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

IF 2.7 Q3 IMMUNOLOGY
A.J.M. Pluijmaekers , A. Steens , H. Houweling , N.Y. Rots , K.S.M. Benschop , R.S. van Binnendijk , R. Bodewes , J.G.M. Brouwer , A. Buisman , E. Duizer , C.A.C.M. van Els , J.M. Hament , G. den Hartog , P. Kaaijk , K. Kerkhof , A.J. King , F.R.M. van der Klis , H. Korthals Altes , N.A.T. van der Maas , D.L. van Meijeren , H.E. de Melker
{"title":"A literature review and evidence-based evaluation of the Dutch national immunisation schedule yield possibilities for improvements","authors":"A.J.M. Pluijmaekers ,&nbsp;A. Steens ,&nbsp;H. Houweling ,&nbsp;N.Y. Rots ,&nbsp;K.S.M. Benschop ,&nbsp;R.S. van Binnendijk ,&nbsp;R. Bodewes ,&nbsp;J.G.M. Brouwer ,&nbsp;A. Buisman ,&nbsp;E. Duizer ,&nbsp;C.A.C.M. van Els ,&nbsp;J.M. Hament ,&nbsp;G. den Hartog ,&nbsp;P. Kaaijk ,&nbsp;K. Kerkhof ,&nbsp;A.J. King ,&nbsp;F.R.M. van der Klis ,&nbsp;H. Korthals Altes ,&nbsp;N.A.T. van der Maas ,&nbsp;D.L. van Meijeren ,&nbsp;H.E. de Melker","doi":"10.1016/j.jvacx.2024.100556","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>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.</div><div>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.</div><div>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.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":43021,"journal":{"name":"Vaccine: X","volume":"20 ","pages":"Article 100556"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vaccine: X","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590136224001293","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.
对荷兰国家免疫接种计划的文献综述和循证评估发现了改进的可能性
国家免疫计划 (NIP) 是历史性的。其绩效(疾病发病率、疫苗接种覆盖率)受到监测。对疫苗接种计划进行整体评估可为进一步优化计划提供信息,即用最少的剂量提供最大的保护。我们通过文献综述、监测数据评估和专家意见,对荷兰病原体特异性国家免疫计划的绩效和策略进行了系统评估:病原体特异性疫苗根据其保护策略进行分类:I) 消除或根除,II) 群体免疫或 III) "仅 "个体保护。根据固定标准对每种疫苗成分的接种计划进行评估:1.获得的保护是否充分?2.是否达到了预期的保护效果?3.计划中的剂量是否过多或过少?4.时间安排是否最佳或可以接受?国家免疫计划对(部分)人口是否有弊端?使用固定标准有助于对不同病原体进行比较,并发现通过以下方式优化荷兰国家免疫计划的机会:i. 减少脊髓灰质炎和破伤风疫苗接种次数;ii. 延长白喉、百日咳、破伤风、脊髓灰质炎、乙型肝炎和乙型流感嗜血杆菌疫苗剂量之间的间隔时间,以提高有效性;iii.将第二次麻疹疫苗接种的年龄从 9 岁提前到 2-4 岁,为未接种疫苗的儿童和初次接种疫苗失败者提供更早的保护机会;以及 iv.推迟流行性腮腺炎疫苗的第二次接种,以加强对青少年的保护。人乳头瘤病毒疫苗、风疹疫苗、肺炎球菌疫苗和脑膜炎球菌疫苗的接种时间没有必要进行调整。根据评估结果,国家疫苗接种咨询小组建议将百白破-IPV-HBV-Hib 加强剂从 11 个月龄改为 12 个月龄,将第二针麻风腮疫苗从 9 岁改为 2-4 岁,将百白破-IPV 从 4 岁改为 5-6 岁,将 dt-IPV 从 9 岁改为 14 岁。这些变化计划于 2025 年实施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Vaccine: X
Vaccine: X Multiple-
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
2.60%
发文量
102
审稿时长
13 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信