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.)

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.)

WHO have long called for universal vaccination against hepatitis B worldwide. However, in north-western Europe low incidence of the disease has fueled debate whether targeted or universal vaccination strategies are the way to go for. Careful assessment has made it clear that the extensive targeted hepatitis B vaccination programmes in the Netherlands nevertheless fail to reach a significant part of the risk groups and have not succeeded in eliminating the disease. Modelling suggests that the public health benefits obtained through targeted programmes could be augmented considerably by universal vaccination. Therefore, the Minister of Health of the Netherlands has decided to implement universal vaccination by October 2011. We illustrate the case of the Netherlands and explore lessons, which can be learnt from the vaccination programmes against HPV and influenza A/H1N1 and how to prepare for a potential public debate that might arise when implementing universal vaccination against hepatitis B., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

To date, the policy to control hepatitis B in the Netherlands is to vaccinate specific risk groups, rather than all children. Low incidence of the disease has fueled debate whether such a targeted vaccination strategy or rather a universal strategy, as recommended by the World Health Organization, is appropriate. The standard framework for assessing whether a particular vaccination should be included in a public programme, as recently proposed by the Health Council of the Netherlands (HCN), was applied to the various options for hepatitis B vaccination. This framework includes seven selection criteria, grouped under five thematic headings: seriousness and extent of the disease burden, effectiveness and safety of the vaccination, acceptability of the vaccination, efficiency of the vaccination, and priority of the vaccination. From about 1990 the disease burden has stayed more or less the same over time and careful assessment has made it clear that the targeted approach has failed to reach a significant part of the risk groups. Models suggest that the public health benefits obtained through targeted programmes could be augmented considerably by universal vaccination. Based on the assessment that universal vaccination means better protection for high-risk groups as well as the whole population, the HCN calls for universal immunisation, even though hepatitis B to a large extent is limited to specific high-risk groups. Should the Netherlands adopt universal vaccination, several immunisation programmes targeted to high-risk groups will, however, remain of crucial importance for years to come., (Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

As more and more new vaccines are developed and brought to the market, governments have to make decisions about which vaccinations to include in public programmes. This paper describes the experience in the Netherlands in developing a framework for assessing whether a vaccination should be included in the National Immunization Programme (NIP). Bearing in mind the public nature, the factors that determine a vaccine's suitability for inclusion in a communal vaccination programme have been translated into seven selection criteria, grouped under five thematic headings: seriousness and extent of the disease burden, effectiveness and safety of the vaccination, acceptability of the vaccination, efficiency of the vaccination, and priority of the vaccination. The seven criteria and the explanation of them provide a framework for the systematic examination of arguments for and against the inclusion and prioritisation of particular vaccinations. As an illustration, the vaccinations currently provided in the Netherlands through public programmes as well as 23 'candidate' vaccinations are assessed against the seven criteria. The proposed assessment framework including the selection criteria can take full account of the values and specificities as they may differ between situations and countries; the transparency of the approach may help to clarify which elements of the assessment are pivotal in specific situations. Using the criteria furthers a trustworthy, transparent and accountable process of decision-making about inclusion of new vaccinations in public vaccination programmes and may help to retain public confidence., (Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

--Each year, 600-700 women in the Netherlands are diagnosed with cervical cancer. Over the last 10 years, an average of 250 women have died annually due to cervical cancer. --Gardasil, the first vaccine for Human papillomavirus (HPV), was recently approved in Europe for the prevention of cervical cancer. --The availability of a vaccine for HPV prompts the question whether it should be included in the Dutch National Immunisation Programme. --At the end of 2006, the Medicines Evaluation Board, the Health Council of the Netherlands and the Centre for Infectious Disease Control of the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment organised a workshop for experts in the field to answer that question. --The HPV vaccine provides protection against HPV-16 and HPV-18, which cause approximately 70% of cervical cancers. --Because the efficacy of vaccination is only evident after many years, preserving good participation in the screening programme is essential. --The current screening could be improved by introducing an HPV test combined with self-sampling for women who do not participate in screening. --Vaccination is unarguably an important development. However, there are still several unanswered questions regarding vaccination and its actual protection, duration of protection, long-term safety and cost-effectiveness. --April 1st, 2008, the Health Council of the Netherlands had recommended including HPV vaccination in the National Immunisation Programme.