METHODS: Three national influenza surveillance systems with different levels of development (Australia, China and Malaysia) were compared and their adherence to World Health Organization (WHO) guidance was evaluated using a structured framework previously tested in several European countries consisting of seven surveillance sub-systems, 19 comparable outcomes and five evaluation criteria. Based on the results, experts from the Asia-Pacific Alliance for the Control of Influenza (APACI) issued recommendations for the improvement of existing surveillance systems.
RESULTS: Australia demonstrated the broadest scope of influenza surveillance followed by China and Malaysia. In Australia, surveillance tools covered all sub-systems. In China, surveillance did not cover non-medically attended respiratory events, primary care consultations, and excess mortality modelling. In Malaysia, surveillance consisted of primary care and hospital sentinel schemes. There were disparities between the countries across the 5 evaluation criteria, particularly regarding data granularity from health authorities, information on data representativeness, and data communication, especially the absence of publicly available influenza epidemiological reports in Malaysia. This dual approach describing the scope of surveillance and evaluating the adherence to WHO guidance enabled APACI experts to make a number of recommendations for each country that included but were not limited to introducing new surveillance tools, broadening the use of specific existing surveillance tools, collecting and sharing data on virus characteristics, developing immunization status registries, and improving public health communication.
CONCLUSIONS: Influenza monitoring in Australia, China, and Malaysia could benefit from the expansion of existing surveillance sentinel schemes, the broadened use of laboratory confirmation and the introduction of excess-mortality modelling. The results from the evaluation can be used as a basis to support expert recommendations and to enhance influenza surveillance capabilities.
METHODS: Data for the years 2016 through 2018 were gathered retrospectively from several sources. These were existing Ministry of Health (MOH) influenza sentinel sites data, two teaching hospitals, and two private medical institutions in the Klang Valley, Malaysia. Expert consensus determined the final estimates of burden for laboratory-confirmed influenza-like illness (ILI) and severe acute respiratory infection (SARI). Economic burden was estimated separately using secondary data supplemented by MOH casemix costing.
RESULTS: Altogether, data for 11,652 cases of ILI and 5,764 cases of SARI were extracted. The influenza B subtype was found to be predominant in 2016, while influenza A was more prevalent in 2017 and 2018. The distribution timeline revealed that the highest frequency of cases occurred in March and April of all three years. The costs of influenza amounted to MYR 310.9 million over the full three-year period.
CONCLUSIONS: The study provides valuable insights into the dynamic landscape of influenza in Malaysia. The findings reveal a consistent year-round presence of influenza with irregular seasonal peaks, including a notable influenza A epidemic in 2017 and consistent surges in influenza B incidence during March across three years. These findings underscore the significance of continuous monitoring influenza subtypes for informed healthcare strategies as well as advocate for the integration of influenza vaccination into Malaysia's national immunization program, enhancing overall pandemic preparedness.