Current practices for respiratory syncytial virus surveillance across the EU/EEA Member States, 2017.
Citation
Current practices for respiratory syncytial virus surveillance across the EU/EEA Member States, 2017. 2019, 24(40): 2-12 Euro SurveillAbstract
BackgroundRespiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a major contributor to lower respiratory tract infections worldwide and several vaccine candidates are currently in development. Following vaccine introduction, reliable RSV surveillance should enable monitoring of vaccination impact. Data on the RSV disease burden in the European Union and European Economic Area (EU/EEA) are sparse.AimThe aim of this study was to gather knowledge on current practices of national RSV surveillance in the EU/EEA.MethodsNational Coordinators and National Focal Points for Influenza (epidemiologists and virologists) from the EU/EEA countries (n = 31) were invited to participate in an online survey in August and September 2017. The questionnaire covered questions on epidemiological and laboratory aspects of RSV surveillance.ResultsAll EU/EEA countries except Liechtenstein replied to the survey. Eighteen countries reported to have a sentinel surveillance system, 26 countries a non-sentinel surveillance system and three countries to have neither. RSV data collection was mostly done within the context of influenza surveillance. A wide range of diagnostic and characterisation assays was used for the detection of RSV.DiscussionThe majority of EU/EEA countries have some surveillance for RSV in place. The prevailing integration of RSV surveillance into the existing influenza sentinel surveillance system may lead to under-reporting of RSV. The documented variations in existing RSV surveillance systems and their outputs indicate that there is scope for developing guidelines on establishing comparable methods and outcomes for RSV surveillance across the EU/EEA, to ensure the availability of a consistent evidence base for assessing future vaccination programmes.Description
To access publisher's full text version of this article, please click on the hyperlink in Additional Links field or click on the hyperlink at the top of the page marked DownloadAdditional Links
https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2019.24.40.1900157https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6784450/
Scopus Count
Collections
Related items
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
-
Emergency peripartum hysterectomy: results from the prospective Nordic Obstetric Surveillance Study (NOSS).To assess the prevalence and risk factors of emergency peripartum hysterectomy.
-
The Nordic Obstetric Surveillance Study: a study of complete uterine rupture, abnormally invasive placenta, peripartum hysterectomy, and severe blood loss at delivery.To assess the rates and characteristics of women with complete uterine rupture, abnormally invasive placenta, peripartum hysterectomy, and severe blood loss at delivery in the Nordic countries.
-
Docetaxel Versus Surveillance After Radical Prostatectomy for High-risk Prostate Cancer: Results from the Prospective Randomised, Open-label Phase 3 Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group 12 TrialBACKGROUND: Adjuvant chemotherapy is standard treatment for other solid tumours, but to date has not proven effective in prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE: o evaluate whether six cycles of docetaxel alone improve biochemical disease-free survival after radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Open-label, randomised multinational phase 3 trial. Enrolment of 459 patients after prostatectomy. INCLUSION CRITERIA: high-risk pT2 margin positive or pT3a Gleason score ≥4+3, pT3b, or lymph node positive disease Gleason score ≥3+4. Patients assigned (1:1) to either six cycles of adjuvant docetaxel 75mg/m2 every 3 wk without daily prednisone (Arm A) or surveillance (Arm B) until endpoint was reached. Primary endpoint was prostate-specific antigen progression ≥0.5 ng/ml. INTERVENTION: Docetaxel treatment after prostatectomy. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Median time to progression, death, or last follow-up was 56.8 mo. Primary endpoint was reached in 190/459 patients-the risk of progression at 5 yr being 41% (45% in Arm A and 38% in Arm B). There was evidence of nonproportional hazards in Kaplan-Meier analysis, so we used the difference in restricted mean survival time as the primary estimate of effect. Restricted mean survival time to endpoint was 43 mo in Arm A versus 46 mo in Arm B (p=0.06), a nonsignificant difference of 3.2 mo (95% confidence interval: 6.7 to -1.5 mo). A total of 116 serious adverse events were recorded in Arm A and 41 in Arm B with no treatment-related deaths. Not all patients received docetaxel by protocol. The endpoint is biochemical progression and some patients received radiation treatment before the endpoint. CONCLUSIONS: Docetaxel without hormonal therapy did not significantly improve biochemical disease-free survival after radical prostatectomy. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this randomised trial, we tested whether chemotherapy after surgery for high-risk prostate cancer decreases the risk of a rising prostate-specific antigen. We found no benefit from docetaxel given after radical prostatectomy.
