The Dutch Citizen's Understanding and Perception of the Actors Involved in the Netherlands' COVID-19 Pandemic Response: A Focus Group Study During the First Pandemic Wave.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic was a public health emergency (PHE) of unprecedented magnitude and impact. It provided the possibility to investigate the Dutch citizens' understanding and perception of the actors involved in the Dutch pandemic response as a PHE unfolded. METHODS: Three focus groups (FGs) were held with 16 Dutch citizens in June 2020. Citizens were recruited using the Dutch Health Care Consumer Panel. During the FGs, participants were asked to fill in a table with actors they thought were involved in the management of the COVID-19 pandemic. They also received information on actors involved in Dutch outbreak responses. Then, the actors named and omitted by the participants were discussed. RESULTS: An analysis of the FGs suggests that the Dutch citizens participating in the study were not fully aware of the scope of actors involved in the Dutch COVID-19 pandemic response. Some participants would have appreciated more information on the actors involved. This would help them have an informed opinion of the actors involved in the decision-making process, and accept non-pharmaceutical interventions implemented. Lastly, most participants recognised that they played a role in limiting the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet, very few spontaneously mentioned themselves as actors within the COVID-19 pandemic response. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that early in the COVID-19 pandemic, the Dutch citizens participating in this study's FG did not have a complete understanding of the scope of actors involved in the Dutch COVID-19 pandemic response, or the potential role of the citizen. Future research can build on these results to explore the citizen's perception of their role during PHEs of another origin, as well as other geographical and historical contexts. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The public participated in the focus groups and received a non-expert report summarising the outcomes of the focus groups.

A literature review and evidence-based evaluation of the Dutch national immunisation schedule yield possibilities for improvements.

National Immunisation Programmes (NIPs) develop historically. Its performance (disease incidences, vaccination coverage) is monitored. Reviewing the schedule as a whole could inform on further optimisation of the programme, i.e., providing maximal protection with the lowest number of doses. We systematically evaluated the performance and strategies of the Dutch pathogen-specific NIP schedules through literature review, assessment of surveillance data and expert opinions. Pathogen-specific vaccinations were categorised according to their strategy of protection: I) elimination or eradication, II) herd immunity or III) 'only' individual protection. The schedule of each vaccine-component was evaluated based on fixed criteria: 1. Is the achieved protection adequate? 2. Is the intended protection achieved? 3. Does the programme include too many or too few doses? 4. Is the timing optimal or acceptable? and 5. Are there drawbacks of the NIP for (part of) the population? Identified issues were explored using surveillance data and literature. Using fixed criteria facilitated comparison between pathogens and revealed opportunities to optimise the Dutch NIP by: i. Reducing the number of polio and tetanus vaccinations; ii. prolonging the interval between diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, polio, hepatitis B, and Hib vaccine doses for improved effectiveness; iii. Expedite the second measles vaccination from 9 to 2-4 years of age to offer unvaccinated children and primary vaccine failures an earlier chance to be protected; and iv. Delaying the second mumps vaccination to enhance protection in adolescents/young adults. No schedule adaptations were deemed necessary for the vaccines against HPV, rubella, pneumococcal disease, and meningococcal disease. Based on this evaluation the NITAG advised to move the DTaP-IPV-HBV-Hib-booster from age 11 to 12 months, the second MMR-dose from 9 to 2-4 years, replace the Tdap-IPV at 4 years with a Tdap at 5-6 years and move the dt-IPV from 9 to 14 years. Implementation of these changes is planned for 2025.

Identifying the sectors involved in the European public health emergency preparedness and response: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: A systematic review was conducted with the aims of identifying sectors mentioned in the public health emergency preparedness and response (PHEPR) literature and mapping the involvement of those sectors in the seven PHEPR cycle domains. SETTING: A detailed search strategy was conducted in Embase and Scopus, covering the period between 1 January 2005 and 1 January 2020. METHODS: Published articles focusing on preparedness for and/or response to public health emergencies of multiple origins on the European continent were included. The frequency with which predetermined sectors were mentioned when describing collaboration during the preparedness and response cycle was determined. RESULTS: The results show that description of the involvement of sectors in PHEPR in general and collaboration during PHEPR is predominantly confined to a limited number of sectors, namely 'Governmental institutions', 'Human health industry', 'Experts' and 'Civil Society'. Description is also limited to only three domains of the PHEPR cycle, namely 'Risk and crisis management', 'Pre-event preparations and governance' and 'Surveillance'. CONCLUSIONS: Optimal preparedness and response require predefined collaboration with a broader scope of partners than currently seems to be the case based on this literature review. We recommend considering these outcomes when planning multisectoral collaboration during preparedness and response, as well as the need to further operationalise the term 'multisectoral collaboration' during PHEPRs. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO with registration number 176 331.

[Vaccines against human papillomavirus (HPV); between registration and implementation]. / Vaccins tegen Humaan papillomavirus (HPV); tussen registratie en implementatie.

--Each year, 600-700 women in the Netherlands are diagnosed with cervical cancer. Over the last 10 years, an average of 250 women have died annually due to cervical cancer. --Gardasil, the first vaccine for Human papillomavirus (HPV), was recently approved in Europe for the prevention of cervical cancer. --The availability of a vaccine for HPV prompts the question whether it should be included in the Dutch National Immunisation Programme. --At the end of 2006, the Medicines Evaluation Board, the Health Council of the Netherlands and the Centre for Infectious Disease Control of the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment organised a workshop for experts in the field to answer that question. --The HPV vaccine provides protection against HPV-16 and HPV-18, which cause approximately 70% of cervical cancers. --Because the efficacy of vaccination is only evident after many years, preserving good participation in the screening programme is essential. --The current screening could be improved by introducing an HPV test combined with self-sampling for women who do not participate in screening. --Vaccination is unarguably an important development. However, there are still several unanswered questions regarding vaccination and its actual protection, duration of protection, long-term safety and cost-effectiveness. --April 1st, 2008, the Health Council of the Netherlands had recommended including HPV vaccination in the National Immunisation Programme.

Annual revaccination against influenza and mortality risk in community-dwelling elderly persons.

CONTEXT: Although large-scale observational studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of influenza vaccination, no large studies have systematically addressed the clinical benefit of annual revaccinations. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of annual influenza revaccination on mortality in community-dwelling elderly persons. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A population-based cohort study using the computerized Integrated Primary Care Information (IPCI) database in the Netherlands including community-dwelling individuals aged 65 years or older from 1996 through 2002. For each year, we computed the individual cumulative exposure to influenza vaccination since study start. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Association between the number of consecutive influenza vaccinations and all-cause mortality vs no vaccination after adjusting for age, sex, chronic respiratory and cardiovascular disease, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, renal failure, and cancer. RESULTS: The study population included 26,071 individuals, of whom 3485 died during follow-up. Overall, a first vaccination was associated with a nonsignificant annual reduction of mortality risk of 10% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78-1.03) while revaccination was associated with a reduced mortality risk of 24% (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.70-0.83). Compared with a first vaccination, revaccination was associated with a reduced annual mortality risk of 15% (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75-0.96). During the epidemic periods this reduction was 28% (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.53-0.96). Similar estimates were obtained for persons with and without chronic comorbidity and those aged 70 years or older at baseline. Overall, influenza vaccination is estimated to prevent 1 death for every 302 vaccinees at a vaccination coverage that varied between 64% and 74%. CONCLUSION: Annual influenza vaccination is associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality risk in a population of community-dwelling elderly persons, particularly in older individuals.

Evaluation of serological trials submitted for annual re-licensure of influenza vaccines to regulatory authorities between 1992 and 2002.

BACKGROUND: As part of the regulatory requirements, serological evaluation of trivalent inactivated influenza vaccines must be performed before annual re-licensure in the European Union. These studies are typically set up as uncontrolled, open label trials including 2 groups of at least 50 healthy adults and healthy elderly. METHODS: The serological data submitted to the Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board (MEB) for annual re-licensure purposes between 1992 and 2002, were analysed with respect to their ability to assess the immunogenic properties of the vaccines. The trials in this meta-analysis were selected by strictly applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria described in the Committee of Human Medicinal Products (CHMP) Note for Guidance on harmonisation of requirements for influenza vaccines. To select the final dataset additional exclusion criteria were defined: age outside the inclusion criterion of the trial, incomplete demographics, co-morbid conditions, antibody determination by SRH assay, incomplete dataset and sample size smaller than 50 subjects. RESULTS: Out of 51 trials retrieved from the archives, 48 age-defined trials including 2510 adults and 2008 elderly fulfilled all the in- and exclusion criteria. A large proportion of vaccinees already met the threshold for seroprotection at baseline. Post-vaccination, the serological response was shown to be age dependent. Previous influenza vaccinations significantly affected pre-vaccination but not post-vaccination titres. CONCLUSIONS: The annual update trials performed for regulatory purposes have serious methodological limitations, which affect their ability to identify influenza vaccines with low immunogenicity. To establish clinical (protective) efficacy different trials and different assessment criteria are needed.