Lifting COVID-19 mitigation measures in Spain (May-June 2020).

Introduction: The state of alarm was declared in Spain due to the COVID-19 epidemic on March 14, 2020, and established population confinement measures. The objective is to describe the process of lifting these mitigation measures. Methods: The Plan for the Transition to a New Normality, approved on April 28, contained four sequential phases with progressive increase in socio-economic activities and population mobility. In parallel, a new strategy for early diagnosis, surveillance and control was implemented. A bilateral decision mechanism was established between the Spanish Government and the autonomous communities (AC), guided by a set of qualitative and quantitative indicators capturing the epidemiological situation and core capacities. The territorial units were established ad-hoc and could be from Basic Health Zones to entire AC. Results: The process run from May 4 to June 21, 2020. AC implemented plans for reinforcement of core capacities. Incidence decreased from a median (50% of territories) of 7.4 per 100,000 in 7 days at the beginning to 2.5 at the end. Median PCR testing increased from 53% to 89% of suspected cases and PCR total capacity from 4.5 to 9.8 per 1000 inhabitants weekly; positivity rate decreased from 3.5% to 1.8%. Median proportion of cases with traced contacts increased from 82% to 100%. Conclusion: Systematic data collection, analysis, and interterritorial dialogue allowed adequate process control. The epidemiological situation improved but, mostly, the process entailed a great reinforcement of core response capacities nation-wide, under common criteria. Maintaining and further reinforcing capacities remained crucial for responding to future waves.

Introducción: El 14 de marzo de 2020 España declaró el estado de alarma por la pandemia por COVID-19 incluyendo medidas de confinamiento. El objetivo es describir el proceso de desescalada de estas medidas. Métodos: Un plan de transición hacia una nueva normalidad, del 28 de abril, incluía 4 fases secuenciales incrementando progresivamente las actividades socioeconómicas y la movilidad. Concomitantemente, se implementó una nueva estrategia de diagnóstico precoz, vigilancia y control. Se estableció un mecanismo de decisión bilateral entre Gobierno central y comunidades autónomas (CCAA), guiado por un panel de indicadores cualitativos y cuantitativos de la situación epidemiológica y las capacidades básicas. Las unidades territoriales evaluadas comprendían desde zonas básicas de salud hasta CCAA. Resultados: El proceso se extendió del 4 de mayo al 21 de junio y se asoció a planes de refuerzo de las capacidades en las CCAA. La incidencia disminuyó de una mediana inicial de 7,4 por 100.000 en 7 días a 2,5 al final del proceso. La mediana de pruebas PCR aumentó del 53% al 89% de los casos sospechosos, y la capacidad total de 4,5 a 9,8 pruebas semanales por 1.000 habitantes; la positividad disminuyó del 3,5% al 1,8%. La mediana de casos con contactos trazados aumentó del 82% al 100%. Conclusión: La recogida y análisis sistemático de información y el diálogo interterritorial logaron un adecuado control del proceso. La situación epidemiológica mejoró, pero sobre todo, se aumentaron las capacidades, en todo el país y con criterios comunes, cuyo mantenimiento y refuerzo fue clave en olas sucesivas.

Lifting COVID-19 mitigation measures in Spain (May-June 2020).

INTRODUCTION: The state of alarm was declared in Spain due to the COVID-19 epidemic on March 14, 2020, and established population confinement measures. The objective is to describe the process of lifting these mitigation measures. METHODS: The Plan for the Transition to a New Normality, approved on April 28, contained four sequential phases with progressive increase in socio-economic activities and population mobility. In parallel, a new strategy for early diagnosis, surveillance and control was implemented. A bilateral decision mechanism was established between the Spanish Government and the autonomous communities (AC), guided by a set of qualitative and quantitative indicators capturing the epidemiological situation and core capacities. The territorial units were established ad-hoc and could be from Basic Health Zones to entire AC. RESULTS: The process run from May 4 to June 21, 2020. AC implemented plans for reinforcement of core capacities. Incidence decreased from a median (50% of territories) of 7.4 per 100,000 in 7 days at the beginning to 2.5 at the end. Median PCR testing increased from 53% to 89% of suspected cases and PCR total capacity from 4.5 to 9.8 per 1000 inhabitants weekly; positivity rate decreased from 3.5% to 1.8%. Median proportion of cases with traced contacts increased from 82% to 100%. CONCLUSION: Systematic data collection, analysis, and interterritorial dialogue allowed adequate process control. The epidemiological situation improved but, mostly, the process entailed a great reinforcement of core response capacities nation-wide, under common criteria. Maintaining and further reinforcing capacities remained crucial for responding to future waves.

Evaluation of pneumococcal and influenza vaccination coverage in rheumatology patients receiving biological therapy in a regional referral hospital. / Evaluación de las coberturas de vacunación antineumocócica y antigripal en pacientes reumatológicos con terapia biológica de un hospital autonómico de referencia.

OBJECTIVE: Vaccination coverage for seasonal influenza and pneumococcus in rheumatology patients receiving biological treatment. To identify variables that predict vaccination adherence. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Descriptive cross-sectional study. The study involved rheumatology patients who initiated biological therapy between 01/01/2016 and 12/31/2016 in a regional referral hospital. Variables included sociodemographic information, diagnostic data, treating physician, referral to the vaccine unit and vaccination against pneumococcus with 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) and 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23), as well as seasonal influenza (2016/17). Univariate, bivariate (Chi-square) and multivariate analysis (logistic regression) were performed. The differences were considered significant (P<.05) and the PASW v.18 software package was used. RESULTS: In all, 222 patients were included. Vaccination coverage was: PCV13, 80.2%; PPSV23, 77.9%; influenza 2016/17, 78.8%; PCV13+PPSV23, 75.2%; PCV13+PPSV23+influenza 2016/17, 68.9%. Axial spondylitis had the highest coverage (>80%) for pneumococcal vaccination and combination of pneumococcal with influenza. Overall, 27% of the patients were not referred to the unit. The treating physician was associated with statistical significance in each vaccine alone or combined, but referral to the vaccine unit was independently associated with the highest vaccination coverage (P<.001) in all cases. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to the scientific literature, we consider that the coverage of our patients against pneumococcus and influenza is high. Referral of these patients to the vaccine unit is the key to guarantee a correct immunization and to minimize some of the possible infectious adverse effects of biological therapies.

[Design and validation of a questionnaire on the attitudes of health professionals towards the official recommendation of influenza vaccination]. / Diseño y validación de un cuestionario sobre las actitudes de los profesionales sanitarios hacia la recomendación oficial de vacunación antigripal.

OBJECTIVE: Actually, there are no studies related to the attitudes of health professionals towards the official recommendation of influenza vaccination, despite the fact that there are numerous investigations that have addressed their own attitude towards vaccination. The objective is to design the Questionnaire on the Attitudes of Healthcare Professionals towards the Official Flu Vaccination Recommendations (CAPSVA). METHODS: Quasi-experimental study. The control group includedInstrumental study was conducted between February and March 2019 with 288 professionals of Medicine, Nursing and Pharmacy of the Principado of Asturias (Spain). The sampling was non-probabilistic of incidental type. After content validation, a tool was designed with 16 items in three dimensions. Reliability (alpha ordinal) and internal validity (exploratory factorial analysis using the parallel analysis method) analyses were performed, as well as frequency analysis and mean comparisons. RESULTS: The exploratory factor analysis yielded a 3-factor solution that explained 79.38% of the total variance. The ordinal alpha ranged from 0,72 to 0,80. The test-retest recorded a value of r= 0,804 (p < 0,001). There were no statistically significant differences when comparing according to sex (p = 0,952), professional group (p = 0,563) or having received influenza vaccination in the last campaign (p = 0,861). There were these differences when comparing the number of years of professional practice (p = 0,003) and having received specific training in vaccines in the last year (p = 0,004). More than 90% of the participants valued positively the influenza vaccination strategy of the Autonomous Community of study (quadrivalent vaccine for < 65 years and adjuvant trivalent for ≥65 years). CONCLUSIONS: A questionnaire with sufficient guarantees of reliability and internal validity is available to evaluate the attitudes of health professionals towards the official recommendation of influenza vaccination.

OBJETIVO: A día de hoy no existen estudios relacionados con las actitudes de los profesionales sanitarios hacia la recomendación oficial de vacunación antigripal, a pesar de que son numerosas las investigaciones en las que se ha abordado la propia actitud de los mismos hacia su vacunación. El objetivo de este trabajo fue diseñar el Cuestionario sobre las Actitudes de los Profesionales Sanitarios hacia la Recomendaciones Oficiales de Vacunación Antigripal (CAPSVA). METODOS: Estudio instrumental realizado entre febrero y marzo de 2019 con 288 profesionales de Medicina, Enfermería y Farmacia del Principado de Asturias (España). El muestreo fue no probabilístico de tipo incidental. Tras la validación de contenido, se diseñó una herramienta con 16 ítems en tres dimensiones. Se realizaron análisis de fiabilidad (alfa ordinal) y validez interna (análisis factorial exploratorio mediante el método de análisis paralelo), además de análisis de frecuencias y comparaciones de medias. RESULTADOS: El análisis factorial exploratorio arrojó una solución de 3 factores que explicó el 79,38% de la varianza total. El alfa ordinal osciló entre 0,72 y 0,80. El test-retest registró un valor de r= 0,804 (p < 0,001). No hubo diferencias estadísticamente significativas al comparar según la variable sexo (p = 0,952), grupo profesional (p = 0,563) o haber recibido la vacunación antigripal en la última campaña (p = 0,861). Sí las hubo al comparar el número de años de ejercicio profesional (p = 0,003) y haber recibido formación específica en vacunas en el último año (p = 0,004). Más de un 90% de los participantes valoró positivamente la estrategia de vacunación antigripal de la Comunidad Autónoma de estudio (vacuna cuadrivalente para < 65 años y trivalente adyuvada para ≥65 años). CONCLUSIONES: Se dispone de un cuestionario con suficientes garantías de fiabilidad y validez interna para evaluar las actitudes de los profesionales sanitarios hacia la recomendación oficial de la vacunación antigripal.

Evaluation of vaccination coverage in cochlear implant patients at a referral hospital in Northern Spain. / Evaluación de las coberturas de vacunación en pacientes con implante coclear de un hospital de referencia del norte de España.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The risk of bacterial meningitis increases in cochlear implant patients. Therefore, pneumococcal, influenza and Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccination is indicated in this group. The aim of this study was to determine compliance with the vaccination calendar in patients implanted in a referral hospital. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with cochlear implant operated between 2005 and 2015 were included. Vaccine coverage for seasonal influenza, Haemophilus influenzae type b and pneumococcal conjugate 13-serotypes and pneumococcal polysaccharide 23-serotypes was evaluated. The sample was divided into 2 age groups (<14 years and≥14 years). A univariate and bivariate analysis was performed. RESULTS: Of the 153 patients studied (28.01% 0-13 years old and 71.9%≥14), only 2 (5.71%) had 100% adherence to the vaccination schedule, while 65.71% had compliance of 50% or less. Overall, vaccination coverage against the sequential pneumococcal pattern was 48.57%. The paediatric population exceeded 90% coverage for the vaccine against Haemophilus influenzae type b and pneumococcal conjugate 13-serotypes while in those over 14 years of age it barely exceeded 50%. Influenza coverage was less than 40%. An inverse correlation was obtained between age and compliance, although not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccination coverage in patients with cochlear implant is lower than expected. Close collaboration between Otolaryngology departments and the Vaccination Units is proposed as the main strategy for improvement.

Adverse reactions associated with meningococcal group B vaccine (4CMenB) in adults in special situations.

OBJECTIVE: To know the safety profile of the 4CMenB vaccine in adults in special situations. METHOD: Security prospective study of phase IV. Inclusion criteria and some  vaccination conditions were applied. The adverse reactions described in the data  sheet were collected. The adverse reactions evaluation was performed 24 hours  after vaccination ("requested") and during the first seven days ("not  requested"). RESULTS: 72 patients were included (54.2% men, mean age 52.5 years, 81.9%  anatomic asplenia). The frequency of fever > 38 ºC in the first 24 hours of  vaccination was higher than the observed in the summary of product characteristics for the group of adults (12.5% vs. not known). More than 75% of the patients reported local pain in the first hours [average of the Analog Visual Scale score 3.22 (95% CI: 2.67-3.76) in the first dose and 3.23 (95% CI: 2.69-3.78) in the second dose]. There were no statistically significant differences. 97.22% registered symptoms until 7 days  after vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: 4CMenB® shows a good safety profile in adults in special situations. The frequency of fever > 38 ºC is higher than expected. Local  pain is the most frequently recorded adverse reactions, but the intensity is low.  These results suggest a review of the situation in order to suggest a possible  modification of the summary of product characteristics of the vaccine.

Objetivo: Conocer el perfil de seguridad de la vacuna del meningococo B  (4CMenB) en adultos en situaciones especiales.Método: Estudio prospectivo de seguridad de fase IV. Se aplicaron criterios de  inclusión y ciertas condiciones de vacunación. Se recogieron las reacciones adversas descritas en la ficha técnica. La evaluación de las reacciones adversas se realizó a las 24 horas de la vacunación ("solicitadas") y  durante los siete primeros días ("no solicitadas").Resultados: Se incluyeron 72 pacientes (54,2% hombres; media de edad 52,5  años; 81,9% asplenia anatómica). La frecuencia de fiebre > 38 ºC en las  primeras 24 horas fue mayor de la observada en la ficha técnica para el grupo  de adultos (12,5% versus no conocida). Más del 75% de los pacientes refirió  dolor local en las primeras horas [media de la puntuación de la Escala Visual  Analógica 3,22 (IC95%: 2,67-3,76) en la primera dosis y 3,23 (IC95%: 2,69- 3,78) en la segunda dosis]. No hubo diferencias estadísticamente significativas.  El 97,22% registró síntomas hasta los siete días postvacunación.Conclusiones: 4CMenB® muestra un buen perfil de seguridad en adultos en  situaciones especiales. La frecuencia de fiebre > 38 ºC es mayor que la  esperada. El dolor local es la reacción adversa más frecuentemente registrada,  pero la intensidad es baja. Estos resultados invitan a una revisión de la situación  de cara a sugerir una posible modificación de la ficha técnica.