Implementation of a Q fever vaccination program for high-risk patients in the Netherlands

被引:29
作者
Isken, Leslie D. [1 ]
Kraaij-Dirkzwager, Marleen [1 ]
Vermeer-de Bondt, Patricia E. [1 ]
Rumke, Hans C. [2 ]
Wijkmans, Clementine [3 ]
Opstelten, Wim [4 ]
Timen, Aura [1 ]
机构
[1] Natl Inst Publ Hlth & Environm, Ctr Infect Dis & Control, RIVM, NL-3720 BA Bilthoven, Netherlands
[2] Vaxinostics BV, NL-3001 DC Rotterdam, Netherlands
[3] Publ Hlth Serv GGD Hart Brabant, NL-5203 DD Shertogenbosch, Netherlands
[4] Dutch Coll Gen Practitioners Nederlands Huisartse, NL-3502 GE Utrecht, Netherlands
关键词
Coxiella burnetii; Q fever vaccination; Implementation vaccination; Vaccination program; Q fever; INFLUENZA; PREVENTION; PREDICTORS; DISEASE; RATES;
D O I
10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.03.062
中图分类号
R392 [医学免疫学]; Q939.91 [免疫学];
学科分类号
100102 ;
摘要
Background: Between 2007 and 2011 the Netherlands was faced with an unprecedented Q fever outbreak with more than 4000 people affected. Dairy goats were considered the main source of infection. In addition to taking veterinary measures, the Dutch government offered an unlicensed vaccine against the causative bacterium Coxiella burnetii to patient groups at high-risk of Q fever complications. This article describes the complexity of the vaccination program for Q fever in 2010-2011. Methods: High-risk patients were selected and referred mainly by their general practitioner to a publicly funded centralized screening and vaccination program. In addition, cardiovascular specialists and the public were informed. Patients were screened for previous infection with C. burnetii by serology and skin-tests. Patients who tested positive were excluded from vaccination. Results: Of the 2741 referred high-risk patients (1669 male, 1957 from the high-risk area), 955 were excluded because vaccination was considered unnecessary or the distance to the vaccination clinic too far. 388 (22% of those screened) were excluded because of a positive skin-test or serology. 1368 patients (77% of those screened) were vaccinated between January and June 2011. Two-thirds of the vaccinees reported an adverse event. 89 patients (6.6%) reported serious adverse events. In just one patient, with an injection site reaction, a possible causal relationship was considered. Conclusion: This Q fever vaccination program posed challenges to the Dutch Health Care system. Creating clarity on the roles and responsibilities of those involved precluded timely vaccination. Targeting the high-risk population through GPs was challenging but appeared to be efficient. The vaccination was considered to be safe and compliance of the screened patients was high. (c) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:2617 / 2622
页数:6
相关论文
共 26 条
[21]   Seroprevalence and risk factors of Q fever in goats on commercial dairy goat farms in the Netherlands, 2009-2010 [J].
Schimmer, Barbara ;
Luttikholt, Saskia ;
Hautvast, Jeannine L. A. ;
Graat, Elisabeth A. M. ;
Vellema, Piet ;
van Duynhoven, Yvonne T. H. P. .
BMC VETERINARY RESEARCH, 2011, 7
[22]  
The Dutch College of General Practitioners (NHG), 2011, M96 NHG DUTCH COLL G
[23]  
van der Hoek W, 2010, EUROSURVEILLANCE, V15, P4
[24]   Hepatitis B vaccination targeted at behavioural risk groups in the Netherlands: Does it work? [J].
van Houdt, R. ;
Koedijk, F. D. H. ;
Bruisten, S. M. ;
de Coul, E. L. M. Op ;
Heijnen, M. L. A. ;
Waldhober, Q. ;
Veldhuijzen, I. K. ;
Richardus, J. H. ;
Schutten, M. ;
van Doornum, G. J. J. ;
de Man, R. A. ;
Hahne, S. J. ;
Coutinho, R. A. ;
Boot, H. J. .
VACCINE, 2009, 27 (27) :3530-3535
[25]  
vanEssen GA, 1997, AGE AGEING, V26, P275
[26]  
Vinck L, 2011, EUROSURVEILLANCE, V16, P10