This study confirms that most ARTIs are viral and supports the reserved policy of prescribing antibiotics. In both case and control subjects, rhinovirus was the most common pathogen. Of bacterial infections, only group A beta-hemolytic streptococci were more common in case patients than in control subjects. Furthermore, we demonstrated that asymptomatic persons might be a neglected source of transmission.

In May 2011, the Dutch government decided to implement a national programme for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening using biennial faecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening between ages 55 and 75.[1] Decision modelling played an important role in informing this decision, as well as in the planning and implementation of the programme afterwards. In this overview, we illustrate the value of models in informing resource allocation in CRC screening, using the role that decision modelling has played in the Dutch CRC screening programme as an example.

This study supports the importance of rhinovirus infections in community-dwelling elderly persons, whereas asymptomatic elderly persons can also harbor pathogens as detected by PCR, and thus might be a source of infection for their environment.

During a 30-month prospective study in The Netherlands, the distribution of Mycoplasma pneumoniae and respiratory viruses among 1172 patients with acute respiratory infection (ARI) who were treated in the outpatient general practitioner setting was studied. M. pneumoniae, as detected by polymerase chain reaction analysis, was present in 39 (3.3%) patients. The infection rate was similar in all age groups. Nose and throat samples collected from 79 household contacts of M. pneumoniae-positive index patients revealed M. pneumoniae in 12 (15%) cases. The frequency of M. pneumoniae among household contacts of index patients treated with appropriate antibiotics and untreated index patients was similar. Nine of the 12 M. pneumoniae-positive household contacts were <16 years old (P=.02), and 4 (44%) of them did not develop ARI. Apparently, children are a relevant reservoir for M. pneumoniae.

A favourable pharmacoeconomic profile has been well established for influenza vaccination in the elderly. For employers relevant benefits seem to exist for vaccinating healthy working adults to avert absenteeism and related production losses. From a pharmacoeconomic point of view it is relevant to consider whether societal benefits of vaccination for healthy working adults is worthwhile given the costs of vaccination for the community. We searched Medline and Embase using the key words influenza (vaccination) in combination with cost, cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, efficiency, economic evaluation, health-policy and pharmacoeconomics. From this primary search, we selected 11 studies concerned with the group of healthy working adults. We reviewed these studies according to several criteria: benefit-to-cost (B/C) ratio;vaccine effectiveness, influenza incidence, number of days of work absence due to illness; and relative cost of the vaccine. Three studies on vaccinating healthy working adults found costs exceeding the benefits (B/C-ratio <1). The remaining eight pharmacoeconomic studies found a B/C-ratio of almost two or more. Cost savings are strongly related to the inclusion of indirect benefits related to averted production losses. After exclusion of indirect costs and benefits of production gains/losses, only one of the eight studies remains cost saving. Considering the available pharmacoeconomic evidence, vaccination of healthy working adults in Western countries may be an intervention with favourable cost-effectiveness and cost-saving potentials if indirect benefits of averted production losses are included. Excluding indirect benefits and costs of production losses/gains, cost-saving potentials are limited. Recent international guidelines for pharmacoeconomic research advise the inclusion of production gains and losses in the preferred societal perspective. Hence, on the basis of the available evidence, influenza vaccination of healthy working adults may be recommended from pharmacoeconomic point of view. Pharmacoeconomics do, however, present only one argument for consideration aside from ethical issues, budgetary limits and psychosocial aspects.