КОНЦЕПТУАЛЬНЫЕ ОСНОВЫ БИОЛОГИЧЕСКОЙ БЕЗОПАСНОСТИ. ЧАСТЬ I

Up to date there is a narrow and broad interpretation of the term biological safety (BS) the world over. In the narrow sense it is defined as availability of international regulations applied to diagnostic, manufacturing, or experimental works with pathogenic biological agents (PBA) in accordance with specified levels of biological hazard and BS. In a broader context it has no national, conceptual, terminological or defying basis. Therewith, establishment of this framework has become the core issue of the study. Investigations have revealed that BS should conceptually cover the whole sphere of sanitary-and-epidemiological welfare as well as related fields such as veterinary-sanitary, phytosanitary provision, ecological safety, environmental conditions (occupational, socio-economic and geopolitical infrastructures, ecological system), and be exercised to prevent and control emergency situations (ES) of biological character. It is demonstrated that this type of ES differs from ES in the sphere of public health care of international concern which is formalized in IHR (2005), in the way that it is characterized by high socio-economic and geopolitical significance of the negative influence on human vital activities, comparable with national and international security hazard. Elaborated is the conceptual, terminological and defying toolkit of the BS broad interpretation (27 terms). В современном представлении мирового сообщества существует узкая и широкая трактовка биологической безопасности. Смысл узкого понимания определяется наличием международных требований при работе (диагностической, производственной, экспериментальной) с патогенными биологическими агентами в соответствии с регламентированными уровнями биологической опасности и безопасности. Широкая трактовка биологической безопасности не имеет концептуальной, понятийной, терминологической и определительной основы. Создание концептуальной основы данного понятия и является целью настоящей работы. По результатам исследований установлено, что концептуально биологическая безопасность охватывает всю сферу санитарно-эпидемиологического благополучия, смежные с ней области ветеринарно-санитарного, фитосанитарного обеспечения, экологической безопасности, среду обитания (производственную, социально-экономическую, геополитическую инфраструктуру, экологическую систему) и осуществляется в целях предупреждения и ликвидации чрезвычайных ситуаций биологического характера. Показано, что отличием данной чрезвычайной ситуации от таковой в области общественного здравоохранения, имеющей международное значение, определенной в Международных медико-санитарных правилах (ММСП, 2005), является, как правило, высокая социально-экономическая и геополитическая значимость негативного влияния на жизнедеятельность человека, сопоставимая с угрозой национальной и международной безопасности. Разработанные концептуальные основы биологической безопасности требуют правового (законодательного), нормативного (подзаконного), методического закрепления на территории Российской Федерации, создания соответствующей терминологической базы

АКТУАЛЬНЫЕ ПРОБЛЕМЫ БИОЛОГИЧЕСКОЙ БЕЗОПАСНОСТИ В СОВРЕМЕННЫХ УСЛОВИЯХ. ЧАСТЬ 2. ПОНЯТИЙНАЯ, ТЕРМИНОЛОГИЧЕСКАЯ И ОПРЕДЕЛИТЕЛЬНАЯ БАЗА БИОЛОГИЧЕСКОЙ БЕЗОПАСНОСТИ

In accordance with the established conceptual base for the up-to-date broad interpretation of biological safety, and IHR (2005), developed is the notional, terminological, and definitive framework, comprising 33 elements. Key item of the nomenclature is the biological safety that is identified as population safety (individual, social, national) from direct and (or) human environment mediated (occupational, socio-economic, geopolitical infrastructures, ecological system) exposures to hazardous biological factors. Ultimate objective of the biological safety provision is to prevent and liquidate aftermaths of emergency situations of biological character either of natural or human origin (anthropogenic) arising from direct and indirect impact of the biological threats to the public health compatible with national and international security hazard. Elaborated terminological framework allows for the construction of self-sufficient semantic content for biological safety provision, subject to formalization in legislative, normative and methodological respects and indicative of improvement as regards organizational and structural-functional groundwork of the Russian Federation National chemical and biological safety system, which is to become topical issue of Part 3. (Авторы: Г.Г. Онищенко, В.Ю. Смоленский, Е.Б. Ежлова, Ю.В. Демина, В.П. Топорков, А.В. Топорков, М.Н. Ляпин, В.В. Кутырев)В соответствии с разработанной концептуальной основой современного (широкого) формата биологической безопасности (см. часть 1) и требованиями Международных медико-санитарных правил 2005 г. создана ее понятийная, терминологическая и определительная база, включающая 33 наименования. Ключевым понятием является биологическая безопасность, определяемая как состояние защищенности населения (личности, общества, государства) от прямого и/или опосредованного через среду обитания (производственная, социально-экономическая, геополитическая сфера, экологическая система) воздействия опасных биологических факторов. Конечной целью обеспечения биологической безопасности являются предупреждение и ликвидация последствий чрезвычайных ситуаций биологического характера естественного и искусственного (антропогенного) происхождения, возникающих при прямом и опосредованном воздействии опасных биологических факторов на здоровье населения в масштабе, соизмеримом с угрозой национальной и международной безопасности. Разработанный понятийный аппарат позволяет создать самостоятельное смысловое поле обеспечения биологической безопасности населения, подлежащее закреплению в правовом (законодательном), нормативном (подзаконном) и методическом отношении и позволяющее усовершенствовать организационные и структурно-функциональные основы Национальной системы химической и биологической безопасности Российской Федерации, что будет рассмотрено в Части 3

Population immunity and structure of measles cases in the Russian Federation

Relevance. In recent years, in Russia, against the background of a stable high (no less than 95%) coverage of live measles vaccine (GI) inoculations of decreed groups of the population for almost twenty years, increases in morbidity have been registered, reaching the indicators of 3.3(2014) and 3.1 (2019) per 100 ths population and local outbreaks involving the child population. This situation has raised doubts among a number of researchers about the reliability of high vaccination coverage in children and adults. In this regard, some researchers assumed the loss of post-vaccination immunity and suggested revaccination against measles every 10 years for people up to 50 years old. Others suggested serological examination of certain cohorts of the adult population without taking into account the vaccination history for timely detection and vaccination of individuals with primary post-vaccination failures and who have lost post-vaccination immunity. The purpose of the work: to assess the state of population immunity for some manifestations of the epidemic process of measles infection and the feasibility of changing the tactics of vaccination against measles. Materials and methods. The work uses epidemiological operational and retrospective analysis. The research is based on the analysis of official statistics № 2, № 5, № 6, reports of regional centers, «maps of the surveillance of a case of suspected measles…», information and analytical bulletins of the National scientific and methodological center for the supervision of measles and rubella (NNMC). A total of 18,750 documents were analyzed. The average values, the average standard error, the correlation coefficient of the series, the reliability of the correlation coefficient, and the regression coefficient were calculated. Results and discussion. One of the indirect indicators of the state of population immunity is the ratio of vaccinated and not vaccinated against measles in the structure of patients. The analysis showed a steady trend towards the prevalence of cases not vaccinated against measles in the structure: since 2011, more than 70%, and since 2017 – more than 80%. The percentage of vaccinated people is decreasing from 12.8% to 5.4% (2017) and has stabilized in the last 2.5 years at the level of 5.4–7.2%. Over the past 2 years, there has also been some stabilization of the proportion of people twice vaccinated – 9.4–9.8%. Intensive indicators of morbidity confirmed the General trend of extensive indicators. In addition, over the past 3 years, the intensive incidence rate of those vaccinated is 14 times lower than that of those not vaccinated against measles. All this testifies to the lack of accumulation of susceptible individuals due to the loss of post-vaccination immunity and confirms the adequacy of the strategy and tactics of vaccination against measles in our country. The calculation of the regression coefficient showed that with an increase in vaccination coverage of the entire population by one percent, the incidence of measles among unvaccinated people will increase by 1.34 per one hundred thousand unvaccinated people against measles. The prevalence of foci without infection spread (more than 80%) during the analyzed period, and the restriction of secondary measles spread by the second generation of infection reproduction in foci with two or more cases of measles, multiple circulation of genotypes and subtypes of the measles virus also characterizes a fairly high population immunity. Conclusion. The steady predominance of lesions 1 case, limiting secondary spread of infection in outbreaks, the maintenance of the epidemic process of measles through an unvaccinated population indicate adequate tactics and strategy for measles immunization in our country. At the same time, the achieved 74.1% vaccination coverage of the entire population is clearly not enough to prevent sustained endemic transmission of the measles virus, since the reproductive index R<1 can be maintained with vaccination coverage of at least 95%. To increase population immunity, it is necessary to search for new forms of work of pediatricians and therapists with the population to form a commitment to immunization, as well as to legislate responsibility for the consequences of refusing vaccinations, as is done in a number of States. © Tsvirkun OV et al