Search

National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs) are facing increasingly complex vaccination issues together with a lack of human resources for evidence assessment and data analysis. One way to reduce these burdens could be to share some of the preparatory work across NITAGs. We conducted an inventory of all the advisory reports issued by five well-established European NITAGs from 2011 to 2014 to assess overlaps in issues and activities. A total of 104 advisory reports were retrieved. Advisory reports on the same issues were compared to identify overlapping activities and processes. Advisory reports issued by the five NITAGs showed little overlap in issues and processes. A first step towards efficient collaboration would be to establish an independent platform to provide insight into each NITAG's work and to facilitate the exchange of agendas, assessment frameworks and evidence., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Many experts on vaccination are convinced that efforts should be made to encourage increased collaboration between National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups on immunization (NITAGs) worldwide. International meetings were held in Berlin, Germany, in 2010 and 2011, to discuss improvement of the methodologies for the development of evidence-based vaccination recommendations, recognizing the need for collaboration and/or sharing of resources in this effort. A third meeting was held in Paris, France, in December 2014, to consider the design of specific practical activities and an organizational structure to enable effective and sustained collaboration. The following conclusions were reached: (i) The proposed collaboration needs a core functional structure and the establishment or strengthening of an international network of NITAGs. (ii) Priority subjects for collaborative work are background information for recommendations, systematic reviews, mathematical models, health economic evaluations and establishment of common frameworks and methodologies for reviewing and grading the evidence. (iii) The programme of collaborative work should begin with participation of a limited number of NITAGs which already have a high level of expertise. The amount of joint work could be increased progressively through practical activities and pragmatic examples. Due to similar priorities and already existing structures, this should be organized at regional or subregional level. For example, in the European Union a project is funded by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) with the aim to set up a network for improving data, methodology and resource sharing and thereby supporting NITAGs. Such regional networking activities should be carried out in collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO). (iv) A global steering committee should be set up to promote international exchange between regional networks and to increase the involvement of less experienced NITAGs. NITAGs already collaborate at the global level via the NITAG Resource Centre, a web-based platform developed by the Health Policy and Institutional Development Unit (WHO Collaborating Centre) of the Agence de Médecine Préventive (AMP-HPID). It would be appropriate to continue facilitating the coordination of this global network through the AMP-HPID NITAG Resource Centre. (v) While sharing work products and experiences, each NITAG would retain responsibility for its own decision-making and country-specific recommendations., (Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Given the ethical aspects of vaccination policies and current threats to public trust in vaccination, it is important that governments follow clear criteria for including new vaccines in a national programme. The Health Council of the Netherlands developed such a framework of criteria in 2007, and has been using this as basis for advisory reports about several vaccinations. However, general criteria alone offer insufficient ground and direction for thinking about what the state ought to do. In this paper, we present and defend two basic ethical principles that explain why certain vaccinations are the state's moral-political responsibility, and that may further guide decision-making about the content and character of immunisation programmes. First and foremost, the state is responsible for protecting the basic conditions for public health and societal life. Secondly, states are responsible for promoting and securing equal access to basic health care, which may also include certain vaccinations. We argue how these principles can find reasonable support from a broad variety of ethical and political views, and discuss several implications for vaccination policies., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)