Dataset Information

A comparison of coronavirus disease 2019 and seasonal influenza surveillance in five European countries: France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In response to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak that unfolded across Europe in 2020, the World Health Organisation (WHO) called for repurposing existing influenza surveillance systems to monitor COVID-19. This analysis aimed to compare descriptively the extent to which influenza surveillance systems were adapted and enhanced and how COVID-19 surveillance could ultimately benefit or disrupt routine influenza surveillance.

Methods

We used a previously developed framework in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom to describe COVID-19 surveillance and its impact on influenza surveillance. The framework divides surveillance systems into seven subsystems and 20 comparable outcomes of interest and uses five evaluation criteria based on WHO guidance. Information on influenza and COVID-19 surveillance systems were collected from publicly available resources shared by European and national public health agencies.

Results

Overall, non-medically attended, virological, primary care and mortality surveillance were adapted in most countries to monitor COVID-19, although community, outbreak and hospital surveillance were reinforced in all countries. Data granularity improved, with more detailed demographic and medical information recorded. A shift to systematic notification for cases and deaths enhanced both geographic and population representativeness, although the sampling strategy benefited from the roll out of widespread molecular testing. Data communication was greatly enhanced, contributing to improved public awareness.

Conclusions

Well-established influenza surveillance systems are a key component of pandemic preparedness, and their upgrade allowed European countries to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, uncertainties remain on how both influenza and COVID-19 surveillance can be jointly and durably implemented.

SUBMITTER: Rigoine de Fougerolles T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8983920 | biostudies-literature | 2022 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A comparison of coronavirus disease 2019 and seasonal influenza surveillance in five European countries: France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom.

Rigoine de Fougerolles Thierry T Puig-Barbera Joan J Kassianos George G Vanhems Philippe P Schelling Jorg J Crepey Pascal P de Lejarazu Raul Ortiz RO Ansaldi Filippo F Fruhwein Markus M Galli Cristina C Mosnier Anne A Pariani Elena E Rasuli Anvar A Vitoux Olivier O Watkins John J Weinke Thomas T Bricout Hélène H

Influenza and other respiratory viruses 20211205 3

<h4>Background</h4>In response to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak that unfolded across Europe in 2020, the World Health Organisation (WHO) called for repurposing existing influenza surveillance systems to monitor COVID-19. This analysis aimed to compare descriptively the extent to which influenza surveillance systems were adapted and enhanced and how COVID-19 surveillance could ultimately benefit or disrupt routine influenza surveillance.<h4>Methods</h4>We used a previously developed ...[more]

PMID: 34866344

Similar Datasets

Project description:This data article contains information on the distribution of household incomes in the five most populous European countries as surveyed in 2012, with data released in 2014 and published here aggregated and so further anonymized in 2015. The underlying source data is the already anonymized EU Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EUSILC) Microdata. The data include the annual household income required in each country to fall within the best-off 1% in that country, median and mean incomes, average (mean) incomes of the best off 1%, 0.1% and estimates for the 0.01%, 0.001% and so on for the UK, and of the 90% and worse-off 10%, the best-off 10% and best-off 1% of households for all countries. Average income from the state is also calculated by these income categories and the number of people working in finance and receiving over €1,000,000 a year in income is reported from other sources (the European Banking Authority). Finally income distribution data is provided from the USA and the rest of Europe in order to allow comparisons to be made. The data revealed the gross household (simple unweighted) median incomes in 2012 to have been (in order from best-off country by median to worse-off): France €39,000, Germany: €33,400, UK: €36,300, Italy €33,400 and Spain €27,000. However the medians, once households are weighted to reflect the nation populations do differ although they are in the same order: France €36,000, Germany: €33,400, UK: €31,300, Italy €31,000 and Spain €23,700. Thus weighting to increase representativeness of the medians reduces each by €3000, €0, €5000, €3300 and €3300 respectively. In short, the middle (weighted median) French household is €4700 a year better off than the middle UK family, and that is before housing costs are considered. This Data in Brief article accompanies Dorling, D. (2015) Income Inequality in the UK: Comparisons with five large Western European countries and the USA [1].

Project description:IntroductionNewer treatment options for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) with efficacy and safety profiles that differ from traditional therapies have facilitated personalized management strategies to optimize patient outcomes. In the context of such personalized management, understanding how treatment characteristics influence patients' preferences is essential. This study assessed patients' preferences for RRMM treatment attributes and determined trade-offs between potential benefits, administration procedures, and adverse effects.MethodsPatients' preferences were evaluated using a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Patients with RRMM who reported failing two lines of anti-myeloma treatment (immunomodulatory agent and a proteasome inhibitor [PI]) or ≥ 3 lines (including ≥1 PI, immunomodulatory agent, or anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody), were recruited across the US, UK, Italy, Germany, France, and Spain. DCE attributes and levels were identified using a targeted literature review, a review of clinical data for relevant RRMM treatments, qualitative patient interviews, and input from clinical and myeloma patient experts. The DCE was administered within an online survey from February-June 2022. Preference data were analyzed using an error-component logit model and willingness to make trade-offs for potential benefits, and relative attribute importance scores were calculated.ResultsOverall, 296 patients from the US (n = 100), UK (n = 49), Italy (n = 45), Germany (n = 43), France (n = 39), and Spain (n = 20) participated in the DCE. Mean (standard deviation) age was 63.8 (8.0) years, 84% had a caregiver, and patients had a median of 3 (range: 2-8) prior lines of therapy. Efficacy attributes most influenced patients' preferences, with increasing overall response rate (25-85%) and overall survival (6 months to 2 years) contributing to ~50% of treatment decision-making. Administration procedures were also considered important to patients. Avoiding individual side effects was considered relatively less important, with patients willing to tolerate increases in side effects for gains in efficacy. Patient characteristics such as rate of disease progression, sociodemographics, or clinical characteristics also influenced treatment preferences.ConclusionPatients with RRMM were willing to tolerate increased risk of side effects for higher efficacy. Preferences and risk tolerance varied between patients, with preference patterns differing by certain patient characteristics. This highlights the importance of shared decision-making for optimal treatment selection and patient outcomes.

Project description:IntroductionRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard when comparing treatment effectiveness, and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies state a clear preference for such direct comparisons. When these are not available, an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) is an alternative option. The objective of this study was to assess the acceptance of ITC methods by HTA agencies across England, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain, using oncology cases for a homogeneous sample of HTA evaluations.MethodsThe study was conducted on the PrismAccess database in May 2021 to retrieve HTA evaluation reports for oncology treatments for solid tumors, in which an ITC was presented. The analysis was restricted to HTA evaluation reports published between April 2018 and April 2021 in England, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain. Identified HTA evaluation reports were screened and reviewed by two independent reviewers. For each ITC presented, the methodology and its acceptance by the HTA agency were analyzed.ResultsFive hundred and forty-three HTA evaluation reports were identified, of which 120 (22%) presented an ITC. This proportion was the highest in England (51%) and lowest in France (6%). The overall acceptance rate of ITC methods was 30%, with the highest in England (47%) and lowest in France (0%). Network meta-analysis (NMA; 23%) was the most commonly used ITC technique, with a 39% acceptance rate overall, followed by Bucher ITC (19%; 43% acceptance rate) and matching-adjusted indirect comparison (13%; 33% acceptance rate). The most common criticisms of the ITC methods from HTA agencies related to data limitations (heterogeneity and lack of data; 48% and 43%, respectively) and the statistical methods used (41%).ConclusionsThe generally low acceptance rate of ITC methods by HTA agencies in oncology suggests that, whilst in the absence of a direct comparison ITCs may provide relevant evidence, this evidence is not widely considered sufficient for the purpose of HTA evaluations. The perception of ITC methods for the purpose of HTA evaluations varies substantially between countries. There is a need for further clarity on the properties of ITC techniques and the assessment of their results as ITC methods continue to evolve quickly and further techniques may become available in the future.

Dataset Information

A comparison of coronavirus disease 2019 and seasonal influenza surveillance in five European countries: France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

A comparison of coronavirus disease 2019 and seasonal influenza surveillance in five European countries: France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets