Shock Index in the early assessment of febrile children at the emergency department: a prospective multicentre study.

OBJECTIVE: (1) To derive reference values for the Shock Index (heart rate/systolic blood pressure) based on a large emergency department (ED) population of febrile children and (2) to determine the diagnostic value of the Shock Index for serious illness in febrile children. DESIGN/SETTING: Observational study in 11 European EDs (2017-2018). PATIENTS: Febrile children with measured blood pressure. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Serious bacterial infection (SBI), invasive bacterial infection (IBI), immediate life-saving interventions (ILSIs) and intensive care unit (ICU) admission. The association between high Shock Index (>95th centile) and each outcome was determined by logistic regression adjusted for age, sex, referral, comorbidity and temperature. Additionally, we calculated sensitivity, specificity and negative/positive likelihood ratios (LRs). RESULTS: Of 5622 children, 461 (8.2%) had SBI, 46 (0.8%) had IBI, 203 (3.6%) were treated with ILSI and 69 (1.2%) were ICU admitted. High Shock Index was associated with SBI (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.6 (95% CI 1.3 to 1.9)), ILSI (aOR 2.5 (95% CI 2.0 to 2.9)), ICU admission (aOR 2.2 (95% CI 1.4 to 2.9)) but not with IBI (aOR: 1.5 (95% CI 0.6 to 2.4)). For the different outcomes, sensitivity for high Shock Index ranged from 0.10 to 0.15, specificity ranged from 0.95 to 0.95, negative LRs ranged from 0.90 to 0.95 and positive LRs ranged from 1.8 to 2.8. CONCLUSIONS: High Shock Index is associated with serious illness in febrile children. However, its rule-out value is insufficient which suggests that the Shock Index is not valuable as a screening tool for all febrile children at the ED.

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

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.

Rotavirus vaccination in central Europe.

Each year, rotavirus (RV) infection is the leading cause of acute gastroenteritis requiring hospitalisation and of nosocomially transmitted diseases in children younger than 5 years across Central European Vaccination Awareness Group (CEVAG) countries; however, inadequate surveillance systems and lack of routine RV testing still exist in most CEVAG countries, making it difficult to accurately assess the present burden of acute RV gastroenteritis in the younger population. Furthermore, routine immunisation of infants with RV vaccines has not been implemented, and no official and uniform recommendations exist in most of the countries in these territories. The present study provides CEVAG country-specific estimates of the disease burden of RV gastroenteritis among the youngest population and presents evidence-based advice on the use of RV vaccines in the region, while providing a framework for vaccination at the national level.