Suchergebnisse

Abstract Background Although there is rapid progress in vaccine research regarding influenza pandemic vaccines it is expected that pandemic influenza vaccine production can only start once the pandemic virus has been recognized. Therefore, pandemic vaccine capacity will be limited at least during the first phase of an influenza pandemic, requiring vaccine prioritization strategies. WHO recommends developing preliminary priorities for pandemic vaccine use. The goal of this review is to provide a thorough overview of pandemic vaccine prioritization concepts in the 27 European Union (EU) member states and the four non-EU countries of the Global Health Security Action Group. Methods Between September and December 2006 data was collected for each country through two data sources: (i) the national influenza pandemic plan; (ii) contacting key persons involved in pandemic planning by email and/or phone and/or fax Results Twenty-six (84%) countries had established at least one vaccine priority group. Most common reported vaccine priority groups were health care workers (HCW) (100%), essential service providers (ESP) (92%) and high risk individuals (HRI) (92%). Ranking of at least one vaccine priority group was done by 17 (65%) of 26 countries. Fifteen (88%) of these 17 countries including a ranking strategy, decided that HCW with close contact to influenza patients should be vaccinated first; in most countries followed and/or ranked equally by ESP and subsequently HRI. Rationales for prioritization were provided by 22 (85%) of 26 countries that established vaccine priority groups. There was large variation in the phrasing and level of detailed specification of rationales. Seven (32%) of 22 countries providing rationales clearly associated each vaccine priority group with the specific rationale. Ten (32% of the 31 countries studied) countries have consulted and involved ethical experts to guide decisions related to vaccine prioritization. Conclusion In the majority of the countries the establishment of vaccine priority groups, ranking and underlying rationales are in line with WHO recommendations. In most public plans the criteria by which prioritized groups are identified are not easily recognizable. Clarity however, may be necessary to assure public acceptability of the prioritization. Ethical experts, results of modelling exercises could play an increasing role in the future decision making process.

Treatment success measured by treatment outcome monitoring (TOM) is a key programmatic output of tuberculosis (TB) control programmes. We performed a systematic literature review on national-level TOM in the 30 European Union (EU)/European Economic Areas (EEA) countries to summarise methods used to collect and report data on TOM.

BACKGROUND: Progress towards the World Health Organization's End TB Strategy is monitored by assessing tuberculosis (TB) incidence, often derived from TB notification, assuming complete case detection and reporting. This assumption is unlikely to hold in many settings, including European Union (EU) countries. AIM: We aimed to assess observed and estimated completeness of TB notification through inventory studies and capture–recapture (CRC) methodology in six EU countries: Croatia, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Portugal Slovenia. METHODS: We performed record linkage, case ascertainment and CRC analyses of data collected retrospectively from at least three national TB-related registers in each country between 2014 and 2016. RESULTS: Observed completeness of TB notification by inventory studies was 73.9% in Croatia, 98.7% in Denmark, 83.6% in Finland, 81.6% in the Netherlands, 85.8% in Portugal and 100% in Slovenia. Subsequent CRC analysis estimated completeness of TB notification to be 98.4% in Denmark, 76.5% in Finland and 77.0% in Portugal. In Croatia, CRC analyses produced implausible results while in the Netherlands and Slovenia, it was methodologically considered not meaningful. CONCLUSION: Inventory studies and CRC methodology suggest a TB notification completeness between 73.9% and 100% in the six EU countries. Mandatory reporting by clinicians and laboratories, and cross-checking of registers, strongly contributes to accurate notification rates, but hospital episode registers likely contain a considerable proportion of false-positive TB records and are thus less useful. Further strengthening routine surveillance to count TB cases, i.e. incidence, accurately by employing record-linkage of high-quality TB registers should make CRC studies obsolete in EU countries.