Burden of varicella in Central and Eastern Europe : findings from a systematic literature review

Funding Information: The authors take full responsibility for the scope, direction, and content of the manuscript, and have approved the submitted manuscript. Medical writing assistance was provided by Eleanor Finn of PAREXEL International and was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. The authors wish to thank the following for contributions in development of the manuscript: Barbara J. Kuter, PhD, MPH, Global Vaccines Medical Affairs, and Tracey J. Weiss, Center for Observational and Real-World Evidence (CORE), Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. Funding Information: The study was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. Funding Information: J. Wysocki received travel grants to attend international scientific conferences and fees for lectures from Pfizer and payment from a grant sponsored by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. I. Ivaskeviciene has received a USA travel grant to attend international scientific meeting, from Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth. M. Pokorn has received a research grant from Pfizer and payment for lectures from Pfizer, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA and GSK. L. Jancoriene has received travel grants to attend international scientific conferences and fees for lectures from Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA, AbbVie and Pfizer and payment for a clinical study sponsored by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. J. Pluta and L.J. Wolfson are employees of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA, and stockholders of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. Publisher Copyright: © 2019, © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.Introduction: Vaccination against varicella rapidly reduces disease incidence, resulting in reductions in both individual burden and societal costs. Despite these benefits, there is no standardization of varicella immunization policies in Europe, including countries in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). Areas covered: This systematic literature review identified publications on the epidemiology of varicella, its associated health and economic burden, and vaccination strategies within the CEE region, defined as Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, and Slovenia. Twenty-six studies were identified from a search of PubMed, Embase®, and MEDLINE® biomedical literature databases, supplemented by gray literature and country-specific/global websites. Expert commentary: Limited information exists in published studies on the burden of varicella in CEE. The wide variability in incidence rates between countries is likely explained by a lack of consistency in reporting systems. Funded universal varicella vaccination (UVV) in CEE is currently available only in Latvia as a one-dose schedule, but Hungary together with Latvia are introducing a two-dose strategy in 2019. For countries that do not provide UVV, introduction of vaccination is predicted to provide substantial reductions in cases and rates of associated complications, with important economic benefits.publishersversionPeer reviewe

Central European Vaccination Advisory Group (CEVAG) guidance statement on recommendations for influenza vaccination in children

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Influenza vaccination in infants and children with existing health complications is current practice in many countries, but healthy children are also susceptible to influenza, sometimes with complications. The under-recognised burden of disease in young children is greater than in elderly populations and the number of paediatric influenza cases reported does not reflect the actual frequency of influenza.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Vaccination of healthy children is not widespread in Europe despite clear demonstration of the benefits of vaccination in reducing the large health and economic burden of influenza. Universal vaccination of infants and children also provides indirect protection in other high-risk groups in the community. This paper contains the Central European Vaccination Advisory Group (CEVAG) guidance statement on recommendations for the vaccination of infants and children against influenza. The aim of CEVAG is to encourage the efficient and safe use of vaccines to prevent and control infectious diseases.</p> <p>Summary</p> <p>CEVAG recommends the introduction of universal influenza vaccination for all children from the age of 6 months. Special attention is needed for children up to 60 months of age as they are at greatest risk. Individual countries should decide on how best to implement this recommendation based on their circumstances.</p

Central European Vaccination Advisory Group (CEVAG) guidance statement on recommendations for 2009 pandemic influenza A(H1N1) vaccination

The 2009 influenza A(H1N1) pandemic is markedly different from seasonal influenza with the disease affecting the younger population and a larger than expected number of severe or fatal cases has been seen in pregnant women, obese people and in people who were otherwise healthy. In Europe, influenza activity caused by the 2009 influenza A(H1N1) virus has passed the winter peak with nearly all countries now reporting lower influenza activity. However, although the rate of 2009 pandemic influenza A(H1N1) is declining, fatal cases continue to be reported and the future is hard to predict. The most effective protection against influenza is vaccination and increasing vaccine coverage is the only way to eliminate uncertainties regarding possible future waves of 2009 pandemic influenza A(H1N1). Recommendations have been developed for several central European countries but there is no clear or uniform definition with respect to priority groups or age groups who should receive vaccination. This paper contains the Central European Vaccination Advisory Group (CEVAG) guidance statement on recommendations for the vaccination of adults and children against 2009 pandemic influenza A(H1N1). CEVAG recommends vaccination of all health-care workers, pregnant women, children >= 6 months and <2 years of age and people with chronic medical conditions as a first priority. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

Adult vaccination in 11 Central European countries - Calendars are not just for children

As Europe's population ages, disease morbidity and treatment costs in the adult population are likely to rise substantially, making this a pertinent time to review and revise preventive strategies such as vaccination. Vaccine uptake remains a problem for adults and there is a lack of coordinated programmes for vaccination of adults. Countries in Western Europe have begun to identify the need to increase adult vaccination, but the situation in Central European countries remains poorly identified and inadequately described. This paper summarises the evidence to support the development of an adult vaccination calendar in the Central European Vaccination Awareness Group (CEVAG) member countries (Bulgaria. Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Turkey). CEVAG recommends the introduction of an adult vaccination calendar, which should include vaccination against diseases that represent a large burden in adults in terms of mortality and morbidity. This calendar could be modified to meet the priorities of individual countries. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

Rubella revisited: Where are we on the road to disease elimination in Central Europe?

Rubella is a contagious viral disease with few complications except when contracted by pregnant women. Rubella infection in pregnancy can result in miscarriage, stillbirth or an infant born with congenital rubella syndrome (CRS) which comprises deafness, heart disease, cataracts and other permanent congenital manifestations. Clinical diagnosis of rubella is difficult due to overlapping symptoms with many other diseases and confirmation of rubella is not possible without laboratory testing

Expert panel diagnosis demonstrated high reproducibility as reference standard in infectious diseases

Objective: If a gold standard is lacking in a diagnostic test accuracy study, expert diagnosis is frequently used as reference standard. However, interobserver and intraobserver agreements are imperfect. The aim of this study was to quantify the reproducibility of a panel diagnosis for pediatric infectious diseases. Study Design and Setting: Pediatricians from six countries adjudicated a diagnosis (i.e., bacterial infection, viral infection, or indeterminate)for febrile children. Diagnosis was reached when the majority of panel members came to the same diagnosis, leaving others inconclusive. We evaluated intraobserver and intrapanel agreement with 6 weeks and 3 years’ time intervals. We calculated the proportion of inconclusive diagnosis for a three-, five-, and seven-expert panel. Results: For both time intervals (i.e., 6 weeks and 3 years), intrapanel agreement was higher (kappa 0.88, 95%CI: 0.81-0.94 and 0.80, 95%CI: NA)compared to intraobserver agreement (kappa 0.77, 95%CI: 0.71-0.83 and 0.65, 95%CI: 0.52-0.78). After expanding the three-expert panel to five or seven experts, the proportion of inconclusive diagnoses (11%)remained the same. Conclusion: A panel consisting of three experts provides more reproducible diagnoses than an individual expert in children with lower respiratory tract infection or fever without source. Increasing the size of a panel beyond three experts has no major advantage for diagnosis reproducibility