A review of immunization legislation for children in English- and Dutch-speaking Caribbean countries

Objective

To assess the legislative frameworks concerning childhood vaccination in the English- and Dutch-speaking Caribbean and propose a model legislative framework for Caribbean countries.

Methods

This study included a survey of 22 countries and territories in the Caribbean regarding legal vaccination mandates for school entry, budget allocations, sanctions, or exemptions. A legal consultant conducted a comprehensive search and analysis of legislation regarding vaccination among 13 Caribbean countries/territories. A comparative analysis of the legislation under five themes-legislative structure, mandatory vaccination, national immunization schedule, sanctions, and exemptions-formed the basis for the proposed model legislation.

Results

Among the 22 Caribbean countries/territories, 17 (77%) had legislation mandating vaccination, 16 (94%) mandated vaccination for school entry, 8 (47%) had a dedicated budget for immunization programs, and 13 (76%) had no legislated national schedules. The source of legislation includes six (35%) using the Education Act, eight (47%) the Public Health Act, and five (29%) a free-standing Vaccination Act. Three countries/territories-Jamaica, Montserrat, and Saint Lucia-had immunization regulations. In 12 (71%) of the 17 countries with legislation, sanctions were included, and 10 (59%) permitted exemptions for medical or religious/philosophical beliefs.

Conclusions

Several countries in the Caribbean have made failure to vaccinate a child an offense. By summarizing the existing legislative frameworks and approaches to immunization in the Caribbean, the analysis guides policymakers in making effective changes to immunization legislation in their own countries.

Report of the 2nd workshop of the International Collaboration on advanced vaccinology training

At a workshop on 22-24 March 2022, leaders of 33 advanced vaccinology courses were invited to meet with partners to further the aims of the International Collaboration on Advanced Vaccinology Training (ICAVT) initiated in 2018 to assist courses in addressing challenges in priority areas and facilitate interactions and exchange of information. This included: an update to the landscape analysis of advanced vaccinology courses conducted in 2018, sharing experiences and good practices in the implementation of virtual training, reviewing the training needs of target audiences, informing courses of the principles, challenges, and added value of accreditation, discussing course evaluations and measurement of course impact, reviewing principles and support needed for quality cascade training, reviewing COVID-19 impact on training and identifying remaining related training needs, and identifying solutions to facilitate refresher courses and ways to facilitate networking of courses' alumni (particularly for virtual courses). The aims were to identify needs and impediments and implement necessary actions to facilitate sharing of information and resources between courses, to identify need for further developments of the e-Portal of the Collaboration (icavt.org) established to facilitate communication between the different courses and assist future course participants identify the most suitable course for them, and to discuss the formalization of the Collaboration. During the workshop, participants looked at several reports of surveys completed by courses and courses' alumni or partners. The COVID-19 pandemic impacted the delivery of some vaccinology courses leading to postponement, delivery online or hybrid training events. Lack of sustainable funding remained a major constraint for advanced vaccinology training and needs to be addressed. The Collaboration was consolidated with responsibilities and benefits for the members better defined. There was strong support for the Collaboration to continue with the organization of educational sessions at future workshops. The meeting re-enforced the view that there was much enthusiasm and commitment for the Global Collaboration and its core values.

Advanced vaccinology training globally: Update and impact of the COVID-19 crisis

•

A total of 33 advanced vaccinology courses were in existence in 2021.

•

Some vaccinology courses were not sustained since 2018.

•

The number of vaccinology courses has been increasing during the last few years, with courses offered in each WHO region.

•

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in the cancellation or postponement of some vaccinology courses.

•

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, an increased number of courses are using an online or hybrid format.

The rapid development of innovations and new technologies, the focus on the life-course approach to immunization and equity, and the prevalent hesitancy towards vaccines requires immunization staff to be well-trained and updated regularly in order to deliver quality immunization services to the public. The need for advanced vaccinology training is therefore paramount. In preparation for a second Global Workshop on Advanced Vaccinology Training that took place in March 2022, this paper presents the results of a survey aiming to provide a thorough update of a landscape analysis on advanced vaccinology courses conducted in 2018 and a look at the impact of the COVID-19 crisis. Thirty-three course organizers responded to a survey to provide information on their respective course. Of those, 17 courses are short courses, 11 post-graduate courses and 5 are Master level courses. Most courses are organized on an annual basis. Even though some courses were not sustained overtime, the number of courses has been increasing during the last few years, and at least one vaccinology course is now being offered in each WHO region. Although the training capacity has increased tremendously, the need still exceeds the capacity and many courses have way more applicants than they can select. The most frequent challenges reported included sustainable funding and identifying faculty. The COVID-19 pandemic impacted the delivery of several vaccinology courses, which have been postponed or reformatted to an online or hybrid training event. An e-portal of the global collaboration has been established to facilitate communication between the different courses and to assist future course participants to identify the most suitable course for their needs.

SARS-CoV-2: Virology, epidemiology, immunology and vaccine development

This first International Alliance for Biological Standardization Covid-19 webinar brought together a broad range of international stakeholders, including academia, regulators, funders and industry, with a considerable delegation from low- and middle-income countries, to discuss the virology, epidemiology and immunology of, and the vaccine development for SARS-CoV-2.

Advanced vaccinology education: Landscaping its growth and global footprint

In preparation for the first Global Vaccinology Training workshop in 2018, a survey of 27 advanced vaccinology courses was conducted to provide a landscape of the vaccinology education around the world. Advanced vaccinology courses have expanded dramatically over the last 20 years, with courses located in almost all regions, but with underrepresentation amongst the Eastern part of the European region, the Eastern Mediterranean and the Western Pacific regions. Most courses are of short duration (<2 weeks), have a global or regional reach, and attract a diverse range of participants from high, middle and low-income countries with representation from public health, academia, industry and less often regulators. Lack of sustainable funding and time commitments of faculty and coordinators is a constraint for most vaccinology courses and needs to be addressed. Continuation and extension of training in vaccinology worldwide will be necessary as increasing number of new and more complex vaccines are introduced, vaccine safety concerns and rumors continue their trend, and reemergence of some vaccine-preventable diseases will require a competent workforce to advance and deploy immunizations to larger populations.

Global vaccinology training: Report from an ADVAC workshop

At a workshop on 7-8 November 2018 the leaders of 26 advanced vaccinology courses met to carry out an extensive review of the existing courses worldwide, in order to identify education gaps and future needs and discuss potential collaboration. The main conclusions of the workshop concerned: opportunities for strengthening and expanding the global coverage of vaccinology training; evaluation of vaccinology courses; updating knowledge after the course; how to facilitate post-course 'cascade' training; developing and sharing best practices; the application of online and innovative approaches in adult education; and how to reduce costs and facilitate wider access to vaccinology training. The importance of collaboration and information exchange through networks of alumni and between courses was stressed. A web platform to provide information about existing courses for potential applicants is needed. Lack of sustainable funding is a constraint for vaccinology training and needs to be addressed.

Assessing the Evidence for Maternal Pertussis Immunization: A Report From the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Symposium on Pertussis Infant Disease Burden in Low- and Lower-Middle-Income Countries

Implementation of effective interventions has halved maternal and child mortality over the past 2 decades, but less progress has been made in reducing neonatal mortality. Almost 45% of under-5 global mortality now occurs in infants <1 month of age, with approximately 86% of neonatal deaths occurring in low- and lower-middle-income countries (LMICs). As an estimated 23% of neonatal deaths globally are due to infectious causes, maternal immunization (MI) is one intervention that may reduce mortality in the first few months of life, when direct protection often relies on passively transmitted maternal antibodies. Despite all countries including pertussis-containing vaccines in their routine childhood immunization schedules, supported through the Expanded Programme on Immunization, pertussis continues to circulate globally. Although based on limited robust epidemiologic data, current estimates derived from modeling implicate pertussis in 1% of under-5 mortality, with infants too young to be vaccinated at highest risk of death. Pertussis MI programs have proven effective in reducing infant pertussis mortality in high-income countries using tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccines in their maternal and infant programs; however, these vaccines are cost-prohibitive for routine use in LMICs. The reach of antenatal care programs to deliver maternal pertussis vaccines, particularly with respect to infants at greatest risk of pertussis, needs to be further evaluated. Recognizing that decisions on the potential impact of pertussis MI in LMICs need, as a first step, robust contemporary mortality data for early infant pertussis, a symposium of global key experts was held. The symposium reviewed current evidence and identified knowledge gaps with respect to the infant pertussis disease burden in LMICs, and discussed proposed strategies to assess the potential impact of pertussis MI.

Moving forward on strengthening and sustaining National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs) globally: Recommendations from the 2nd global NITAG network meeting

•

NITAGs provide independent, evidence-informed immunization advice to governments.

•

Global NITAG Network (GNN) now formally launched.

•

GNN: country lead organization formed to strengthen NITAGs, no participation fees.

•

GNN: nurture development of inter-country NITAG relationships.

•

GNN: facilitate voluntary sharing information, technical expertise.

•

GNN: venue to discuss NITAG immunization decision-making, implementation concerns.

National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs) provide independent, evidence-informed advice to assist their governments in immunization policy formation. This is complex work and many NITAGs face challenges in fulfilling their roles. Inter-country NITAG collaboration opportunities have the potential to enhance NITAG function and grow the quality of recommendations. Hence the many requests for formation of a network linking NITAGs together so they can learn from each other. The first Global NITAG Network (GNN) meeting, held in 2016, led to a push to launch the GNN and grow the network. At the second GNN meeting, held June 28–29, 2017 in Berlin, the GNN was formally inaugurated. Participants discussed GNN governance, reflected on the April 2017 Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) on Immunization conclusions concerning strengthening of NITAGs and also shared NITAG experiences in evaluation and inter-country collaborations and independence. They also discussed the role of Regional Technical Advisory Groups on Immunization (RTAGs) and regional networks. A number of issues were raised including NITAGs and communications, dissemination of recommendations and vaccine implementation as well as implications of off-label recommendations. Participants were alerted to immunization evidence assessment sites and value of sharing of resources. They also discussed potential GNN funding opportunities, developed an action plan for 2017–18 and selected a Steering Committee to help move the GNN forward. All participants agreed on the importance of the GNN and the value in attracting more countries to join the GNN.

Strengthening and sustainability of national immunization technical advisory groups (NITAGs) globally: Lessons and recommendations from the founding meeting of the global NITAG network

National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs) provide independent, evidence-informed advice to assist their governments in immunization policy formation. However, many NITAGs face challenges in fulfilling their roles. Hence the many requests for formation of a network linking NITAGs together so they can learn from each other. To address this request, the Health Policy and Institutional Development (HPID) Center (a WHO Collaborating Center at the Agence de Médecine Préventive - AMP), in collaboration with WHO, organized a meeting in Veyrier-du-Lac, France, on 11 and 12 May 2016, to establish a Global NITAG Network (GNN). The meeting focused on two areas: the requirements for (a) the establishment of a global NITAG collaborative network; and (b) the global assessment/evaluation of the performance of NITAGs. 35 participants from 26 countries reviewed the proposed GNN framework documents and NITAG performance evaluation. Participants recommended that a GNN should be established, agreed on its governance, function, scope and a proposed work plan as well as setting a framework for NITAG evaluation.

Assessments of global drivers of vaccine hesitancy in 2014-Looking beyond safety concerns

Vaccine hesitancy has become the focus of growing attention and concern globally despite overwhelming evidence of the value of vaccines in preventing disease and saving the lives of millions of individuals every year.

Measuring vaccine hesitancy and its determinants worldwide is important in order to understand the scope of the problem and for the development of evidence-based targeted strategies to reduce hesitancy.

Two indicators to assess vaccine hesitancy were developed to capture its nature and scope at the national and subnational level to collect data in 2014: 1) The top 3 reasons for not accepting vaccines according to the national schedule in the past year and whether the response was opinion- or assessment-based and 2) Whether an assessment (or measurement) of the level of confidence in vaccination had taken place at national or subnational level in the previous 5 years.

The most frequently cited reasons for vaccine hesitancy globally related to (1) the risk-benefit of vaccines, (2) knowledge and awareness issues, (3) religious, cultural, gender or socio-economic factors. Major issues were fear of side effects, distrust in vaccination and lack of information on immunization or immunization services. The analysis revealed that 29% of all countries had done an assessment of the level of confidence in their country, suggesting that vaccine confidence was an issue of importance.

Monitoring vaccine hesitancy is critical because of its influence on the success of immunization programs. To our knowledge, the proposed indicators provide the first global snapshot of reasons driving vaccine hesitancy and depicting its widespread nature, as well as the extent of assessments conducted by countries.

Implementing efficient and sustainable collaboration between National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups: Report on the 3rd International Technical Meeting, Paris, France, 8-9 December 2014

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.

How to deal with vaccine hesitancy?

Based on the concerns about vaccine hesitancy and its impact on vaccine uptake rates and the performance of national immunization programmes, the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) on Immunization Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy [1], carried out a review, and proposed a set of recommendations directed to the public health community, to WHO and its partners, and to the World Health Organization (WHO) member states. The final recommendations issued by SAGE in October 2014 fall into three categories: (1) those focused on the need to increase the understanding of vaccine hesitancy, its determinants and the rapidly changing challenges it entails; (2) those focused on dealing with the structures and organizational capacity to decrease hesitancy and increase acceptance of vaccines at the global, national and local levels; (3) and those focused on the sharing of lessons learnt and effective practices from various countries and settings as well as the development, validation and implementation of new tools to address hesitancy.

The development of global vaccine stockpiles

Global vaccine stockpiles, in which vaccines are reserved for use when needed for emergencies or supply shortages, have effectively provided countries with the capacity for rapid response to emergency situations, such as outbreaks of yellow fever and meningococcal meningitis. The high cost and insufficient supply of many vaccines, including oral cholera vaccine and pandemic influenza vaccine, have prompted discussion on expansion of the use of vaccine stockpiles to address a wider range of emerging and re-emerging diseases. However, the decision to establish and maintain a vaccine stockpile is complex and must take account of disease and vaccine characteristics, stockpile management, funding, and ethical concerns, such as equity. Past experience with global vaccine stockpiles provide valuable information about the processes for their establishment and maintenance. In this Review we explored existing literature and stockpile data to discuss the lessons learned and to inform the development of future vaccine stockpiles.

Vaccine vigilance in Canada: Is it as robust as it could be?

Canada has been known to have one of the better vaccine safety surveillance capacities in the world, but in the early 2000s, it was noted there was still room for improvement. How has Canada done over the last decade and is there more to be done? Canada has done well. First, there has been significant progress made by the Vaccine Vigilance Working Group to enhance the passive vaccine safety monitoring system and address potential issues arising from the review of surveillance data and cases or clusters of concern. Second, there has been an increased investigative capacity for clusters of adverse events and other vaccine safety issues, including an assessment and referral system for individuals with adverse events following immunizations (AEFIs). Third, the use of the Brighton Collaboration definitions and other international standards has facilitated international collaboration and represents the best standard of practice. Despite all these improvements, however, there is more that could be done. The sensitivity of Canada's passive surveillance system still varies from one province and territory to another. The timeliness of the data exchange flow could improve. The AEFI Signal Response Protocol, which identifies the processes and required actions for timely management of any newly detected or emerging vaccine safety signals, is a critical piece of a robust vaccine safety system but it is still in the making. It is commendable that Canada has decided to expand its focus on evaluation research from influenza vaccines to vaccine-preventable diseases more broadly, with the establishment of the Canadian Immunization Research Network (CIRN). CIRN's newly developed Provincial Collaborative Network and the move toward record linkages is excellent. These new investments are welcome in light of the rich vaccine development pipeline, the increased pool of available vaccines, and the growing set of technologies for vaccines production, delivery, and safety monitoring. What would round this all out would be a stronger capacity to monitor the implementation of vaccination programs and vaccine coverage, and better documentation of the reduction of the disease burden attributable to vaccination programs. Canada's investment in vaccines for the health of all deserves no less.

Indicators to assess National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs)

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.

The future of immunisation policy, implementation, and financing

Vaccines have already saved many lives and they have the potential to save many more as increasingly elaborate technologies deliver new and effective vaccines against both infectious diseases--for which there are currently no effective licensed vaccines--such as malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV and non-infectious diseases such as hypertension and diabetes. However, these new vaccines are likely to be more complex and expensive than those that have been used so effectively in the past, and they could have a multifaceted effect on the disease that they are designed to prevent, as has already been seen with pneumococcal conjugate vaccines. Deciding which new vaccines a country should invest in requires not only sound advice from international organisations such as WHO but also a well informed national immunisation advisory committee with access to appropriate data for local disease burden. Introduction of vaccines might need modification of immunisation schedules and delivery procedures. Novel methods are needed to finance the increasing number of new vaccines that have the potential to save lives in countries that are too poor to afford them. Here, we discuss some options.

Informing decision makers: experience and process of 15 National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups

This supplement of Vaccine contains detailed descriptions of the experiences and processes of 15 well-established National Immunization Technical Advisory Committees from all regions of the world. All of these committees provide information to national governments that is used to make evidence-based decisions regarding vaccine and immunization policy. Nevertheless, many differences between committees exist including their legal basis, size and scope of committee membership, scope of work, role of the Ministry of Health on the committee, existence of conflict of interest policies, and ultimate role in the decision-making process. Individual country authors identified numerous areas for improvement and these are summarized here.

A global look at national Immunization Technical Advisory Groups

This paper presents the results of a global survey that aimed to collect information on country's immunization policy development processes, particularly on the presence and function of national Immunization Technical Advisory Groups (ITAGs). Characteristics of national ITAGs are described as well as attributes of these groups that appear to be imperative for an effective ITAG. ITAGs provide a valued service to over 89 countries that reported their establishment, some of which have been in existence for over 40 years. This paper provides basic information on the functioning of these groups and encourages future efforts to address gaps in knowledge and research in this area.

National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs): guidance for their establishment and strengthening

The majority of industrialized and some developing countries have formally established national technical advisory bodies to guide immunization policies; other countries are working towards or contemplating the establishment of such bodies. These advisory bodies are often referred to as National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs). A NITAG is a technical resource supplying guidance to national policy makers and programme managers to enable them to make evidence-based immunization related policy and program decisions. The focus of this paper is to: (1) review the value and functions of a NITAG; (2) provide directions and identify issues for countries to consider when establishing or improving the functioning of a NITAG; and (3) outline potential WHO and partners' roles and activities in support of the establishment and strengthening of NITAGs.

Improving global monitoring of vaccine safety: a survey of national centres participating in the WHO Programme for International Drug Monitoring

BACKGROUND

The WHO Programme for International Drug Monitoring (PIDM) was established in 1968 following the thalidomide disaster. The PIDM has had considerable success in analyzing drug-related adverse event reports, but more limited progress has been made in analyzing vaccine-related reports. In June 2005, the Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety, acknowledging these limitations, called for a global consultation to address the need for improved monitoring and analysis of vaccine-related adverse event reports on an international level.

OBJECTIVE

In preparation for this consultation and as part of a larger study designed to evaluate the PIDM, a survey of the National Pharmacovigilance Centres of all 76 countries participating in the PIDM at the time the survey was conducted.

RESULTS

Thirty-six countries (47%) responded. Of the 36 responding countries, 16 (44%) reported having a separate surveillance system for adverse events following immunizations (AEFIs) and 30 (83%) reported forwarding AEFI reports to the PIDM. Seven of the 36 countries (19%) indicated that one or more population subgroups are systematically excluded from their country's AEFI surveillance system. Five of the seven countries exclude reports concerning recipients of travellers' vaccines; three exclude recipients of vaccines administered by private physicians outside the national immunization programme and supply scheme; and five exclude reports from the military sector. Only half of the respondents knew of the Brighton Collaboration, a major international initiative aimed at the standardization of AEFI definitions.

CONCLUSION

The survey identified critical elements that should be addressed quickly to improve global vaccine safety monitoring. Communication between national adverse drug reaction and AEFI surveillance authorities, ability to pay for advancing technology in developing countries, and proper use of services and terminologies are issues of concern.

Improving global monitoring of vaccine safety: a quantitative analysis of adverse event reports in the WHO Adverse Reactions Database

The World Health Organization (WHO) Programme for International Drug Monitoring (PIDM) was initially developed for chemical rather than biological products. The PIDM made considerable achievements in analysing drug-related adverse event reports, progress was more limited for vaccine-related reports. In 2005, the Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety, called for a global consultation to address the need for improved monitoring and analysis of vaccine-related adverse event reports on an international level. In preparation for this consultation, the WHO Adverse Reactions Database was quantitatively assessed and results of this analysis are presented in this paper. Three countries contributed 82% of vaccine-related reports in the database. The mean difference between onset date and report date was 2.4 years. Several issues of concern were identified, such as the fact that many member countries do not forward any or all reports of adverse events following immunization to the PIDM, and the poor timeliness and regularity of reporting, which could prevent timely generation of safety signals.

[Global immunization policies and recommendations: objectives and process]

The World Health Organization (WHO) has a dual mandate of providing global policies, standards and norms as well as support for member countries in applying such policies and standards to national programmes with the aim to improve health. The vaccine world is changing and with it the demands and expectations of the global and national policy makers, donors, and other interested parties. Changes pertain to : new vaccines and technologies developments, vaccine safety issues, regulation and approval of vaccines, and increased funding flowing through new financing mechanisms. This places a special responsibility on WHO to respond effectively. WHO has recently reviewed and optimized its policy making structure for vaccines and immunization and adjusted it to the new Global Immunization Vision and Strategy, which broadens the scope of immunization efforts to all age groups and vaccines with emphasis on integration of immunization delivery with other health interventions. This includes an extended consultation process to promptly generate evidence base recommendations, ensuring transparency of the decision making process and added communication efforts. This article presents the objectives and impact of the process set to develop global immunization policies, norms, standards and recommendations. The key advisory committees landscape contributing to this process is described. This includes the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts, the Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety and the Expert Committee on Biological Standardization. The elaboration of WHO vaccine position papers is also described.

Monitoring of adverse events during the 2003 mass vaccination campaign with a trivalent meningococcal A/C/W135 polysaccharide vaccine in Burkina Faso

During a mass campaign with a newly licensed meningococcal polysaccharide ACW135 vaccine in Burkina Faso, adverse events following immunization (AEFI) were monitored up to 4 weeks after the campaign. Eighty-six AEFI cases (5.9 cases per 100,000 vaccine doses distributed) were reported. Among 22 serious events, 4 severe local reactions were considered very likely and 4 severe allergic reactions were considered probably related to the vaccination. One fatal case in a child followed protracted seizures of undetermined cause. In a setting with no prior surveillance system, adverse events were reported at rates comparable to documented rates for meningococcal polysaccharide vaccines in other settings. The findings confirm the benefits of the vaccine in the control of meningococcal meningitis.

Improved injection safety after targeted interventions in the Syrian Arab Republic

OBJECTIVES

Concerns about unsafe injection practices and possible infections with blood-borne pathogens in the Syrian Arab Republic motivated an assessment of the injection safety situation in the country in July 2001. In light of the recommendations from this assessment, the Ministry of Health of Syria, with the assistance of WHO, implemented a set of activities under the 'Focus Project', which aims to ensure immunization safety. The first phase of the project ran from May 2002 to February 2004, and consisted of the improved provision of injection safety equipment and supplies, the elaboration and wide distribution of national guidelines on injection safety and safe waste management, a behaviour change and communication campaign targeting the general public, and comprehensive training of healthcare workers. A follow-up survey was carried out in February 2004, 2 years after initiation of the project.

METHODS

Two representative surveys were conducted using a standardized assessment tool. A cluster sampling strategy, with probability proportionate to the population size, led to the inclusion of 80 health facilities in eight districts in 2001 and of 120 health facilities in 12 districts in 2004.

RESULTS

Injection practices had significantly improved 2 years after the start of the project. The 2001 study had pointed to a low, but non-negligible risk to patients (2% unsafe injections), coupled with a high risk to healthcare workers (61% reported needle-stick injuries in the last 12 months) and to the communities owing to unsafe waste disposal (sharps waste found outside 37% of health facilities, waste disposal considered unsafe in 48% of them). The 2004 survey showed that 90% of Syrian healthcare workers had received training in injection safety. All injections observed were given safely (difference to 2001 not significant), although some problems in preparation and reconstitution prevailed. The risk to healthcare workers was significantly reduced as only 14% of the staff reported needle-stick injuries (p < 0.001). The risk to the communities was notably decreased following improvements in sharps waste management (sharps were found in the surroundings of only 13% of health facilities, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The example of Syria shows that rapid improvement in injection safety is possible and that the necessary tools and methods to monitor and evaluate progress are at our disposal. Challenges remain in transferring this successful programme from the well-structured immunization programme to the more diverse curative health services.

Safe injection practices in a primary health care setting in Oman

We conducted a national survey of injection practices in 78 government health facilities in Oman in 2001. Data were obtained by interview and observation. The overall standards were good and the stock of disposable equipment was adequate. Recapping of needles was only observed in 1 facility but in 28%, waste disposal boxes contained recapped needles and 17.9% reported needle-stick injuries in the past year. In 9% of the institutions, sharps were observed around the facility, in 12.8% unsupervised disposal containers were seen and in 11.5% unsafe storage of full boxes was observed. While disposal of the used waste was done away from the health facility, only 33.3% disposed of it by correct incineration.

Vaccine safety controversies and the future of vaccination programs

In the years following the hepatitis B vaccination/multiple sclerosis controversy, a number of new issues regarding vaccine safety have been raised, in some cases leading to more debate and confusion. Against this background, an international group of experts was convened to review the current points of view concerning the use of thimerosal as a preservative and its potential risks; the suggested link between thimerosal-containing vaccines and acute lymphoblastic leukemia; the alleged association between aluminum-containing vaccines/macrophagic myofasciitis and general systemic complaints; a possible link between vaccination and autoimmune pathology; and a hypothetical link between measles-mumps-rubella vaccination and autism. At present, there are no data to conclude that childhood vaccines, and in particular hepatitis B vaccine, pose a serious health risk or justify a change in current immunization practice. However, vaccine "scares" continue to have an international impact on immunization coverage. Creating a positive environment for immunization can be achieved by repositioning the value of vaccines and vaccination, supported by evidence-based information. The role of international organizations, the media, and the industry in the implementation of communication strategies was discussed and the impact of litigation issues on vaccination was evaluated. The Viral Hepatitis Prevention Board confirms its commitment to current recommendations for universal and risk group hepatitis B vaccination and further encourages the conduct of vaccine safety studies and the dissemination of their results.

Injection practices in Burkina Faso in 2000

BACKGROUND

Unsafe delivery and overuse of injections can result in the spread of hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus, and HIV. The aim of the present survey was to estimate the frequency of safe injection practices in Burkina Faso.

METHOD

Using the new standardized World Health Organization tool to assess injection practices, we selected 80 primary health facilities with a two-stage cluster sampling method, collected information using structured observations and provider interviews, and analyzed the data using Epi-Info software.

RESULTS

We observed 116 injections in 52 facilities. In 50 facilities [96%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 85-99%] injections were given with a new, single-use syringe and needle. In 29 facilities (56%; 95% CI 36-74%), staff recapped needles using two hands. All 80 facilities visited had a stock in the community to provide new, single-use syringes and needles. In 61% (95% CI 54-79%) of facilities, staff reported needlestick injuries in the last 12 months. Used needles were discarded in open containers in 66 facilities (83%; 95% CI 55-96%) and observed in the surroundings of 46 facilities (57%; 95% CI 32-80%).

CONCLUSIONS

In 2000, most of the health facilities in Burkina Faso were using sterile injection equipment. However, practices were still observed that could expose patients, health care workers, and communities to risks, and that required specific interventions.

A global perspective on vaccine safety

"Immunization Safety" (i.e., ensuring and monitoring the safety of all aspects of immunization, including vaccine quality, storage and handling, vaccine administration and the disposal of sharps) remains a major challenge. Any vaccine safety issue, real or perceived, may lead to rumors and undermine confidence in vaccination and, ultimately, have dramatic consequences for immunization coverage and disease incidence. In 1999, WHO's Department of Vaccines and Biologicals launched the Immunization Safety Priority Project to establish a comprehensive system to ensure the safety of all immunizations given in national immunization programmes. The project aims at strengthening each country's capacity. The principal areas of activity of the project include: research and development of safer vaccines and safer and simpler vaccine delivery technologies; assurance of vaccine safety through quality control procedures and quality specifications; implementation of tools to ensure vaccine quality up to vaccine administration; access to safe and efficient vaccine administration technologies and their disposal; and identification and management of risks related to immunization. This report focuses on the latter area and highlights challenges and critical factors in establishing a safety profile for a vaccine and the importance and limits of post market surveillance. It presents some of WHO's supporting activities among which the establishment of a Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety to provide an independent scientific assessment of vaccine safety issues. WHO has a role to play not only because of its technical and normative role but also because of its privileged relation with country authorities and its global vision and mandate and being perceived as neutral and free of conflicts of interest.

Immunization safety priority project at the World Health Organization

In 1999, the World Health Organization's (WHO) Department of Vaccines and Biologicals launched the Immunization Safety Priority Project with the aim of establishing a comprehensive system to ensure the safety of all immunizations given in national immunization programs. Countries are the primary focus of the project. WHO has a role, not only because of its technical and normative role, but also because of its privileged relationship with country authorities and other partners, and its global vision and mandate. The four major areas of focus in the project are to (1) promote and coordinate research and development of safer and simpler delivery systems; (2) ensure vaccine safety, from vaccine development all the way through clinical trials and vaccine distribution until use; (3) broaden access to safer and more efficient systems for vaccine delivery and management of sharps waste; and (4) establish efficient mechanisms to detect serious or potentially serious adverse events following immunization, and enable prompt and effective response. The project emphasizes the importance of advocating safety and building capacity at national levels.