Literature DB >> 29090681

Low interim influenza vaccine effectiveness, Australia, 1 May to 24 September 2017.

Sheena G Sullivan1,2,3, Monique B Chilver3, Kylie S Carville4, Yi-Mo Deng1, Kristina A Grant4, Geoff Higgins5, Naomi Komadina1, Vivian Ky Leung1, Cara A Minney-Smith6, Don Teng7, Thomas Tran4, Nigel Stocks3, James E Fielding2,4.   

Abstract

In 2017, influenza seasonal activity was high in the southern hemisphere. We present interim influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates from Australia. Adjusted VE was low overall at 33% (95% confidence interval (CI): 17 to 46), 50% (95% CI: 8 to 74) for A(H1)pdm09, 10% (95% CI: -16 to 31) for A(H3) and 57% (95% CI: 41 to 69) for influenza B. For A(H3), VE was poorer for those vaccinated in the current and prior seasons.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Australia; epidemiology; influenza; influenza-like illness - ILI; surveillance; vaccines and immunisation; viral infections

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29090681      PMCID: PMC5718387          DOI: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2017.22.43.17-00707

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Euro Surveill        ISSN: 1025-496X


The ongoing Australian 2017 influenza season was so far characterised by record-high laboratory-confirmed influenza notifications [1], high consultation rates, high hospitalisation and mortality rates, particularly in New South Wales [2], large numbers of institutional outbreaks [2] and media attention. The southern hemisphere influenza vaccine used in Australia for this season was a quadrivalent formulation comprised of an A/Michigan/45/2015 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus, an A/Hong Kong/4801/2014 (H3N2)-like virus, a B/Brisbane/60/2008-like virus (of the B/Victoria/2/87 lineage) and a B/Phuket/3073/2013-like virus (of the B/Yamagata/16/88 lineage) [3,4]. This same vaccine composition is being used in the upcoming northern hemisphere for the 2017/18 influenza season [5]. Here we report interim influenza vaccine effectiveness estimates for 2017 in Australia, using sentinel surveillance data.

Data collection

The Australian Sentinel Practices Research Network (ASPREN) and the Victorian Sentinel Practice Influenza Network (VicSPIN) constitute Australia’s two sentinel influenza general practice (GP) networks. VicSPIN operates in the state of Victoria, while ASPREN operates nationally. Both surveillance systems use similar data collection methods [6,7], with the key difference that the VicSPIN surveillance period is limited to weeks 18 to 43 (1 May 1– 29 October), timed to start roughly 2 weeks after vaccination campaigns in mid-April. Briefly, sentinel GPs submit weekly reports of the number of patients seen with influenza-like illness (ILI), defined as fever/history of fever, cough and fatigue, and the total number of patients. Nose/throat swabs are collected from a subset of patients with demographic data, date of ILI onset, vaccination status (self-reported or medical record) and indications for vaccination, such as belonging to an influenza risk group. Swabs are tested by RT-PCR and positive samples are referred to the World Health Organization (WHO) Collaborating Centre for Reference and Research on Influenza in Melbourne, for antigenic characterisation by haemagglutination inhibition assay (HAI) [8] or focus reduction assay (FRA) [9] and genetic sequencing, as described previously [6]. All data were managed and analysed using R version 3.4.1.

Influenza-like illness activity

ILI data from ASPREN for 2017 and 2012 to 2016 (averaged) are plotted in Figure 1A and indicate consultation rates were higher in 2017 than in the previous 5 years. For the study period from 1 May 2017 to 24 September 2017, i.e. weeks 18–38, the 262 ASPREN GPs and 88 VicSPIN GPs conducted 493,961 consultations, of which 5,678 (1.1%) met the ILI case definition and swabs were collected from 2,465 (43%) of them. Influenza cases were detected in every week of the study period and peaked in week 34 (21–27 August, n = 235). Percentage of positive samples peaked in week 32 (7–13 August) with 58%.
Figure 1

Sentinel general practice (GP) surveillance dataa, (A) ILI consultation rates, (B) laboratory detections of influenza patients by week and type/subtype, Australia, 2 January–24 September 2017

Sentinel general practice (GP) surveillance dataa, (A) ILI consultation rates, (B) laboratory detections of influenza patients by week and type/subtype, Australia, 2 January–24 September 2017 ILI: influenza-like-illness. a Data from the Australian Sentinel Practices Research Network. Victorian Sentinel Practice Influenza Network data (not shown) demonstrated a similar pattern. In panel A the mean and maximum are calculated by first aligning the peaks for each season, then calculating the weekly mean and maximum consultation rate, as described in [22]. In panel B the shaded rectangular area shows the weeks for which data were included in the vaccine effectiveness analyses, 1 May 2017 to 24 September 2017.

Virological characteristics

Virological analyses and vaccine effectiveness estimation were restricted to the period 1 May to 24 September (weeks 18-38). During this period, 2,456 patients were swabbed, but samples from 116 patients were excluded because of missing information on vaccination status, and one with missing influenza status. Among the remaining 2,339 patients, working-age adults comprised the majority (n = 1,604, 69%), 440 (19%) were aged < 15 years and 297 (13%) were aged ≥ 65 years. Around 37% (477/1,279) of test-negative patients were vaccinated in 2017. Eighty-eight patients tested positive for A(H1)pdm09, 522 were A(H3), 75 were not yet subtyped, 11 were B/Victoria, 259 were B/Yamagata and 105 were influenza B, but the lineage was not yet determined (Figure 1B). Virus isolation was attempted for samples with a cycle threshold value of 30 or less (Table 1). HAI testing indicated that isolates were generally antigenically similar to their respective vaccine strains. Thirty-seven percent (n=98) of A(H3) viruses yielded insufficient haemagglutinin titres for testing by HAI and were instead assessed by FRA. In HAI and FRA, 10% (7/67) and 0% (0/75) of A(H3) viruses, respectively, were low reacting to post-infection ferret antisera raised to cell-propagated A/Hong Kong/4801/2014-like viruses. However, these proportions increased to 33% (22/67) and 20% (15/75), respectively, when tested against egg-propagated reference virus.
Table 1

Antigenic analysis of virus isolates collected during the influenza season, Australia, 1 May–24 September 2017

Influenza strainTotal viruses attempteda Type of assayCell-propagatedreference strainEgg-propagatedreference strainb
LikeLow-reactingLikeLow-reacting
A(H1)pdm09 A/Michigan/45/201555NA
Positive48HAI460460
Insufficient HA Titre for HAI1 NA
A(H3) A/Hong Kong/4801/2014265NA
Positive90HAI6074522
FRA310283
Insufficient HA Titre for HAI98FRA4403212
B/Victoria B/Brisbane/60/20087NA
Positive6HAI3104
B/Yamagata B/Phuket/3073/2013148NA
Positive90HAI520502

FRA: focus reduction assay; HAI: haemagglutination inhibition assay. HA: haemagglutinin; NA: not applicable.

a Virus isolation was not attempted for all viruses and not all isolates were analysed by HAI or FRA; FRA was only attempted for A(H3) viruses.

b Results for post-infection ferret antisera raised to egg-propagated and cell-propagated reference viruses are presented because the egg-propagated reference viruses more closely resemble the vaccine strain, while cell-propagated reference viruses more closely resemble the original virus from which the vaccine strain was derived.

FRA: focus reduction assay; HAI: haemagglutination inhibition assay. HA: haemagglutinin; NA: not applicable. a Virus isolation was not attempted for all viruses and not all isolates were analysed by HAI or FRA; FRA was only attempted for A(H3) viruses. b Results for post-infection ferret antisera raised to egg-propagated and cell-propagated reference viruses are presented because the egg-propagated reference viruses more closely resemble the vaccine strain, while cell-propagated reference viruses more closely resemble the original virus from which the vaccine strain was derived. Sequences for the haemagglutinin gene were available for a subset of A(H3) viruses (Figure 2). Examination of the phylogenetic tree identified considerable diversity with a number of viruses exhibiting amino acid substitutions in key glycosylation and antigenic sites but no specific clustering of vaccine failures. GISAID accession numbers for these viruses were 271246, 271303, 275219, 275220, 275225, 275226, 275227, 275228, 275246, 275247, 275248, 275278, 275280, 277305, 277315, 277557.
Figure 2

Phylogenetic tree for the haemagglutinin gene of influenza A(H3) viruses

Phylogenetic tree for the haemagglutinin gene of influenza A(H3) viruses The phylogenetic tree was created using GENEiOUS, (Biomatters Limited.), Randomized Axelerated Maximum Likelihood (RAxML) Version 8, and Phylogenetic Analysis by Maximum Likelihood (PAML). Blue colouring indicates the virus came from a vaccinated patient. Red colouring indicates vaccine reference viruses. Not all viruses analysed are shown. There were 128 (62%) 3C.2a viruses, among which there were several variants when compared with the vaccine strain, A/Hong Kong/4801/2014, all but three of which included the gain of a potential glycosylation site at position 160 (K160T(+)), which distinguishes these viruses from the vaccine strain. Additional substitutions included 59 viruses characterised by substitutions at N31S,D53N,R142G,S144R,N171K,I192T, 45 by N121K,S144K, and 15 by T131K,R142K,R261Q. Seventy-eight (38%) viruses were 3C.2a1 viruses, among which 13 were characterised by substitutions at N121K,G479E,T135K(-) (loss of a potential glycosylation site at position 135) and 61 by K92R,N121K,H311Q including 34 that also had T135K(-).

Vaccines effectiveness estimates

Vaccine effectiveness (VE) was estimated following a case–control test-negative design, where VE is estimated from the odds ratio (OR) comparing the odds of vaccination among test-positive and test-negative patients. The limitations of this design have been discussed at length [10,11]. Estimates were adjusted for week of specimen collection (cubic spline with 4 knots), and age group (spline with knots at 5, 15, 35, 65, 75 years). VE estimates are shown in Table 2. Overall VE was 33% (95%CI: 17 to 46). This estimate appeared to be skewed by the very low estimate for A(H3), which was 10% (95%CI: -16 to 31), whereas estimates were higher for A(H1)pdm09 (VE: 50%; 95%CI: 8 to 74) and B (VE: 57%; 95%CI: 41 to 69). VE for A(H3) 3C.2a viruses was 5% (95%CI: -51 to 40), while the estimate for 3C.2a1 was 19% (95%CI: -42 to 55). For patients vaccinated in the 2016 season, VE for A(H3) was 3–4% regardless of whether they were also vaccinated in 2017. In contrast, the highest VE point estimates for influenza B were observed among those vaccinated in both 2016 and 2017.
Table 2

Interim sample characteristics and vaccine effectiveness estimates, Australia, 1 May 2017–24 September 2017

Type/subtypeAge groupCasesControlsAdjusteda VE (95% CI)
UnvaccinatedVaccinatedUnvaccinatedVaccinated
A or B All ages77273%28827%80263%47737%33% (17 to 46)
Children < 15y23594%146%17994%126%16% (-95 to 63)
Adults 15–64y51274%18126%58765%32235%39% (24 to 51)
Adults  ≥ 65y2521%9379%3620%14380%-3% (-92 to 44)
A(H1)pdm09 All ages7484%1416%80263%47737%50% (8 to 74)
Children < 15y3397%13%17994%126% NE
Adults 15–64y4078%1122%58765%32235%49% (2 to 76)
Adults ≥ 65y133%267%3620%14380%NE
A(H3) All ages34766%17534%80263%47737%10% (-16 to 31)
Children < 15y10094%66%17994%126%17% (-132 to73)
Adults 15–64y23368%11032%58765%32235%16% (-11 to 36)
Adults ≥ 65y1419%5981%3620%14380%-20% (-160 to 42)
A(H3) Clade 3C.2a All ages8869%4031%80263%47737%5% (-51 to 40)
Children < 15y3194%26%17994%126% NE
Adults 15–64y5668%2632%58765%32235%14% (-40 to 49)
Adults ≥ 65y18%1292%3620%14380% NE
A(H3) Clade 3C.2a1 All ages5267%2633%80263%47737%19% (-42 to 55)
Children < 15y1493%17%17994%126% NE
Adults 15–64y3776%1224%58765%32235%40% (-14 to 71)
Adults ≥ 65y17%1393%3620%14380% NE
B All ages30682%6918%80263%47737%57% (41 to 69)
Children < 15y9196%44%17994%126% NE
Adults 15–64y20882%4518%58765%32235%63% (48 to 74)
Adults ≥ 65y726%2074%3620%14380%10% (-156 to 65)
B/Victoria All ages11100%00%80263%47737%NE
Children < 15y4100%00%17994%126%NE
Adults 15–64y7100%00%58765%32235%NE
Adults ≥ 65y0NA0NA3620%14380%NE
B/Yamagata All ages20680%5320%80263%47737%45% (22 to 62)
Children < 15y7196%34%17994%126% NE
Adults 15–64y13077%3823%58765%32235%49% (26 to 66)
Adults ≥ 65y529%1271%3620%14380%27% (-162 to 77)
Repeated vaccination – Influenza A(H1)pdm09
Neither season6373%NANA64752%NANARef
Both 2016 and 2017 seasonsNANA1315%NANA39532%NE
2017 onlyNANA11%NANA595%NE
2016 onlyNANA910%NANA13211%NE
Repeated vaccination - Influenza A(H3)
Neither season29417%NANA64752%NANARef
Both 2016 and 2017 seasonsNANA15530%NANA39532%3% (-29 to 27)
2017 onlyNANA143%NANA595%43% (-1 to 71)
2016 onlyNANA479%NANA13211%4% (-40 to 36)
Repeated vaccination - Influenza B
Neither season26272%NANA64752%NANARef
Both 2016 and 2017 seasonsNANA5716%NANA39532%59% (42 to 72)
2017 onlyNANA113%NANA595%50% (4 to 76)
2016 onlyNANA3610%NANA13211%22% (-18 to 47)

CI: confidence interval; NA: not applicable; NE: not estimated (because cell counts are fewer than five); Ref: reference category VE: vaccine effectiveness; y: years.

Numbers are shown for all groups regardless of whether VE estimation was attempted. VE was only estimated where cell counts were at least five. Although presented, estimates for children and those aged ≥65 years typically have wide CIs and should be interpreted with caution. Note that the same control group is used for all comparisons within an age group.

a All estimates adjusted for calendar time (cubic spline function with 4 knots). Estimates for all ages were also adjusted for age (cubic spline with knots at 5, 15, 35, 65, 75).

CI: confidence interval; NA: not applicable; NE: not estimated (because cell counts are fewer than five); Ref: reference category VE: vaccine effectiveness; y: years. Numbers are shown for all groups regardless of whether VE estimation was attempted. VE was only estimated where cell counts were at least five. Although presented, estimates for children and those aged ≥65 years typically have wide CIs and should be interpreted with caution. Note that the same control group is used for all comparisons within an age group. a All estimates adjusted for calendar time (cubic spline function with 4 knots). Estimates for all ages were also adjusted for age (cubic spline with knots at 5, 15, 35, 65, 75).

Discussion

Our interim analysis suggests moderate VE against influenza A(H1)pdm09 and influenza B. However, VE was low against influenza A(H3). The antigenic data reflect ongoing issues with A(H3) candidate vaccine viruses which, when propagated in eggs, rapidly acquire adaptive changes in the haemagglutinin which alter antigenicity. Cell-based vaccines, which are less affected by this, are only licensed in the United States, were not available in Australia in 2017 and will also not be available for the upcoming European season. The significant genetic diversity of circulating viruses, many of which exhibit amino acid substitutions in key antigenic and glycosylation sites, also makes it difficult to select candidate vaccine viruses with high coverage. This was the second season for which the A/Hong Kong/4801/2015-containing vaccine was used in Australia [3,12], and campaigns currently underway in the northern hemisphere are also using it for a second time [5,13]. During the 2016/17 northern hemisphere season interim VE estimates ranged from 15% (95%CI: –11 to 35) to 43% (95%CI: 29 to 54) [14-17]. It is unclear whether sequential vaccination will result in lower estimates for 2017/18, but our VE estimates were particularly low for people who received vaccine in 2016 and for older adults, 76% of whom were sequentially vaccinated. This finding is consistent with a modelling study which predicts low VE for sequentially vaccinated persons when the vaccine composition is identical, but the antigenic distance between the vaccine and circulating strains is high [18]. However, confounding due to prior infection status and negative interference from pre-2016 vaccines could not be controlled for in our analysis, and may have introduced bias. In contrast to A(H3), VE estimates for influenza B were moderate and the combined effects of vaccination in 2016 and 2017 did not blunt effectiveness for influenza B, even though the composition remained the same. Similarly, VE for the few A(H1)pdm09 cases recruited was moderate, although low for Australia at 50% (95%CI: 8 to 74), where VEs have ranged from 54% to 79% in the past [6,7]. This was the one component of the 2017 vaccine that was updated since 2016, from A/California/7/2009 to A/Michigan/45/2015. This study provides interim estimates of the 2017 southern hemisphere influenza vaccine in the outpatient setting and may not apply to inpatient settings or severe illness. Interim estimates can reliably predict final season estimates [19], particularly when made after the peak [20], as is the case here. Should the circulating A(H3) influenza viruses predominate in the 2017/18 northern hemisphere influenza season [21], our results suggest that the vaccine may confer limited protection. Health authorities should consider other influenza prevention measures, including antivirals and health promotion messaging, in the event of a severe season and low VE against A(H3).
  13 in total

1.  Variable efficacy of repeated annual influenza vaccination.

Authors:  D J Smith; S Forrest; D H Ackley; A S Perelson
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1999-11-23       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Late season interim estimates of influenza vaccine effectiveness reliably predict end of season estimates in Victoria, Australia, 2007 to 2012.

Authors:  S G Sullivan; H Kelly
Journal:  Euro Surveill       Date:  2013-10-10

3.  The case test-negative design for studies of the effectiveness of influenza vaccine.

Authors:  Ivo M Foppa; Michael Haber; Jill M Ferdinands; David K Shay
Journal:  Vaccine       Date:  2013-04-23       Impact factor: 3.641

4.  Theoretical Basis of the Test-Negative Study Design for Assessment of Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness.

Authors:  Sheena G Sullivan; Eric J Tchetgen Tchetgen; Benjamin J Cowling
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2016-09-01       Impact factor: 4.897

5.  Optimization of a Quantitative Micro-neutralization Assay.

Authors:  Yipu Lin; Yan Gu; John W McCauley
Journal:  J Vis Exp       Date:  2016-12-14       Impact factor: 1.355

6.  Combined effectiveness of prior and current season influenza vaccination in northern Spain: 2016/17 mid-season analysis.

Authors:  Jesús Castilla; Ana Navascués; Itziar Casado; Jorge Díaz-González; Alejandra Pérez-García; Leticia Fernandino; Iván Martínez-Baz; Aitziber Aguinaga; Francisco Pozo; Carmen Ezpeleta
Journal:  Euro Surveill       Date:  2017-02-16

7.  Interim estimates of 2016/17 vaccine effectiveness against influenza A(H3N2), Canada, January 2017.

Authors:  Danuta M Skowronski; Catharine Chambers; Suzana Sabaiduc; James A Dickinson; Anne-Luise Winter; Gaston De Serres; Steven J Drews; Agatha Jassem; Jonathan B Gubbay; Hugues Charest; Robert Balshaw; Nathalie Bastien; Yan Li; Mel Krajden
Journal:  Euro Surveill       Date:  2017-02-09

8.  Early 2016/17 vaccine effectiveness estimates against influenza A(H3N2): I-MOVE multicentre case control studies at primary care and hospital levels in Europe.

Authors:  Esther Kissling; Marc Rondy
Journal:  Euro Surveill       Date:  2017-02-16

9.  Pooled influenza vaccine effectiveness estimates for Australia, 2012-2014.

Authors:  S G Sullivan; K S Carville; M Chilver; J E Fielding; K A Grant; H Kelly; A Levy; N P Stocks; S S Tempone; A K Regan
Journal:  Epidemiol Infect       Date:  2016-04-29       Impact factor: 4.434

10.  Interim Estimates of 2016-17 Seasonal Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness - United States, February 2017.

Authors:  Brendan Flannery; Jessie R Chung; Swathi N Thaker; Arnold S Monto; Emily T Martin; Edward A Belongia; Huong Q McLean; Manjusha Gaglani; Kempapura Murthy; Richard K Zimmerman; Mary Patricia Nowalk; Michael L Jackson; Lisa A Jackson; Angie Foust; Wendy Sessions; LaShondra Berman; Sarah Spencer; Alicia M Fry
Journal:  MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep       Date:  2017-02-17       Impact factor: 35.301

View more
  33 in total

1.  Effectiveness of influenza vaccination on influenza-associated hospitalisations over time among children in Hong Kong: a test-negative case-control study.

Authors:  Shuo Feng; Susan S Chiu; Eunice L Y Chan; Mike Y W Kwan; Joshua S C Wong; Chi-Wai Leung; Yiu Chung Lau; Sheena G Sullivan; J S Malik Peiris; Benjamin J Cowling
Journal:  Lancet Respir Med       Date:  2018-11-12       Impact factor: 30.700

2.  Optimizing the impact of low-efficacy influenza vaccines.

Authors:  Pratha Sah; Jan Medlock; Meagan C Fitzpatrick; Burton H Singer; Alison P Galvani
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2018-04-30       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Elicitation of Protective Antibodies against 20 Years of Future H3N2 Cocirculating Influenza Virus Variants in Ferrets Preimmune to Historical H3N2 Influenza Viruses.

Authors:  James D Allen; Hyesun Jang; Joshua DiNapoli; Harold Kleanthous; Ted M Ross
Journal:  J Virol       Date:  2019-01-17       Impact factor: 5.103

4.  Comprehensive analysis of N-glycans in IgG purified from ferrets with or without influenza A virus infection.

Authors:  Guozhang Zou; Martina Kosikova; Su-Ryun Kim; Shweta Kotian; Wells W Wu; Rongfong Shen; David N Powers; Cyrus Agarabi; Hang Xie; Tongzhong Ju
Journal:  J Biol Chem       Date:  2018-10-12       Impact factor: 5.157

5.  Quadrivalent cell culture influenza virus vaccine. Comparison to egg-derived vaccine.

Authors:  Alberto Pérez-Rubio; Julio Ancochea; Jose María Eiros Bouza
Journal:  Hum Vaccin Immunother       Date:  2020-04-07       Impact factor: 3.452

6.  A single-shot adenoviral vaccine provides hemagglutinin stalk-mediated protection against heterosubtypic influenza challenge in mice.

Authors:  Carly M Bliss; Alec W Freyn; Tom G Caniels; Victor H Leyva-Grado; Raffael Nachbagauer; Weina Sun; Gene S Tan; Virginia L Gillespie; Meagan McMahon; Florian Krammer; Adrian V S Hill; Peter Palese; Lynda Coughlan
Journal:  Mol Ther       Date:  2022-01-07       Impact factor: 12.910

7.  Prediction of influenza vaccine effectiveness for the influenza season 2017/18 in the US.

Authors:  Slobodan Paessler; Veljko Veljkovic
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2017-11-29

8.  Interim Estimates of 2017-18 Seasonal Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness - United States, February 2018.

Authors:  Brendan Flannery; Jessie R Chung; Edward A Belongia; Huong Q McLean; Manjusha Gaglani; Kempapura Murthy; Richard K Zimmerman; Mary Patricia Nowalk; Michael L Jackson; Lisa A Jackson; Arnold S Monto; Emily T Martin; Angie Foust; Wendy Sessions; LaShondra Berman; John R Barnes; Sarah Spencer; Alicia M Fry
Journal:  MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep       Date:  2018-02-16       Impact factor: 17.586

9.  Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness in the United States During the 2016-2017 Season.

Authors:  Brendan Flannery; Jessie R Chung; Arnold S Monto; Emily T Martin; Edward A Belongia; Huong Q McLean; Manjusha Gaglani; Kempapura Murthy; Richard K Zimmerman; Mary Patricia Nowalk; Michael L Jackson; Lisa A Jackson; Melissa A Rolfes; Sarah Spencer; Alicia M Fry
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2019-05-17       Impact factor: 20.999

10.  Interim 2017/18 influenza seasonal vaccine effectiveness: combined results from five European studies.

Authors:  Marc Rondy; Esther Kissling; Hanne-Dorthe Emborg; Alin Gherasim; Richard Pebody; Ramona Trebbien; Francisco Pozo; Amparo Larrauri; Jim McMenamin; Marta Valenciano
Journal:  Euro Surveill       Date:  2018-03
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.