Pathogen- and Type-Specific Changes in Invasive Bacterial Disease Epidemiology during the First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic in The Netherlands

  1. Anneke Steens
  2. Mirjam J. Knol
  3. Wieke Freudenburg-de Graaf
  4. Hester E. de Melker
  5. Arie van der Ende
  6. Nina M. van Sorge

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

COVID-19 control measures have resulted in a decline in invasive bacterial disease caused by Neisseria meningitidis (IMD), Streptococcus pneumoniae (IPD), and Haemophilus influenzae (Hi-D). These species comprise different serogroups and serotypes that impact transmissibility and virulence. We evaluated type- and pathogen-specific changes in invasive bacterial disease epidemiology in the Netherlands during the first year of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Cases were based on nationwide surveillance for five bacterial species with either respiratory (IMD, IPD, Hi-D) or non-respiratory (controls) transmission routes and were compared from the pre-COVID period (April 2015–March 2020) to the first COVID-19 year (April 2020–March 2021). IMD, IPD, and Hi-D cases decreased by 78%, 67%, and 35%, respectively, in the first COVID-19 year compared to the pre-COVID period, although effects differed per age group. Serogroup B-IMD declined by 61%, while serogroup W and Y-IMD decreased >90%. IPD caused by serotypes 7F, 15A, 12F, 33F, and 8 showed the most pronounced decline (≥76%). In contrast to an overall decrease in Hi-D cases, vaccine-preventable serotype b (Hib) increased by 51%. COVID-19 control measures had pathogen- and type-specific effects related to invasive infections. Continued surveillance is critical to monitor potential rebound effects once restriction measures are lifted and transmission is resumed.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.3390/microorganisms10050972
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.04.19.22273034: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: Ethical statement: In accordance with Dutch law, approval from a medical ethics committee was not deemed necessary since cases were not subject to any actions or rules of conduct.
    Consent: Informed consent was not obtained, as the collection of data complies with the exceptions for not asking informed consent as formulated in the Dutch Implementation Act General Data Protection Regulation.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2022.04.19.22273034v1 on medRxiv