User login
MALMO, SWEDEN – When American physicians think about health care in Europe, what typically comes to mind are government-funded, single-payer national health services with cradle-to-grave coverage of essential services, a strong public health bent, and perhaps some queuing.
“It’s complicated. There is no common strategic approach,” Hanna Nohynek, MD, PhD, observed at a session on childhood immunization against flu held during the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases.
“In real life, influenza coverage among [European] children is either not known or quite low. Impact assessments in children are done in only a few countries,” said Dr. Nohynek, chief physician in the infectious diseases control and vaccinations unit of the National Institute for Health and Welfare in Helsinki, Finland.
“The only country doing as well coverage-wise as the U.S. is the U.K., with rates of 50%-65%. In Finland it’s less than 40%,” according to Dr. Nohynek.
“We have 28 countries today in the E.U. [European Union], and we have 28 different recommendations in Europe. So where do we go from here? It’s really not easy,” observed session cochair Alberticus Osterhaus, DVM, PhD, emeritus professor of virology at Erasmus University in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
For all the oft-cited shortcomings of health care in the United States, That’s why Jon S. Abramson, MD, a former chair of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), was invited to explain how the U.S. strategy was accomplished.
The U.S. approach
The current U.S. policy, implemented in 2010, is to recommend an annual flu shot for all persons older than 6 months of age.
Influenza vaccination has been part of the U.S. public health program since 1960. Children aged 6-23 months, as well as their household contacts and women who will be pregnant during flu season, were added in 2004. In 2006, the flu vaccine recommendation was expanded to include children aged 6-59 months as a result of persuasive data showing that the rate of flu-associated hospitalizations and deaths in children up to 4 years old was second only to the rate in the elderly population.
The rationale for expanding the recommendation to include all school-age children and adolescents stemmed from evidence that the highest average flu-related illness rate in the United States was in that age group, which confirmed that schools are a powerful vector for the spread of influenza. Vaccinating this age-group also was seen as having an indirect benefit for their household contacts.
The current policy of recommending vaccination of everyone over age 6 months was adopted because it checked off a lot of boxes: “It’s a single recommendation, easy to apply; it eliminates the need to look for indications and risk factors; it increases vaccination coverage rates; annual vaccination is safe and effective; and flu-related morbidity and mortality occur in all age groups,” Dr. Abramson continued.
The rate of influenza vaccine coverage in pregnant women has improved over time from less than 15% to about 50%. To place that in perspective, however, the rate in Argentina is 95%, the pediatrician noted.
“We’re doing better in children than we are in adults in terms of seasonal coverage rates,” he added. “In 2015, it was 59%, versus 42% in adults.”
Dr. Abramson said there remains some skepticism in the United States regarding the effectiveness of flu vaccines in preventing flu-related illness. That’s because of the difficulty in communicating that vaccine effectiveness varies from year to year, sometimes substantially, depending upon two factors: the transmission characteristics of the circulating strains and how well the vaccines match up against those strains.
“I think we have to learn to live with that. I don’t think we’ll see a universal flu vaccine that we can give once every 10 years,” he said.
“The bottom line is, even if a vaccine is only 50% efficacious overall, we’re still impacting huge numbers,” the pediatrician added.
Dr. Abramson cited a CDC estimate that, for the 2012-2013 season, where the vaccine was 49% efficacious, the result of vaccination was 6.6 million fewer cases of influenza-associated illnesses nationally, 3.2 million fewer flu-associated medical visits, and 79,000 hospitalizations avoided.
“I think we have a fairly good program in the United States. We’re doing well in children. We certainly could be doing better. Not having FluMist for the past 2 seasons probably hurt us some,” according to Dr. Abramson.
The FluMist experience
The FluMist episode is viewed by many European pediatric infectious disease experts as a debacle. Europeans eager to develop a pan-European strategy for seasonal immunization against influenza in children and adolescents viewed the U.S. FluMist episode with dismay. For the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 flu seasons, the ACIP recommended against FluMist, a previously approved intranasally administered quadrivalent live attenuated virus vaccine, on the basis of a single study showing subpar effectiveness against influenza A H1NI. Then at its October 2017 meeting, ACIP reversed itself and reinstated FluMist for the 2018-2019 season after viewing data from Finland and several other countries demonstrating that, in countries where it hadn’t been taken off the market, the vaccine had performed as well as injectable inactivated influenza vaccines in the 2016-2017 flu season.
“I think from the European side, it’s been a bit of a sorry spectacle,” commented Dr. Osterhaus, referring to the ACIP’s waffling. After all, authorities in Canada and European countries where FluMist was available had looked at the same data that caused ACIP to derecommend the vaccine but hadn’t found it convincing.
“We’re very happy to see ACIP has reinstated the vaccine,” Dr. Nohynek said.
Dr. Abramson declined to defend the ACIP decision to drop FluMist.
“From my standpoint, knowing that influenza B kills more children than A does, if I had been on the ACIP committee – and I’m not anymore – that would not have been my vote,” he said. “Whatever you want to say about the live attenuated influenza vaccine, about how good it is against some A strains or not, it’s better than other vaccines against influenza B. And the death rate is higher from B than A in children, although that is not true in adults.”
Plus, FluMist was an important option for people avoiding immunization because they dislike shots.
“The vast majority of deaths due to flu in children in 2010-2016 have been in kids who didn’t get vaccinated,” he noted.
Dr. Nohynek said the Finnish real-world experience recorded in comprehensive national registries for the 2017-2018 flu season – a bad year for vaccine/virus mismatch in Europe – confirmed Dr. Abramson’s comments about the superiority of quadrivalent live attenuated influenza vaccine against influenza B. Among 54,611 Finnish children aged 24-35 months, the laboratory-confirmed vaccine effectiveness of trivalent inactivated virus vaccine, with 9% coverage, was 4.5% for influenza A and 12.2% for influenza B. In contrast, the vaccine effectiveness for the intranasal quadrivalent live attenuated influenza vaccine was 32% for A and a whopping 80% for B.
“It’s quite amazing, at least to me, to see figures like this in real world data,” she commented.
Session cochair Adam Finn, MD, PhD, said he has found it instructive to take a closer look at the U.K. data for the past several flu seasons.
“We’ve seen greater control of the epidemic in Scotland and Northern Ireland, where coverage in primary school kids was higher, in the 60%-70% area, and lower in England and Wales, where it was more like 50%. So we’re beginning to think that’s the kind of level of annual coverage in children we might need to suppress an epidemic. I think that’s a really important message that people should understand: We’re not looking for 95% coverage,” observed Dr. Finn, aprofessor of pediatrics at the University of Bristol (England).
Vaccine effectiveness will improve
Dr. Osterhaus predicted better times are coming in terms of vaccine effectiveness. Vaccine production times will become shorter as recombinant technologies replace the traditional lengthy chicken egg-based vaccine production; as a result, there will be less drift-associated mismatch. Improved surveillance, including the ability to follow strain mobility patterns and population-based antibody landscapes, are another important advance.
“We’ve always been looking at one side of the coin: the virus. Once or twice a year eminent gray people sitting together in Geneva at WHO decide which strains should be selected for the next vaccine. But if you know what antibodies are present in the population, this can be quite important information as well,” he said.
Dr. Nohynek reported receiving research funding from GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer. The other speakers reported having no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
MALMO, SWEDEN – When American physicians think about health care in Europe, what typically comes to mind are government-funded, single-payer national health services with cradle-to-grave coverage of essential services, a strong public health bent, and perhaps some queuing.
“It’s complicated. There is no common strategic approach,” Hanna Nohynek, MD, PhD, observed at a session on childhood immunization against flu held during the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases.
“In real life, influenza coverage among [European] children is either not known or quite low. Impact assessments in children are done in only a few countries,” said Dr. Nohynek, chief physician in the infectious diseases control and vaccinations unit of the National Institute for Health and Welfare in Helsinki, Finland.
“The only country doing as well coverage-wise as the U.S. is the U.K., with rates of 50%-65%. In Finland it’s less than 40%,” according to Dr. Nohynek.
“We have 28 countries today in the E.U. [European Union], and we have 28 different recommendations in Europe. So where do we go from here? It’s really not easy,” observed session cochair Alberticus Osterhaus, DVM, PhD, emeritus professor of virology at Erasmus University in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
For all the oft-cited shortcomings of health care in the United States, That’s why Jon S. Abramson, MD, a former chair of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), was invited to explain how the U.S. strategy was accomplished.
The U.S. approach
The current U.S. policy, implemented in 2010, is to recommend an annual flu shot for all persons older than 6 months of age.
Influenza vaccination has been part of the U.S. public health program since 1960. Children aged 6-23 months, as well as their household contacts and women who will be pregnant during flu season, were added in 2004. In 2006, the flu vaccine recommendation was expanded to include children aged 6-59 months as a result of persuasive data showing that the rate of flu-associated hospitalizations and deaths in children up to 4 years old was second only to the rate in the elderly population.
The rationale for expanding the recommendation to include all school-age children and adolescents stemmed from evidence that the highest average flu-related illness rate in the United States was in that age group, which confirmed that schools are a powerful vector for the spread of influenza. Vaccinating this age-group also was seen as having an indirect benefit for their household contacts.
The current policy of recommending vaccination of everyone over age 6 months was adopted because it checked off a lot of boxes: “It’s a single recommendation, easy to apply; it eliminates the need to look for indications and risk factors; it increases vaccination coverage rates; annual vaccination is safe and effective; and flu-related morbidity and mortality occur in all age groups,” Dr. Abramson continued.
The rate of influenza vaccine coverage in pregnant women has improved over time from less than 15% to about 50%. To place that in perspective, however, the rate in Argentina is 95%, the pediatrician noted.
“We’re doing better in children than we are in adults in terms of seasonal coverage rates,” he added. “In 2015, it was 59%, versus 42% in adults.”
Dr. Abramson said there remains some skepticism in the United States regarding the effectiveness of flu vaccines in preventing flu-related illness. That’s because of the difficulty in communicating that vaccine effectiveness varies from year to year, sometimes substantially, depending upon two factors: the transmission characteristics of the circulating strains and how well the vaccines match up against those strains.
“I think we have to learn to live with that. I don’t think we’ll see a universal flu vaccine that we can give once every 10 years,” he said.
“The bottom line is, even if a vaccine is only 50% efficacious overall, we’re still impacting huge numbers,” the pediatrician added.
Dr. Abramson cited a CDC estimate that, for the 2012-2013 season, where the vaccine was 49% efficacious, the result of vaccination was 6.6 million fewer cases of influenza-associated illnesses nationally, 3.2 million fewer flu-associated medical visits, and 79,000 hospitalizations avoided.
“I think we have a fairly good program in the United States. We’re doing well in children. We certainly could be doing better. Not having FluMist for the past 2 seasons probably hurt us some,” according to Dr. Abramson.
The FluMist experience
The FluMist episode is viewed by many European pediatric infectious disease experts as a debacle. Europeans eager to develop a pan-European strategy for seasonal immunization against influenza in children and adolescents viewed the U.S. FluMist episode with dismay. For the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 flu seasons, the ACIP recommended against FluMist, a previously approved intranasally administered quadrivalent live attenuated virus vaccine, on the basis of a single study showing subpar effectiveness against influenza A H1NI. Then at its October 2017 meeting, ACIP reversed itself and reinstated FluMist for the 2018-2019 season after viewing data from Finland and several other countries demonstrating that, in countries where it hadn’t been taken off the market, the vaccine had performed as well as injectable inactivated influenza vaccines in the 2016-2017 flu season.
“I think from the European side, it’s been a bit of a sorry spectacle,” commented Dr. Osterhaus, referring to the ACIP’s waffling. After all, authorities in Canada and European countries where FluMist was available had looked at the same data that caused ACIP to derecommend the vaccine but hadn’t found it convincing.
“We’re very happy to see ACIP has reinstated the vaccine,” Dr. Nohynek said.
Dr. Abramson declined to defend the ACIP decision to drop FluMist.
“From my standpoint, knowing that influenza B kills more children than A does, if I had been on the ACIP committee – and I’m not anymore – that would not have been my vote,” he said. “Whatever you want to say about the live attenuated influenza vaccine, about how good it is against some A strains or not, it’s better than other vaccines against influenza B. And the death rate is higher from B than A in children, although that is not true in adults.”
Plus, FluMist was an important option for people avoiding immunization because they dislike shots.
“The vast majority of deaths due to flu in children in 2010-2016 have been in kids who didn’t get vaccinated,” he noted.
Dr. Nohynek said the Finnish real-world experience recorded in comprehensive national registries for the 2017-2018 flu season – a bad year for vaccine/virus mismatch in Europe – confirmed Dr. Abramson’s comments about the superiority of quadrivalent live attenuated influenza vaccine against influenza B. Among 54,611 Finnish children aged 24-35 months, the laboratory-confirmed vaccine effectiveness of trivalent inactivated virus vaccine, with 9% coverage, was 4.5% for influenza A and 12.2% for influenza B. In contrast, the vaccine effectiveness for the intranasal quadrivalent live attenuated influenza vaccine was 32% for A and a whopping 80% for B.
“It’s quite amazing, at least to me, to see figures like this in real world data,” she commented.
Session cochair Adam Finn, MD, PhD, said he has found it instructive to take a closer look at the U.K. data for the past several flu seasons.
“We’ve seen greater control of the epidemic in Scotland and Northern Ireland, where coverage in primary school kids was higher, in the 60%-70% area, and lower in England and Wales, where it was more like 50%. So we’re beginning to think that’s the kind of level of annual coverage in children we might need to suppress an epidemic. I think that’s a really important message that people should understand: We’re not looking for 95% coverage,” observed Dr. Finn, aprofessor of pediatrics at the University of Bristol (England).
Vaccine effectiveness will improve
Dr. Osterhaus predicted better times are coming in terms of vaccine effectiveness. Vaccine production times will become shorter as recombinant technologies replace the traditional lengthy chicken egg-based vaccine production; as a result, there will be less drift-associated mismatch. Improved surveillance, including the ability to follow strain mobility patterns and population-based antibody landscapes, are another important advance.
“We’ve always been looking at one side of the coin: the virus. Once or twice a year eminent gray people sitting together in Geneva at WHO decide which strains should be selected for the next vaccine. But if you know what antibodies are present in the population, this can be quite important information as well,” he said.
Dr. Nohynek reported receiving research funding from GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer. The other speakers reported having no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
MALMO, SWEDEN – When American physicians think about health care in Europe, what typically comes to mind are government-funded, single-payer national health services with cradle-to-grave coverage of essential services, a strong public health bent, and perhaps some queuing.
“It’s complicated. There is no common strategic approach,” Hanna Nohynek, MD, PhD, observed at a session on childhood immunization against flu held during the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases.
“In real life, influenza coverage among [European] children is either not known or quite low. Impact assessments in children are done in only a few countries,” said Dr. Nohynek, chief physician in the infectious diseases control and vaccinations unit of the National Institute for Health and Welfare in Helsinki, Finland.
“The only country doing as well coverage-wise as the U.S. is the U.K., with rates of 50%-65%. In Finland it’s less than 40%,” according to Dr. Nohynek.
“We have 28 countries today in the E.U. [European Union], and we have 28 different recommendations in Europe. So where do we go from here? It’s really not easy,” observed session cochair Alberticus Osterhaus, DVM, PhD, emeritus professor of virology at Erasmus University in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
For all the oft-cited shortcomings of health care in the United States, That’s why Jon S. Abramson, MD, a former chair of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), was invited to explain how the U.S. strategy was accomplished.
The U.S. approach
The current U.S. policy, implemented in 2010, is to recommend an annual flu shot for all persons older than 6 months of age.
Influenza vaccination has been part of the U.S. public health program since 1960. Children aged 6-23 months, as well as their household contacts and women who will be pregnant during flu season, were added in 2004. In 2006, the flu vaccine recommendation was expanded to include children aged 6-59 months as a result of persuasive data showing that the rate of flu-associated hospitalizations and deaths in children up to 4 years old was second only to the rate in the elderly population.
The rationale for expanding the recommendation to include all school-age children and adolescents stemmed from evidence that the highest average flu-related illness rate in the United States was in that age group, which confirmed that schools are a powerful vector for the spread of influenza. Vaccinating this age-group also was seen as having an indirect benefit for their household contacts.
The current policy of recommending vaccination of everyone over age 6 months was adopted because it checked off a lot of boxes: “It’s a single recommendation, easy to apply; it eliminates the need to look for indications and risk factors; it increases vaccination coverage rates; annual vaccination is safe and effective; and flu-related morbidity and mortality occur in all age groups,” Dr. Abramson continued.
The rate of influenza vaccine coverage in pregnant women has improved over time from less than 15% to about 50%. To place that in perspective, however, the rate in Argentina is 95%, the pediatrician noted.
“We’re doing better in children than we are in adults in terms of seasonal coverage rates,” he added. “In 2015, it was 59%, versus 42% in adults.”
Dr. Abramson said there remains some skepticism in the United States regarding the effectiveness of flu vaccines in preventing flu-related illness. That’s because of the difficulty in communicating that vaccine effectiveness varies from year to year, sometimes substantially, depending upon two factors: the transmission characteristics of the circulating strains and how well the vaccines match up against those strains.
“I think we have to learn to live with that. I don’t think we’ll see a universal flu vaccine that we can give once every 10 years,” he said.
“The bottom line is, even if a vaccine is only 50% efficacious overall, we’re still impacting huge numbers,” the pediatrician added.
Dr. Abramson cited a CDC estimate that, for the 2012-2013 season, where the vaccine was 49% efficacious, the result of vaccination was 6.6 million fewer cases of influenza-associated illnesses nationally, 3.2 million fewer flu-associated medical visits, and 79,000 hospitalizations avoided.
“I think we have a fairly good program in the United States. We’re doing well in children. We certainly could be doing better. Not having FluMist for the past 2 seasons probably hurt us some,” according to Dr. Abramson.
The FluMist experience
The FluMist episode is viewed by many European pediatric infectious disease experts as a debacle. Europeans eager to develop a pan-European strategy for seasonal immunization against influenza in children and adolescents viewed the U.S. FluMist episode with dismay. For the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 flu seasons, the ACIP recommended against FluMist, a previously approved intranasally administered quadrivalent live attenuated virus vaccine, on the basis of a single study showing subpar effectiveness against influenza A H1NI. Then at its October 2017 meeting, ACIP reversed itself and reinstated FluMist for the 2018-2019 season after viewing data from Finland and several other countries demonstrating that, in countries where it hadn’t been taken off the market, the vaccine had performed as well as injectable inactivated influenza vaccines in the 2016-2017 flu season.
“I think from the European side, it’s been a bit of a sorry spectacle,” commented Dr. Osterhaus, referring to the ACIP’s waffling. After all, authorities in Canada and European countries where FluMist was available had looked at the same data that caused ACIP to derecommend the vaccine but hadn’t found it convincing.
“We’re very happy to see ACIP has reinstated the vaccine,” Dr. Nohynek said.
Dr. Abramson declined to defend the ACIP decision to drop FluMist.
“From my standpoint, knowing that influenza B kills more children than A does, if I had been on the ACIP committee – and I’m not anymore – that would not have been my vote,” he said. “Whatever you want to say about the live attenuated influenza vaccine, about how good it is against some A strains or not, it’s better than other vaccines against influenza B. And the death rate is higher from B than A in children, although that is not true in adults.”
Plus, FluMist was an important option for people avoiding immunization because they dislike shots.
“The vast majority of deaths due to flu in children in 2010-2016 have been in kids who didn’t get vaccinated,” he noted.
Dr. Nohynek said the Finnish real-world experience recorded in comprehensive national registries for the 2017-2018 flu season – a bad year for vaccine/virus mismatch in Europe – confirmed Dr. Abramson’s comments about the superiority of quadrivalent live attenuated influenza vaccine against influenza B. Among 54,611 Finnish children aged 24-35 months, the laboratory-confirmed vaccine effectiveness of trivalent inactivated virus vaccine, with 9% coverage, was 4.5% for influenza A and 12.2% for influenza B. In contrast, the vaccine effectiveness for the intranasal quadrivalent live attenuated influenza vaccine was 32% for A and a whopping 80% for B.
“It’s quite amazing, at least to me, to see figures like this in real world data,” she commented.
Session cochair Adam Finn, MD, PhD, said he has found it instructive to take a closer look at the U.K. data for the past several flu seasons.
“We’ve seen greater control of the epidemic in Scotland and Northern Ireland, where coverage in primary school kids was higher, in the 60%-70% area, and lower in England and Wales, where it was more like 50%. So we’re beginning to think that’s the kind of level of annual coverage in children we might need to suppress an epidemic. I think that’s a really important message that people should understand: We’re not looking for 95% coverage,” observed Dr. Finn, aprofessor of pediatrics at the University of Bristol (England).
Vaccine effectiveness will improve
Dr. Osterhaus predicted better times are coming in terms of vaccine effectiveness. Vaccine production times will become shorter as recombinant technologies replace the traditional lengthy chicken egg-based vaccine production; as a result, there will be less drift-associated mismatch. Improved surveillance, including the ability to follow strain mobility patterns and population-based antibody landscapes, are another important advance.
“We’ve always been looking at one side of the coin: the virus. Once or twice a year eminent gray people sitting together in Geneva at WHO decide which strains should be selected for the next vaccine. But if you know what antibodies are present in the population, this can be quite important information as well,” he said.
Dr. Nohynek reported receiving research funding from GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer. The other speakers reported having no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM ESPID 2018