NI was associated with an increase in total cost, which implies that the prevention of these infections through specific interventions could be cost-effective and would help to increase the safety of healthcare systems.

ObjectiveWe aimed to compare the response rates between two different hepatitis B virus vaccination schedules for cirrhotic subjects who were non-responders to the first three 40 µg doses (month 0-1-2), and identify factors associated with the final response.DesignA total of 120 cirrhotic patients (72.5% decompensated) were randomised at a 1:1 ratio to receive a single 40 µg booster vaccination at month 6 (classical arm) versus an additional round of three new 40 µg doses administered at monthly intervals (experimental arm). The main outcome was the rate of postvaccinal anti-hepatitis B surface antibodies levels ≥10 mIU/mL.ResultsEfficacy by ITT analysis was higher in the experimental arm (46.7%) than in the classical one (25%); OR 2.63, p=0.013. The experimental arm increased response rates compared with the classical one from 31% to 68% (OR 4.72; p=0.007), from 24.4% to 50% (OR 3.09; p=0.012) and from 24.4% to 53.8% (OR 3.62; p=0.007), in Child A, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) <15 and MELD-Na<15 patients, respectively. Patients with more advanced liver disease did not benefit from the reinforced scheme. Both regimens showed similar safety profiles. Multivariable analysis showed that the experimental treatment was independently response associated when adjusted across three logistic regression models indicating equivalent cirrhosis severity.ConclusionFor cirrhotic patients, the revaccination of non-responders to the first three dose cycle, with three additional 40 µg doses, achieved significantly better response rates to those obtained with an isolated 40 µg booster dose.Trial registration numberNCT01884415.

We present our reflections on the management of an acute gastroenteritis outbreak in a public school, which caused a public health crisis, and the conclusions drawn from this experience. The methodology of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis was used. This article describes the epidemiology of the incident and the policy decisions made, but focuses on operational aspects of outbreak management. The experience of the outbreak control team, liaison with other organizations, and data management are discussed. The difficulties encountered by the outbreak team related to delay in declaring in the outbreak, lack of training in some of the entities involved, and incorrect use of the surveillance circuits. Current protocols and specific action plans for the management of outbreaks should be improved through self-evaluation and updating of resources and knowledge.