Pluijmaekers A J M, Steens A, Houweling H, Rots N Y, Benschop K S M, van Binnendijk R S, Bodewes R, Brouwer J G M, Buisman A, Duizer E, van Els C A C M, Hament J M, den Hartog G, Kaaijk P, Kerkhof K, King A J, van der Klis F R M, Korthals Altes H, van der Maas N A T, van Meijeren D L, Middeldorp M, Rijnbende-Geraerts S D, Sanders E A M, Veldhuijzen I K, Vlaanderen E, Voordouw A C G, Vos E R A, de Wit J, Woudenberg T, van Vliet J A, de Melker H E
Center for Infectious Disease Control (CIb), National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), The Netherlands.
Faculty of Infectious Diseases and Immunology, Department of Biomolecular Health Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, The Netherlands.
Vaccine X. 2024 Sep 26;20:100556. doi: 10.1016/j.jvacx.2024.100556. eCollection 2024 Oct.
National Immunisation Programmes (NIPs) develop historically. Its performance (disease incidences, vaccination coverage) is monitored. Reviewing the schedule as a whole could inform on further optimisation of the programme, i.e., providing maximal protection with the lowest number of doses. We systematically evaluated the performance and strategies of the Dutch pathogen-specific NIP schedules through literature review, assessment of surveillance data and expert opinions. Pathogen-specific vaccinations were categorised according to their strategy of protection: I) elimination or eradication, II) herd immunity or III) 'only' individual protection. The schedule of each vaccine-component was evaluated based on fixed criteria: 1. Is the achieved protection adequate? 2. Is the intended protection achieved? 3. Does the programme include too many or too few doses? 4. Is the timing optimal or acceptable? and 5. Are there drawbacks of the NIP for (part of) the population? Identified issues were explored using surveillance data and literature. Using fixed criteria facilitated comparison between pathogens and revealed opportunities to optimise the Dutch NIP by: i. Reducing the number of polio and tetanus vaccinations; ii. prolonging the interval between diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, polio, hepatitis B, and Hib vaccine doses for improved effectiveness; iii. Expedite the second measles vaccination from 9 to 2-4 years of age to offer unvaccinated children and primary vaccine failures an earlier chance to be protected; and iv. Delaying the second mumps vaccination to enhance protection in adolescents/young adults. No schedule adaptations were deemed necessary for the vaccines against HPV, rubella, pneumococcal disease, and meningococcal disease. Based on this evaluation the NITAG advised to move the DTaP-IPV-HBV-Hib-booster from age 11 to 12 months, the second MMR-dose from 9 to 2-4 years, replace the Tdap-IPV at 4 years with a Tdap at 5-6 years and move the dt-IPV from 9 to 14 years. Implementation of these changes is planned for 2025.
国家免疫规划(NIPs)是随着历史发展起来的。其成效(疾病发病率、疫苗接种覆盖率)会受到监测。对整个免疫规划时间表进行审查有助于进一步优化该计划,即使用最少的疫苗剂量提供最大程度的保护。我们通过文献综述、监测数据评估和专家意见,系统地评估了荷兰针对特定病原体的国家免疫规划时间表的成效和策略。针对特定病原体的疫苗接种根据其保护策略进行分类:I)消除或根除;II)群体免疫;或III)“仅”个体保护。每种疫苗成分的时间表根据固定标准进行评估:1. 所实现的保护是否足够?2. 是否实现了预期的保护?3. 该计划的剂量过多还是过少?4. 时间安排是否最佳或可接受?5. 国家免疫规划对(部分)人群是否存在缺陷?利用监测数据和文献对发现的问题进行了探讨。使用固定标准便于对不同病原体进行比较,并揭示了通过以下方式优化荷兰国家免疫规划的机会:i. 减少脊髓灰质炎和破伤风疫苗接种次数;ii. 延长白喉、百日咳、破伤风、脊髓灰质炎、乙型肝炎和b型流感嗜血杆菌结合疫苗(Hib)各剂次之间的间隔时间,以提高有效性;iii. 将第二剂麻疹疫苗接种时间从9岁提前至2 - 4岁,以便未接种疫苗的儿童和初次疫苗接种失败的儿童能更早获得保护;iv. 推迟第二剂腮腺炎疫苗接种时间,以增强青少年/青年的保护效果。对于人乳头瘤病毒(HPV)、风疹、肺炎球菌疾病和脑膜炎球菌疾病的疫苗,未认为有必要调整时间表。基于此评估,国家免疫技术咨询小组(NITAG)建议将白喉、破伤风、无细胞百日咳、脊髓灰质炎、乙型肝炎、Hib联合疫苗加强剂的接种时间从11个月龄调整至12个月龄,将第二剂麻疹、腮腺炎、风疹联合疫苗(MMR)的接种时间从9岁调整至2 - 4岁,将4岁时的吸附破伤风疫苗(Tdap)和脊髓灰质炎灭活疫苗(IPV)联合疫苗替换为5 - 6岁时的Tdap,并将白喉和脊髓灰质炎灭活疫苗(dt-IPV)的接种时间从9岁调整至14岁。计划于2025年实施这些变更。