Epidemiology of reported cases of leptospirosis in the EU/EEA, 2010 to 2021.

BackgroundLeptospirosis is a zoonotic disease caused by bacteria of the genus Leptospira. Humans are infected by exposure to animal urine or urine-contaminated environments. Although disease incidence is lower in Europe compared with tropical regions, there have been reports of an increase in leptospirosis cases since the 2000s in some European countries.AimWe aimed to describe the epidemiology of reported cases of leptospirosis in the European Union/European Economic Area (EU/EEA) during 2010-2021 and to identify potential changes in epidemiological patterns.MethodsWe ran a descriptive analysis of leptospirosis cases reported by EU/EEA countries to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control with disease during 2010-2021. We also analysed trends at EU/EEA and national level.ResultsDuring 2010-2021, 23 countries reported 12,180 confirmed leptospirosis cases corresponding to a mean annual notification rate of 0.24 cases per 100,000 population. Five countries (France, Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal and Romania) accounted for 79% of all reported cases. The highest notification rate was observed in Slovenia with 0.82 cases per 100,000 population. Overall, the notification rate increased by 5.0% per year from 2010 to 2021 (95% CI: 1.2-8.8%), although trends differed across countries.ConclusionThe notification rate of leptospirosis at EU/EEA level increased during 2010-2021 despite including the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic and associated changes in population behaviours. Studies at (sub)national level would help broaden the understanding of differences at country-level and specificities in terms of exposure to Leptospira, as well as biases in diagnosis and reporting.

The role and utilisation of public health evaluations in Europe: a case study of national hand hygiene campaigns.

BACKGROUND: Evaluations are essential to judge the success of public health programmes. In Europe, the proportion of public health programmes that undergo evaluation remains unclear. The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control sought to determine the frequency of evaluations amongst European national public health programmes by using national hand hygiene campaigns as an example of intervention. METHODS: A cohort of all national hand hygiene campaigns initiated between 2000 and 2012 was utilised for the analysis. The aim was to collect information about evaluations of hand hygiene campaigns and their frequency. The survey was sent to nominated contact points for healthcare-associated infection surveillance in European Union and European Economic Area Member States. RESULTS: Thirty-six hand hygiene campaigns in 20 countries were performed between 2000 and 2012. Of these, 50% had undergone an evaluation and 55% of those utilised the WHO hand hygiene intervention self-assessment tool. Evaluations utilised a variety of methodologies and indicators in assessing changes in hand hygiene behaviours pre and post intervention. Of the 50% of campaigns that were not evaluated, two thirds reported that both human and financial resource constraints posed significant barriers for the evaluation. CONCLUSION: The study identified an upward trend in the number of hand hygiene campaigns implemented in Europe. It is likely that the availability of the internationally-accepted evaluation methodology developed by the WHO contributed to the evaluation of more hand hygiene campaigns in Europe. Despite this rise, hand hygiene campaigns appear to be under-evaluated. The development of simple, programme-specific, standardised guidelines, evaluation indicators and other evidence-based public health materials could help promote evaluations across all areas of public health.