditions translated to rationing of care that may not be acceptable to the public of seemingly affluent European countries.