Search

National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups are groups of multi-disciplinary experts that provide scientific advice to policy makers to enable them to make informed immunization policy and programme decisions. NITAGs faced challengesusing their routine approach to develop recommendations for COVID-19 vaccines during the pandemic. In response, the WHORegional Office for Europe (Regional Office), with the support of theRobert Koch Institute, developedan innovative approach of a series of webinars, provision of materials, and remote technical assistance to address these challenges. Polls conducted during webinars were used to tailor future webinars and evaluate the effectiveness of these interventions. According to poll results, 76% of participants found the webinars and resources shared very useful in their work on COVID-19 vaccination.The Regional Office plans to build further upon the scope of online communication and establish a regional online platform for NITAGs to further support NITAGs and build capacity., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2021 World Health Organization. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Countries face an increasingly complex vaccination landscape. As well as ever-changing infectious disease epidemiology, the number and diversity of vaccine-preventable diseases, vaccine products, and vaccine technologies continue to increase. To ensure that vaccination decision-making is transparent, country-owned and informed by sound scientific evidence, many countries have established national immunization technical advisory groups (NITAGs) to provide independent expert advice. The past decade has seen substantial growth in NITAG numbers and functionality, and there is now a need to consolidate this progress, by further capacity building, to ensure that NITAGs are responsive to the changing face of immunization over the next decade., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

A National Immunization Technical Advisory Group (NITAG) is a multi-disciplinary body of national experts that provides evidence-based recommendations to policy-makers, assisting them in making sound immunization policy and programme decisions. The World Health Organization (WHO) Regional Office for Europe is working to strengthen the capacity of newly-established NITAGs and has targeted efforts on low- and middle-income countries. The Regional Office, in collaboration with WHO Headquarters and USA Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), developed a new training strategy and held training workshops to improve NITAGs' functioning and ability to make evidence-based recommendations. Feedback from countries that participated in trainings indicated that the updated training materials and interactive approach with follow-up technical support enabled them to align their NITAG charters and processes with WHO recommendations. To ensure continued progress, global and regional partners such as WHO and CDC should continue providing technical support to recently established NITAGs., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The Republic of Armenia was 1 of the 2 earliest countries in the Newly Independent States to introduce rotavirus vaccine into its national immunization program to reduce the burden of rotavirus disease (documented to cause 38% of acute gastroenteritis hospitalizations [AGE] among children aged <5 years). In November 2012, RV1 (Rotarix) was introduced for Armenian infants at ages 6 and 12 weeks., Methods: The established active surveillance system at 2 hospitals in the capital, Yerevan, whereby children aged <5 years hospitalized for AGE have stool sample tested for rotavirus antigen, was used to assess trends in rotavirus hospitalizations. Immunization records on children enrolled after vaccine introduction were obtained from clinics, and vaccine effectiveness (VE) was estimated using children with AGE who test negative for rotavirus as controls for the rotavirus-positive cases., Results: Among infants, rotavirus hospitalizations were reduced by 48% within the first year after introduction, and by ≥75% in years 2 and 3 following introduction. Reductions of ≥30% in other young children too old to have been vaccinated suggest additional benefit through indirect protection; overall in year 3, rotavirus hospitalizations were reduced by 69% among children aged <5 years. The overall VE of 2 RV1 doses in protecting against rotavirus hospitalization (any severity) was 62% (95% confidence interval [CI], 36%-77%) among children aged 6-23 months; 68% (95% CI, 24%-86%) among those aged 6-11 months, and 60% (95% CI, 20%-80%) in children aged 12-23 months. Against more severe rotavirus disease, VE was 79% (95% CI, 55%-90%) and similarly high in both age groups., Conclusions: RV1 is effective in young Armenian children and substantially reduced rotavirus hospitalizations shortly after introduction., (Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2016. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US.)

Background: The Republic of Moldova was the first low- to middle-income country in the World Health Organization European Region to introduce rotavirus vaccine (July 2012). We aimed to assess the impact of the rotavirus vaccine program and estimate vaccine effectiveness (VE)., Methods: Surveillance for rotavirus gastroenteritis was conducted in 2 hospitals in the capital city of Chisinau starting in September 2009. Monthly rotavirus admissions by age were examined before and after introduction of rotavirus vaccination using interrupted time-series analyses. We performed a case-control study of VE by comparing rotavirus case patients with test-negative controls., Results: Coverage with at least 1 dose of vaccine increased from 35% in year 1 to 55% in year 2 for children <1 year of age. The percentage of hospital admissions positive for rotavirus fell from 45% in the prevaccine period to 25% (rate reduction, 36%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 26%-44%) and 14% (rate reduction, 67%; 95% CI, 48%-88%) in the first and second years after vaccine introduction, respectively, among children aged <5 years. Reductions were most pronounced among those aged <1 year. Significant reductions among cohorts too old to be vaccinated suggest indirect benefits. Two-dose VE was 79% (95% CI, 62%-88%) against rotavirus hospitalization and 84% (95% CI, 64%-93%) against moderate to severe rotavirus., Conclusions: These results consistently point to profound direct and herd immunity impacts of the rotavirus vaccine program in young children in the Republic of Moldova. Vaccine coverage was modest in these early years following introduction, so there remains potential for further disease reductions., (Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2016. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US.)

Background: For many years, low- and middle-income countries have made efforts to strengthen national decision-making on immunization. The Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) ProVac Initiative was established to help expedite the use of evidence-based decision-making around new vaccine introduction. This initiative provides training in user-friendly cost-effectiveness models and supports the development of country-led economic evaluations. Due to the success of the ProVac Initiative in the Americas, and following requests from countries from outside the Americas, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation funded a two-year pilot effort to expand the initiative to other world regions. Called the ProVac International Working Group (IWG), this endeavor took place in 2012 and 2013. It was coordinated by PAHO and carried out in collaboration with several international partners, including the Agence de Médecine Préventive (AMP), London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), Program for Appropriate Technology in Health, Sabin Vaccine Institute, United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization (WHO). In the WHO European Region, technical support was provided by AMP, in close collaboration with the WHO Regional Office for Europe and other ProVac IWG partners., Methods: In 2012, AMP, the WHO Regional Office for Europe, and other partners held a training workshop in Dubrovnik, Croatia, for 31 participants from four countries of the WHO European Region. The aim was to train health professionals in standard methods of economic evaluation and to assess regional demand for economic studies to support decision-making on immunization. AMP and the other organizations also supported four national cost-effectiveness studies in the WHO European Region. The assistance included country visits and support over a period of six months, the establishment of multidisciplinary teams of experts, ongoing training on the TRIVAC decision-support model for new-vaccine economic analysis, review of local evidence, recommending key data inputs, and support in presenting results to national decision makers., Results: National cost-effectiveness studies were conducted in four countries: Albania (rotavirus vaccine [RV]), Azerbaijan (pneumococcal conjugate vaccine [PCV]), Croatia (PCV), and Georgia (PCV). All four countries improved their estimates of the burden of disease preventable by the new vaccines. National advisory bodies and ministries of health obtained economic evidence that helped Albania and Croatia to make decisions on introducing the new vaccines. Azerbaijan and Georgia used economic evidence to confirm previously made preliminary decisions to introduce PCV and make corresponding financial commitments. The study helped Albania to obtain access to affordable prices for rotavirus vaccines through participation in the UNICEF procurement mechanism for middle-income countries. Croatia was able to define the PCV price that would make its introduction cost-effective, and can use this figure as a basis for price negotiations., Discussion: Despite some challenges due to competing national priorities, tight budgets for immunization, and lack of available national data, the ProVac IWG helped to build capacity of national health professionals, support decision-making for the introduction of new vaccines, and promote utilization of economic evidence for making decisions on immunization. This type of strong collaboration among international partners and countries should be scaled up, given that many other countries in the WHO European Region have expressed interest in receiving assistance from the ProVac IWG., (Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Despite the availability of safe and effective hepatitis B virus (HBV) vaccines for more than 30 years, the burden of hepatitis B disease is still substantial. In 1992, the WHO recommended the inclusion of HBV vaccination in all national vaccination programmes. As of 2012, 47 of the 53 European countries (89%) had implemented a universal hepatitis B vaccination programme. The most recent countries to follow the recommendation were Ireland (in 2008) and the Netherlands (in 2011). Still, six countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and the UK) adopt risk-group-targeted vaccination only, instead of adding a universal vaccination programme. However, changing demography, increasing immigration and the current vaccine costs make the cost–benefit ratios in these remaining low endemicity countries strongly in favour of universal HBV vaccination. Global efforts, including a cohesive European vaccination policy, are essential to control and prevent hepatitis B.

The majority of industrialized and some developing countries have established National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs). To enable systematic global monitoring of the existence and functionality of NITAGs, in 2011, WHO and UNICEF included related questions in the WHO/UNICEF Joint Reporting Form (JRF) that provides an official means to globally collect indicators of immunization program performance. These questions relate to six basic process indicators. According to the analysis of the 2013 JRF, data for 2012, notable progress was achieved between 2010 and 2012 and by the end of 2012, 99 countries (52%) reported the existence of a NITAG with a formal legislative or administrative basis (with a high of 86% in the Eastern Mediterranean Region - EMR), among the countries that reported data in the NITAG section of the JRF. There were 63 (33%) countries with a NITAG that met six process indicators (47% increase over the 43 reported in 2010) including a total of 38 developing countries. 11% of low income countries reported a NITAG that meets all six process criteria, versus 29% of middle income countries and 57% of the high income ones. Countries with smaller populations reported the existence of a NITAG that meets all six process criteria less frequently than more populated countries (23% for less populated countries versus 43% for more populated ones). However, progress needs to be accelerated to reach the Global Vaccine Action Plan (GVAP) target of ensuring all countries have support from a NITAG. The GVAP represents a major opportunity to boost the institutionalization of NITAGs. A special approach needs to be explored to allow small countries to benefit from sub-regional or other countries advisory groups., (Copyright © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

A National Immunization Technical Advisory Group (NITAG) is an expert advisory committee that provides evidence-based recommendations to the Ministry of Health (MoH) to guide immunization programs and policies. The World Health Organization (WHO), the Initiative for Supporting National Independent Immunization and Vaccine Advisory Committees (SIVAC) at Agence de Médecine Préventive (AMP) and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US CDC) engaged NITAG stakeholders and technical partners in the development of indicators to assess the effectiveness of NITAGs. A list of 17 process, output and outcome indicators was developed and tested in 14 countries to determine whether they were understandable, feasible to collect, and useful for the countries. Based on the findings, a revised version of the indicators is proposed for self-assessment in the countries, as well as for global monitoring of the NITAGs., (Copyright © 2013 The World Health Organization. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

The majority of industrialized and some developing countries have established technical advisory bodies to guide and formulate national immunization policies and strategies. These are referred to as National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs), WHO and its partners have placed a high priority on assisting in the establishment or strengthening of functional, sustainable, and independent NITAGs. To enable systematic global monitoring of the existence and functionality of NITAGs, in 2010, WHO and UNICEF included related questions in the WHO-UNICEF Joint Reporting Form (JRF) that provides an official means for WHO and UNICEF to collect indicators of immunization programme performance. This paper presents the status of NITAGs based on the analysis of the 2010 JRF. Although 115 countries (64% of responders) reported having a NITAG in 2010, only 50% of countries reported the existence of a NITAG with a formal administrative or legislative basis. Despite limitations in the ability to compare 2010 JRF data with that from a 2008 global survey, it appears that substantial progress has been achieved globally over with 43 committees reporting affirmatively about six NITAG process indicators, compared with 23 in the 2008 survey. Impressive progress has been observed in the proportion of countries reporting NITAGs with formal terms of reference (24% increase), a legislative or administrative basis (10% increase), and a requirement for members to disclose their interests (14% increase). Some of the poorest developing countries now enjoy support from a NITAG which meet all six process indicators. These may serve as examples for other countries., (Copyright © 2012 World Health Organization. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)