Introduction: Between 2006 and 2009, two different human papillomavirus virus (HPV) vaccines were licensed for use: a quadrivalent (qHPVv) and a bivalent (bHPVv) vaccine. Since 2008, HPV vaccination programmes have been implemented in the majority of the industrialized countries. Since 2013, HPV vaccination has been part of the national programs of 66 countries including almost all countries in North America and Western Europe. Despite all the efforts made by individual countries, coverage rates are lower than expected. Vaccine safety represents one of the main concerns associated with the lack of acceptance of HPV vaccination both in the European Union/European Economic Area and elsewhere. Areas covered: Safety data published on bivalent and quadrivalent HPV vaccines, both in pre-licensure and post-licensure phase, are reviewed. Expert opinion: Based on the latest scientific evidence, both HPV vaccines seem to be safe. Nevertheless, public concern and rumors about adverse events (AE) represent an important barrier to overcome in order to increase vaccine coverage. Passive surveillance of AEs is an important tool for detecting safety signals, but it should be complemented by activities aimed at assessing the real cause of all suspect AEs. Improved vaccine safety surveillance is the first step for effective communication based on scientific evidence.

BackgroundEU Decision 1082/2013/EU on serious cross-border health threats provides a legal basis for collaboration between EU Member States, and between international and European level institutions on preparedness, prevention, and mitigation in the event of a public health emergency. The Decision provides a context for the present study, which aims to identify good practices and lessons learned in preparedness and response to Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) (in UK, Greece, and Spain) and poliomyelitis (in Poland and Cyprus).MethodsBased on a documentary review, followed by five week-long country visits involving a total of 61 interviews and group discussions with experts from both the health and non-health sectors, this qualitative case study has investigated six issues related to preparedness and response to MERS and poliomyelitis: national plans and overall preparedness capacity; training and exercises; risk communication; linking policy and implementation; interoperability between the health and non-health sectors; and cross-border collaboration.ResultsPreparedness and response plans for MERS and poliomyelitis were in place in the participating countries, with a high level of technical expertise available to implement them. Nevertheless, formal evaluation of the responses to previous public health emergencies have sometimes been limited, so lessons learned may not be reflected in updated plans, thereby risking mistakes being repeated in future. The nature and extent of inter-sectoral collaboration varied according to the sectors involved, with those sectors that have traditionally had good collaboration (e.g. animal health and food safety), as well as those that have a financial incentive for controlling infectious diseases (e.g. agriculture, tourism, and air travel) seen as most likely to have integrated public health preparedness and response plans. Although the formal protocols for inter-sectoral collaboration were not always up to date, good personal relations were reported within the relevant professional networks, which could be brought into play in the event of a public health emergency. Cross-border collaboration was greatly facilitated if the neighbouring country was a fellow EU Member State.ConclusionsInfectious disease outbreaks remain as an ongoing threat. Efforts are required to ensure that core public health capacities for the full range of preparedness and response activities are sustained.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3326-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Assessing vaccine coverage is an essential component of vaccine programme monitoring and evaluation. Vaccine coverage data are available in EU/EEA countries at both national and subnational levels and are used for programmatic purposes at any level. European-wide data collection is performed by WHO through the Centralized Information System for Infectious Diseases, as part of the global data collection jointly conducted with UNICEF. Data quality and comparability are still challenging at an international level. According to available information, vaccination registries are available in 11 countries in the EU/EEA, but only in five countries do they have national coverage. In 2012 ECDC, through the VENICE II network, started the European Vaccination Coverage Collection System (EVACO project), with the final aim of improving the quality of vaccine coverage data at EU level, by defining and implementing standards.

No abstract