Suchergebnisse

Abstract Background In Germany, annual vaccination against seasonal influenza is recommended for certain target groups (e.g. persons aged ≥60 years, chronically ill persons, healthcare workers (HCW)). In season 2009/10, vaccination against pandemic influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, which was controversially discussed in the public, was recommended for the whole population. The objectives of this study were to assess vaccination coverage for seasonal (seasons 2008/09-2010/11) and pandemic influenza (season 2009/10), to identify predictors of and barriers to pandemic vaccine uptake and whether the controversial discussions on pandemic vaccination has had a negative impact on seasonal influenza vaccine uptake in Germany. Methods We analysed data from the 'German Health Update' (GEDA10) telephone survey (n=22,050) and a smaller GEDA10-follow-up survey (n=2,493), which were both representative of the general population aged ≥18 years living in Germany. Results Overall only 8.8% of the adult population in Germany received a vaccination against pandemic influenza. High socioeconomic status, having received a seasonal influenza shot in the previous season, and belonging to a target group for seasonal influenza vaccination were independently associated with the uptake of pandemic vaccines. The main reasons for not receiving a pandemic vaccination were 'fear of side effects' and the opinion that 'vaccination was not necessary'. Seasonal influenza vaccine uptake in the pre-pandemic season 2008/09 was 52.8% among persons aged ≥60 years; 30.5% among HCW, and 43.3% among chronically ill persons. A decrease in vaccination coverage was observed across all target groups in the first post-pandemic season 2010/11 (50.6%, 25.8%, and 41.0% vaccination coverage, respectively). Conclusions Seasonal influenza vaccination coverage in Germany remains in all target groups below 75%, which is a declared goal of the European Union. Our results suggest that controversial public discussions about safety and the benefits of pandemic influenza vaccination may have contributed to both a very low uptake of pandemic vaccines and a decreased uptake of seasonal influenza vaccines in the first post-pandemic season. In the upcoming years, the uptake of seasonal influenza vaccines should be carefully monitored in all target groups to identify if this trend continues and to guide public health authorities in developing more effective vaccination and communication strategies for seasonal influenza vaccination.

The Delta variant (Phylogenetic Assignment of Named Global Outbreak (Pango) lineage designation B.1.617.2) of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was first reported in October 2020 and has spread to more than 180 countries globally [1]. Concerns were raised about how well the currently available vaccines protect against this variant. Since January 2021, the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), in collaboration with the National Immunisation Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs) network coordinated by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) is performing a living systematic review on the efficacy, effectiveness and safety of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccines authorised in the European Union (EU) (PROSPERO registration: CRD42020208935) [2]. Here we present results on the effectiveness and the duration of protection provided by the EU-licensed COVID-19 vaccines in respect to the Delta variant. ; Peer Reviewed

•NITAGs provide independent, evidence-informed immunization advice to governments.•Global NITAG Network (GNN) now formally launched.•GNN: country lead organization formed to strengthen NITAGs, no participation fees.•GNN: nurture development of inter-country NITAG relationships.•GNN: facilitate voluntary sharing information, technical expertise.•GNN: venue to discuss NITAG immunization decision-making, implementation concerns.

Decisions in public health should be based on the best available evidence, reviewed and appraised using a rigorous and transparent methodology. The Project on a Framework for Rating Evidence in Public Health (PRECEPT) defined a methodology for evaluating and grading evidence in infectious disease epidemiology, prevention and control that takes different domains and question types into consideration. The methodology rates evidence in four domains: disease burden, risk factors, diagnostics and intervention. The framework guiding it has four steps going from overarching questions to an evidence statement. In step 1, approaches for identifying relevant key areas and developing specific questions to guide systematic evidence searches are described. In step 2, methodological guidance for conducting systematic reviews is provided; 15 study quality appraisal tools are proposed and an algorithm is given for matching a given study design with a tool. In step 3, a standardised evidence-grading scheme using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group (GRADE) methodology is provided, whereby findings are documented in evidence profiles. Step 4 consists of preparing a narrative evidence summary. Users of this framework should be able to evaluate and grade scientific evidence from the four domains in a transparent and reproducible way. ; Funding Agencies|European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) [2012/040, 2014/008]