4.5 Article

Burden of Seasonal Influenza A and B in Panama from 2011 to 2017: An Observational Retrospective Database Study

期刊

INFECTIOUS DISEASES AND THERAPY
卷 10, 期 4, 页码 2465-2478

出版社

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s40121-021-00501-y

关键词

Influenza A; Influenza B; Influenza vaccine; Panama; Tetravalent flu vaccine; Trivalent flu vaccine; Epidemiology

资金

  1. GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA [205049]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study analyzed laboratory-confirmed influenza cases in Panama from 2011 to 2017, finding that influenza A was predominant, with high circulation rates among children and residents of Panama City, over 50% of cases required hospitalization, and a mismatch between the circulating influenza subtype and the recommended vaccine was detected in 2017. Continuous monitoring of influenza cases is crucial for establishing future vaccination recommendations.
Introduction Influenza A and B viruses constantly evolve and cause seasonal epidemics and sporadic outbreaks. Therefore, epidemiological surveillance is critical for monitoring their circulation pattern. Trivalent and quadrivalent vaccine formulations are available in Panama (until and since 2016, respectively). Herein, we analysed influenza A and B epidemiological patterns in Panama. Methods This was a retrospective descriptive analysis of all laboratory-confirmed influenza nasopharyngeal samples recorded between 2011 and 2017 in the nationwide surveillance database of Gorgas Memorial Institute for Health Studies. The analysis involved data relative to demographic information, virus type, subtype and lineage, geographic region, treatment and outcomes. The percentage level of mismatch between circulating and vaccine-recommended B lineage was assessed for each May-October influenza season. Results Among 1839 influenza cases, 79.6% were type A and 20.4% were type B. Most of them were observed in Panama City (54.7%) followed by the West (23.2%) and Central (16.7%) regions; across all regions, influenza A and B cases were distributed in a 4:1 ratio. Overall, approximately half were hospitalized (52.0% for type A; 45.5% for type B) and 11 (0.6%) died. Treatment, usually antimicrobial, was administered in 15.1% of cases. Children less than 2 years old were the most affected by this disease. Influenza type A circulated every year, while influenza B only circulated in 2012, 2014 and 2017. In the 2012 May-October influenza B season, the predominant lineage was B/Victoria and a switch to B/Yamagata was observed in 2014. Both lineages co-circulated in 2017, leading to a 38.9% B-lineage-level vaccine mismatch. Conclusion Influenza A was predominant among all ages and children less than 2 years and inhabitants of Panama City reported the highest circulation rate. In 2017, co-circulation of both B lineages led to a vaccine mismatch. Continuous monitoring of seasonal influenza is critical to establish immunization recommendations. Plain Language Summary Influenza or flu is caused by influenza viruses A and B and its symptoms range from mild to severe. This virus is constantly evolving; thus, careful monitoring of influenza is important to update immunization and vaccine recommendations yearly. This study used data from surveillance centres in Panama from 2011 to 2017 and evaluated the number of flu cases by age, gender, region, virus type, symptoms, comorbidities, treatment, coinfections with other viruses, and the circulating influenza subtype and the vaccine recommended each year. We found several points: almost 80% of cases were influenza A; most of the positive samples were found in children less than 2 years old and the Panama city region; more than 50% of influenza cases needed hospitalization; and in 2017 a mismatch was detected between the circulating influenza subtype and the recommended vaccine. This study helped to better characterize influenza circulation patterns and the burden of the disease during 2011-2017. We concluded that continuous monitoring of the influenza cases is necessary to establish future vaccination recommendations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据