Introduction: Lung transplant patients are immunocompromised because of the medication they receive to prevent rejection, and as a consequence are susceptible to (respiratory) infections. Adequate vaccination strategies, including COVID-19 vaccination, are therefore needed to minimize infection risks.Areas covered: The international vaccination guidelines for lung transplant patients are reviewed, including the data on immunogenicity and effectivity of the vaccines. The impact on response to vaccination of the various categories of immunosuppressive drugs, used in the posttransplant period, on response to vaccination is described. A number of immunosuppressive and/or anti-inflammatory drugs also is used for controlling the immunopathology of severe COVID-19. Current available COVID-19 vaccines, both mRNA or adenovirus based are recommended for lung transplant patients. Expert opinion:In order to improve survival and quality of life, infections of lung transplant patients should be prevented by vaccination. When possible, vaccination should start already during the pre-transplantation period when the patient is on the waiting list. Booster vaccinations should be given post-transplantation, but only when immunosuppression has been tapered. Vaccine design based on mRNA technology could allow the design of an array of vaccines against other respiratory viruses, offering a better protection for lung transplant patients.

Purpose To provide an overview of trauma system maturation in Europe. Methods Maturation was assessed using a self-evaluation survey on prehospital care, facility-based trauma care, education/training, and quality assurance (scoring range 3–9 for each topic), and key infrastructure elements (scoring range 7–14) that was sent to 117 surgeons involved in trauma, orthopedics, and emergency surgery, from 24 European countries. Average scores per topic were summed to create a total score on a scale from 19 to 50 per country. Scores were compared between countries and between geographical regions, and correlations between scores on different sections were assessed. Results The response rate was 95%. On the scale ranging from 19 to 50, the mean (SD, range) European trauma system maturity score was 38.5 (5.6, 28.2–48.0). Prehospital care had the highest mean score of 8.2 (0.5, 6.9–9.0); quality assurance scored the lowest 5.9 (1.7, 3.2–8.5). Facility-based trauma care was valued 6.9 (1.4, 4.1–9.0), education and training 7.0 (1.2, 5.2–9.0), and key infrastructure elements 10.3 (1.6, 7.6–13.5). All aspects of trauma care maturation were strongly correlated (r > 0.6) except prehospital care. End scores of Northern countries scored significantly better than Southern countries (p = 0.03). Conclusion The level of development of trauma care systems in Europe varies greatly. Substantial improvements in trauma systems in several European countries are still to be made, especially regarding quality assurance and key infrastructure elements, such as implementation of a lead agency to oversee the trauma system, and funding for growth, innovation and research.