RESUMEN
We conducted a multicentre hospital-based test-negative case-control study to measure the effectiveness of adapted bivalent COVID-19 mRNA vaccines against PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection during the Omicron XBB lineage-predominant period in patients aged ≥ 60 years with severe acute respiratory infection from five countries in Europe. Bivalent vaccines provided short-term additional protection compared with those vaccinated > 6 months before the campaign: from 80% (95%â¯CI: 50â¯toâ¯94) for 14-89 days post-vaccination, 15% (95%â¯CI: -12â¯toâ¯35) at 90-179 days, and lower to no effect thereafter.
Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Humanos , Estudios de Casos y Controles , COVID-19/prevención & control , SARS-CoV-2/genética , Hospitalización , Europa (Continente)/epidemiología , ARN MensajeroRESUMEN
BackgroundScarce European data in early 2021 suggested lower vaccine effectiveness (VE) against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron lineages than previous variants.AimWe aimed to estimate primary series (PS) and first booster VE against symptomatic BA.1/BA.2 infection and investigate potential biases.MethodsThis European test-negative multicentre study tested primary care patients with acute respiratory symptoms for SARS-CoV-2 in the BA.1/BA.2-dominant period. We estimated PS and booster VE among adults and adolescents (PS only) for all products combined and for Comirnaty alone, by time since vaccination, age and chronic condition. We investigated potential bias due to correlation between COVID-19 and influenza vaccination and explored effect modification and confounding by prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.ResultsAmong adults, PS VE was 37% (95%â¯CI: 24-47%) overall and 60% (95%â¯CI: 44-72%), 43% (95%â¯CI: 26-55%) and 29% (95%â¯CI: 13-43%) < 90, 90-179 and ≥ 180 days post vaccination, respectively. Booster VE was 42% (95%â¯CI: 32-51%) overall and 56% (95%â¯CI: 47-64%), 22% (95%â¯CI: 2-38%) and 3% (95%â¯CI: -78% to 48%), respectively. Primary series VE was similar among adolescents. Restricting analyses to Comirnaty had little impact. Vaccine effectiveness was higher among older adults. There was no signal of bias due to correlation between COVID-19 and influenza vaccination. Confounding by previous infection was low, but sample size precluded definite assessment of effect modification.ConclusionPrimary series and booster VE against symptomatic infection with BA.1/BA.2 ranged from 37% to 42%, with similar waning post vaccination. Comprehensive data on previous SARS-CoV-2 infection would help disentangle vaccine- and infection-induced immunity.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Gripe Humana , Humanos , Adolescente , Anciano , Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Vacuna BNT162 , Gripe Humana/epidemiología , Gripe Humana/prevención & control , Eficacia de las Vacunas , Europa (Continente)/epidemiología , Atención Primaria de SaludRESUMEN
Influenza A viruses circulated in Europe from September 2023 to January 2024, with influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 predominance. We provide interim 2023/24 influenza vaccine effectiveness (IVE) estimates from two European studies, covering 10 countries across primary care (EU-PC) and hospital (EU-H) settings. Interim IVE was higher against A(H1N1)pdm09 than A(H3N2): EU-PC influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 IVE was 53% (95%â¯CI:â¯41â¯toâ¯63) and 30% (95%â¯CI:â¯-3â¯toâ¯54) against influenza A(H3N2). For EU-H, these were 44% (95%â¯CI:â¯30â¯toâ¯55) and 14% (95%â¯CI:â¯-32â¯toâ¯43), respectively.
Asunto(s)
Subtipo H1N1 del Virus de la Influenza A , Vacunas contra la Influenza , Gripe Humana , Humanos , Gripe Humana/epidemiología , Gripe Humana/prevención & control , Virus de la Influenza B , Subtipo H3N2 del Virus de la Influenza A , Vacunación , Estudios de Casos y Controles , Estaciones del Año , Hospitales , Atención Primaria de SaludRESUMEN
The prevention of pressure ulcer (PU) or pressure injury (PI) wounds is of public health importance in developed countries, including Hungary. The study aimed to assess the PU/PI prevention and care practices of Hungarian public hospitals and identify organizational and management factors. In 2022, a national, questionnaire-based survey of inpatient institutions relevant to PU/PI care was conducted, providing a picture of the practices of 86 hospitals for the year 2019. The questionnaire was processed using descriptive statistics and regression analysis. The survey results show that good practices in Hungary are isolated, the reporting system is inhomogeneous, and documentation is not uniform across our institutional system. Of the 86 institutions, 71.0% operate a PU prevention team, 64.0% use prophylactic dressings, and 88.3% use an anti-decubitus mattress, with an average ratio of 26.1% to the number of beds. Less than half of the institutions reported the incidence of hospital acquired pressure injuries (HAPIs). In this sample, we found no significant association between hospital type and hospital size with the incidence of full-thickness HAPIs (stage III and IV wounds). Developing a comprehensive PU/PI reporting system and updating the national PU/PI prevention and care guidelines are essential in Hungary.
Asunto(s)
Úlcera por Presión , Humanos , Hungría , Úlcera por Presión/prevención & control , Hospitales Públicos , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , LechosRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: The burden of oral cancer is high in Hungary. AIM: To study the cost-effectiveness of potential oral cancer screening in Hungary. METHOD: Three strategies were compared: no introduction of screening, organized yearly screening for 40-year-old males in general medical practise, and opportunistic screening of high risk 40-year-old males in primary care. Local estimates of health utilities and costs of each health state and of the screening programmes were identified. The main outcomes were total costs, quality adjusted life years, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS: Depending on the efficacy of the treatments of precancerous lesions and the participation rate, screening strategies are cost-effective over a 15-20 year time course. The opportunistic screening of high risk people is more cost-effective than the other strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Opportunistic screening of high risk people would be cost-effective in Hungary. The uncertainty about the efficacy of the treatments of precancerous lesions requires more research to support evidence based health policy making. Orv. Hetil., 2016, 157(29), 1161-1170.
Asunto(s)
Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Cadenas de Markov , Tamizaje Masivo/economía , Neoplasias de la Boca/diagnóstico , Adulto , Biopsia , Detección Precoz del Cáncer/economía , Humanos , Hungría/epidemiología , Masculino , Tamizaje Masivo/métodos , Neoplasias de la Boca/economía , Neoplasias de la Boca/epidemiología , Neoplasias de la Boca/patología , Lesiones Precancerosas/diagnóstico , Lesiones Precancerosas/economía , Atención Primaria de Salud , Años de Vida Ajustados por Calidad de Vida , Tomografía Computarizada por Rayos XRESUMEN
Hungary provides the opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination in a setting where naturally acquired immunity and hybrid immunity are likely to play a greater role due to suboptimal vaccination coverage. METHODS: A test-negative study was conducted during the 2022-2023 respiratory season at the primary care level to determine the effectiveness of at least one COVID-19 booster dose in preventing medically attended symptomatic RT-PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in adults. Unvaccinated patients were used as a reference group. RESULTS: A total of 247 cases and 1073 controls were included in the analysis. CVE was 56.8% (95% CI: 11.9-78.8%) in the population aged 60 years and older and 2.3% (95% CI: -50.0-36.3%) in the younger adults against COVID-19 caused by Omicron subvariants, mainly BA.5, BQ.1, and XBB.1. Self-reported COVID-19 in the 60-365 days prior to the current illness did not confer protection against reinfection without vaccination, but together with booster vaccination, it reduced the risk of COVID-19 by 63.0% (95% CI: -28.0-89.3%) and 87.6% (95% CI: 26.4-97.9%) among the 18-59 and 60+ age groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: CVE against COVID-19 was moderately high in the 60+ age groups. Because of the benefit of hybrid immunity, persons with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection should still be considered for vaccination campaigns.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Within influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies at primary care level with a laboratory-confirmed outcome, clinical case definitions for recruitment of patients can vary. We used the 2022-23 VEBIS primary care European multicentre study end-of-season data to evaluate whether the clinical case definition affected IVE estimates. METHODS: We estimated VE using a multicentre test-negative case-control design. We measured VE against any influenza and influenza (sub)types, by age group (0-14, 15-64, ≥65 years) and by influenza vaccine target group, using logistic regression. We estimated IVE among patients meeting the European Union (EU) acute respiratory infection (ARI) case definition and among those meeting the EU influenza-like illness (ILI) case definition, including only sites providing information on specific symptoms and recruiting patients using an ARI case definition (as the EU ILI case definition is a subset of the EU ARI one). RESULTS: We included 24 319 patients meeting the EU ARI case definition, of whom 21 804 patients (90 %) meet the EU ILI case definition, for the overall pooled VE analysis against any influenza. The overall and influenza (sub)type-specific VE varied by ≤2 % between EU ILI and EU ARI populations. DISCUSSION: Among all analyses, we found similar VE estimates between the EU ILI and EU ARI populations, with few (10%) additional non-ILI ARI patients recruited. These results indicate that VE in the 2022-23 influenza season was not affected by use of a different clinical case definition for recruitment, although we recommend investigating whether this holds true for next seasons.
Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra la Influenza , Gripe Humana , Atención Primaria de Salud , Eficacia de las Vacunas , Humanos , Vacunas contra la Influenza/inmunología , Vacunas contra la Influenza/administración & dosificación , Gripe Humana/prevención & control , Gripe Humana/epidemiología , Gripe Humana/diagnóstico , Atención Primaria de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Adolescente , Europa (Continente)/epidemiología , Adulto , Persona de Mediana Edad , Femenino , Anciano , Masculino , Preescolar , Niño , Adulto Joven , Estudios de Casos y Controles , Lactante , Estaciones del Año , Recién Nacido , Vacunación/estadística & datos numéricos , Infecciones del Sistema Respiratorio/epidemiología , Infecciones del Sistema Respiratorio/diagnóstico , Infecciones del Sistema Respiratorio/prevención & controlRESUMEN
We conducted a multicentre test-negative case-control study covering the period from October 2023 to January 2024 among adult patients aged ≥ 18 years hospitalised with severe acute respiratory infection in Europe. We provide early estimates of the effectiveness of the newly adapted XBB.1.5 COVID-19 vaccines against PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 hospitalisation. Vaccine effectiveness was 49% overall, ranging between 69% at 14-29 days and 40% at 60-105 days post vaccination. The adapted XBB.1.5 COVID-19 vaccines conferred protection against COVID-19 hospitalisation in the first 3.5 months post vaccination, with VE > 70% in older adults (≥ 65 years) up to 1 month post vaccination.
Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Hospitalización , SARS-CoV-2 , Vacunación , Eficacia de las Vacunas , Humanos , Hospitalización/estadística & datos numéricos , COVID-19/prevención & control , COVID-19/epidemiología , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/inmunología , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/administración & dosificación , Anciano , Europa (Continente)/epidemiología , Femenino , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Adulto , Estudios de Casos y Controles , SARS-CoV-2/inmunología , Eficacia de las Vacunas/estadística & datos numéricos , Vacunación/estadística & datos numéricos , Adulto Joven , Anciano de 80 o más Años , AdolescenteRESUMEN
In autumn 2023, European vaccination campaigns predominantly administered XBB.1.5 vaccine. In a European multicentre study, we estimated 2023 COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) against laboratory-confirmed symptomatic infection at primary care level between September 2023 and January 2024. Using a test-negative case-control design, we estimated VE in the target group for COVID-19 vaccination overall and by time since vaccination. We included 1057 cases and 4397 controls. Vaccine effectiveness was 40 % (95 % CI: 26-53 %) overall, 48 % (95 % CI: 31-61 %) among those vaccinated < 6 weeks of onset and 29 % (95 % CI: 3-49 %) at 6-14 weeks. Our results suggest that COVID-19 vaccines administered to target groups during the autumn 2023 campaigns showed clinically significant effectiveness against laboratory-confirmed, medically attended symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in the 3 months following vaccination. A longer study period will allow for further variant-specific COVID-19 VE estimates, better understanding decline in VE and informing booster administration policies.
Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Atención Primaria de Salud , SARS-CoV-2 , Eficacia de las Vacunas , Humanos , COVID-19/prevención & control , COVID-19/epidemiología , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/administración & dosificación , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/inmunología , Europa (Continente)/epidemiología , Femenino , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Adulto , SARS-CoV-2/inmunología , Estudios de Casos y Controles , Anciano , Adulto Joven , Adolescente , Vacunación/métodos , Vacunación/estadística & datos numéricos , Programas de InmunizaciónRESUMEN
Importance: In the context of emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants or lineages and new vaccines, it is key to accurately monitor COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (CVE) to inform vaccination campaigns. Objective: To estimate the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines administered in autumn and winter 2022 to 2023 against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection (with all circulating viruses and XBB lineage in particular) among people aged 60 years or older in Europe, and to compare different CVE approaches across the exposed and reference groups used. Design, Setting, and Participants: This case-control study obtained data from VEBIS (Vaccine Effectiveness, Burden and Impact Studies), a multicenter study that collects COVID-19 and influenza data from 11 European sites: Croatia; France; Germany; Hungary; Ireland; Portugal; the Netherlands; Romania; Spain, national; Spain, Navarre region; and Sweden. Participants were primary care patients aged 60 years or older with acute respiratory infection symptoms who were recruited at the 11 sites after the start of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign from September 2022 to August 2023. Cases and controls were defined as patients with positive and negative, respectively, reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test results. Exposures: The exposure was COVID-19 vaccination. The exposure group consisted of patients who received a COVID-19 vaccine during the autumn and winter 2022 to 2023 vaccination campaign and 14 days or more before symptom onset. Reference group included patients who were not vaccinated during or in the 6 months before the 2022 to 2023 campaign (seasonal CVE), those who were never vaccinated (absolute CVE), and those who were vaccinated with at least the primary series 6 months or more before the campaign (relative CVE). For relative CVE of second boosters, patients receiving their second booster during the campaign were compared with those receiving 1 booster 6 months or more before the campaign. Main Outcomes and Measures: The outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed, medically attended, symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Four CVE estimates were generated: seasonal, absolute, relative, and relative of second boosters. CVE was estimated using logistic regression, adjusting for study site, symptom onset date, age, chronic condition, and sex. Results: A total of 9308 primary care patients were included, with 1687 cases (1035 females; median [IQR] age, 71 [65-79] years) and 7621 controls (4619 females [61%]; median [IQR] age, 71 [65-78] years). Within 14 to 89 days after vaccination, seasonal CVE was 29% (95% CI, 14%-42%), absolute CVE was 39% (95% CI, 6%-60%), relative CVE was 31% (95% CI, 15% to 44%), and relative CVE of second boosters was 34% (95% CI, 18%-47%) against all SARS-CoV-2 variants. In the same interval, seasonal CVE was 44% (95% CI, -10% to 75%), absolute CVE was 52% (95% CI, -23% to 82%), relative CVE was 47% (95% CI, -8% to 77%), and relative CVE of second boosters was 46% (95% CI, -13% to 77%) during a period of high XBB circulation. Estimates decreased with time since vaccination, with no protection from 180 days after vaccination. Conclusions and Relevance: In this case-control study among older Europeans, all CVE approaches suggested that COVID-19 vaccines administered in autumn and winter 2022 to 2023 offered at least 3 months of protection against symptomatic, medically attended, laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. The effectiveness of new COVID-19 vaccines against emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants should be continually monitored using CVE seasonal approaches.
Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Estaciones del Año , Eficacia de las Vacunas , Humanos , Anciano , COVID-19/prevención & control , COVID-19/epidemiología , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/administración & dosificación , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/uso terapéutico , Femenino , Europa (Continente)/epidemiología , Masculino , SARS-CoV-2/inmunología , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios de Casos y Controles , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Vacunación/estadística & datos numéricos , Pueblo EuropeoRESUMEN
Background: Influenza A(H3N2) viruses dominated early in the 2022-2023 influenza season in Europe, followed by higher circulation of influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 and B viruses. The VEBIS primary care network estimated the influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) using a multicentre test-negative study. Materials and Methods: Primary care practitioners collected information and specimens from patients consulting with acute respiratory infection. We measured VE against any influenza, influenza (sub)type and clade, by age group, by influenza vaccine target group and by time since vaccination, using logistic regression. Results: We included 38 058 patients, of which 3786 were influenza A(H3N2), 1548 influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 and 3275 influenza B cases. Against influenza A(H3N2), VE was 36% (95% CI: 25-45) among all ages and ranged between 30% and 52% by age group and target group. VE against influenza A(H3N2) clade 2b was 38% (95% CI: 25-49). Overall, VE against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 was 46% (95% CI: 35-56) and ranged between 29% and 59% by age group and target group. VE against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 clade 5a.2a was 56% (95% CI: 46-65) and 79% (95% CI: 64-88) against clade 5a.2a.1. VE against influenza B was 76% (95% CI: 70-81); overall, 84%, 72% and 71% were among 0-14-year-olds, 15-64-year-olds and those in the influenza vaccination target group, respectively. VE against influenza B with a position 197 mutation of the hemagglutinin (HA) gene was 79% (95% CI: 73-85) and 90% (95% CI: 85-94) without this mutation. Conclusion: The 2022-2023 end-of-season results from the VEBIS network at primary care level showed high VE among children and against influenza B, with lower VE against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 and A(H3N2).
Asunto(s)
Subtipo H1N1 del Virus de la Influenza A , Virus de la Influenza A , Vacunas contra la Influenza , Gripe Humana , Niño , Humanos , Europa (Continente)/epidemiología , Subtipo H1N1 del Virus de la Influenza A/genética , Subtipo H3N2 del Virus de la Influenza A/genética , Gripe Humana/epidemiología , Gripe Humana/prevención & control , Atención Primaria de Salud , Eficacia de las Vacunas , Recién Nacido , Lactante , Preescolar , Adolescente , Adulto Joven , Adulto , Persona de Mediana EdadRESUMEN
Background: Evaluating and integrating digital health technologies is a critical component of a national healthcare ecosystem in the 2020s and is expected to even increase in significance. Design: The paper gives an overview of international practices on public financing and health technology assessment of digital health technologies (DHTs) in five European Union (EU) countries and outlines recommendations for country-level action that relevant stakeholders can consider in order to support uptake of digital health solutions in Hungary. A scoping review was carried out to identify and gather country-specific classifications and international practices on the financing DHTs in five pioneering EU countries: Germany, France, Belgium, the United Kingdom and Finland. Results: Several frameworks have been developed for DHTs, however there is no single, unified framework or method for classification, evaluation, and financing of digital health technologies in European context. European countries apply different taxonomy, use different assessment domains and regulations for the reimbursement of DHTs. The Working Group of the Hungarian Health Economic Society recommends eight specific points for stakeholders, importantly taking active role in shaping common clinical evidence standards and technical quality criteria across in order for common standards to be developed in the European Union single market. Conclusion: Specificities of national healthcare contexts must be taken into account in decisions to allocate public funds to certain therapies rather than others.
Asunto(s)
Ecosistema , Evaluación de la Tecnología Biomédica , Hungría , Unión Europea , Financiación GubernamentalRESUMEN
Background: One hundred ten Health Promotion Offices (HPOs) have started operating in Hungary in response to public health challenges. Many of them have been active for almost 10 years, yet their operational experience has not been evaluated. The specific objectives of our study were: (1) to describe the current operational and funding system of HPOs, (2) to identify challenges related to the current management and funding practices, and (3) to formulate recommendations for improvement based on gathered experience and international experience. Design: In order to gain a deeper insight into the operational experience of HPOs, an online survey was conducted with the professional or economic managers of HPOs. A scoping review was carried out to gather international experiences about best practices to formulate recommendations for improvement in developing the operational and financing scheme for HPOs. Results: We found that current HPO network in Hungary faces three main challenges: a deficient management system, inflexible financing scheme, and unequal ability to purchase or provide services for the population. Conclusions: Based on the survey complemented by international experiences, we propose the overhaul of the professional management system and switching toa combination of fixed and performance-based financing scheme for the HPOs in Hungary.
Asunto(s)
Promoción de la Salud , HungríaRESUMEN
Several studies have reported the waning effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines. This study aims to demonstrate the applicability of the screening method for estimating vaccine effectiveness (VE) in a pandemic. We report VE in Hungary, estimated with the screening method, in 2021, covering a period of Alpha and the Delta variant, including the booster dose roll-out. Hungary is in a unique position to use six different vaccines in the same population. All vaccines provided a high level of protection initially, which declined over time. While the picture is different in each age group, the waning of immunity is apparent for all vaccines, especially in the younger age groups and the Sinopharm, Sputnik-V, and AstraZeneca vaccines, which performed similarly. This is clearly reversed by booster doses, more prominent for those three vaccines, where the decline in protection is more evident. Overall, two vaccines, Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna, tend to produce the best results in all age groups, even with waning immunity considered. Using the screening method in future pandemic waves is worthwhile, especially in countries struggling with a lack of resources or when there is a need to deliver VE results within a short timeframe due to urgent decision-making.
RESUMEN
In our analysis, we assessed how Romania dealt with the numerous challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic during 2021. In that year, the government had to deal with two waves of COVID-19 pandemics caused by the new variants, the low vaccination rate of the population, the overload of the healthcare system and political instability at the same time. Based on publicly available databases and international literature, we evaluated government measures aimed at reducing the spread of the pandemic and ensure the operation of the healthcare workforce and infrastructure. In addition, we evaluated measures to provide health services effectively and the government's pandemic responses regarding excess mortality in 2021. In the absence of a complex monitoring system, limited information was available on the spread of the pandemic or the various risk factors at play. Due to incomplete and inadequate management systems, the government was unable to implement timely and adequate measures. Our analysis concludes that the management of a pandemic can only be successful if data are collected and evaluated using complex systems in a timely manner, and if members of society adhere to clearly communicated government measures due to high levels of trust in the government.
RESUMEN
Governments are increasingly looking to vaccination to provide a path out of the COVID-19 pandemic. Hungary offers an example to investigate whether social inequalities compromise what a successful vaccine program can achieve. COVID-19 morbidity, mortality, and vaccination coverage were characterized by calculation of indirectly standardized ratios in the Hungarian population during the third pandemic wave at the level of municipalities, classified into deprivation quintiles. Then, their association with socioeconomic deprivation was assessed using ecological regression. Compared to the national average, people living in the most deprived municipalities had a 15-24% lower relative incidence of confirmed COVID-19 cases, but a 17-37% higher relative mortality and a 38% lower vaccination coverage. At an ecological level, COVID-19 mortality showed a strong positive association with deprivation and an inverse association with vaccination coverage (RRVaccination = 0.86 (0.75-0.98)), but the latter became non-significant after adjustment for deprivation (RRVaccination = 0.95 (0.84-1.09), RRDeprivation = 1.10 (1.07-1.14)). Even what is widely viewed as one of the more successful vaccine roll outs was unable to close the gap in COVID-19 mortality during the third pandemic wave in Hungary. This is likely to be due to the challenges of reaching those living in the most deprived municipalities who experienced the highest mortality rates during the third wave.
RESUMEN
In the first year and a half of the COVID-19 pandemic, South Korea suffered significantly less social and economic damage than the V4 countries (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia) despite less stringent restrictive measures. In order to explore the causes of the phenomenon, we examined the public health policies and pandemic management of South Korea and the V4 countries and the social and economic outcomes of the measures. We identified the key factors that contributed to successful public health policies and pandemic management in South Korea by reviewing the international literature. Based on the analysis results, South Korea successfully managed the COVID-19 pandemic thanks to the appropriate combination of non-pharmaceutical measures and its advanced public health system. An important lesson for the V4 countries is that successful pandemic management requires a well-functioning surveillance system, a comprehensive testing strategy, an innovative contact tracing system, transparent government communication, and a coordinated public health system. In addition, to develop pandemic management capabilities and capacities in the V4 countries, continuous training of public health human resources, support for knowledge exchange, encouragement of research on communicable disease management, and collaboration with for-profit and non-governmental organizations are recommended.