- Home
- Eurosurveillance
- Previous Issues
- Volume 29, Issue 33, 15/Aug/2024
Eurosurveillance - Volume 29, Issue 33, 15 August 2024
Volume 29, Issue 33, 2024
- Euroroundup
-
-
-
A survey of the representativeness and usefulness of wastewater-based surveillance systems in 10 countries across Europe in 2023
Guido Benedetti , Lene Wulff Krogsgaard , Sabine Maritschnik , Hans Peter Stüger , Veronik Hutse , Raphael Janssens , Soile Blomqvist , Tarja Pitkänen , Anastasia Koutsolioutsou , Eszter Róka , Marta Vargha , Giuseppina La Rosa , Elisabetta Suffredini , Henry-Michel Cauchie , Leslie Ogorzaly , Rudolf FHJ van der Beek , Willemijn J Lodder , Elisabeth Henie Madslien , Jose Antonio Baz Lomba and Steen EthelbergWastewater-based surveillance (WBS) has become a widespread method to monitor transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and other human pathogens in Europe. We conducted a survey about WBS systems’ objectives, approaches, representativeness and usefulness in 10 invited European countries in 2023, i.e. Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Norway. All countries completed the study questionnaire about their SARS-CoV-2 WBS systems, and shared information about WBS of other pathogens as deemed relevant. SARS-CoV-2 WBS systems primarily monitored national and subnational trends (population coverage: 25–99%), and a majority (8/10) also tracked variant distribution. Nine of 10 countries reported that their SARS-CoV-2 WBS systems were representative of their population and all countries remarked that the findings were valuable for public health decision-making. Results were shared with relevant public health authorities and published via dedicated websites and/or dashboards. WBS systems of other pathogens were mostly in the early stages, with some countries implementing pilots. Notable exceptions were the well-established poliovirus surveillance systems in Finland, Italy and the Netherlands. This study brings understanding the diverse landscape of WBS in Europe, offering insights for future developments and collaborations. Furthermore, it highlights the need for further integration of WBS into other European surveillance systems.
-
- Top
-
- Surveillance
-
-
-
Differences between males and females in infectious diseases notifications in the EU/EEA, 2012 to 2021
BackgroundThere are differences between males and females for most diseases both for exposure and course of illness, including outcome. These differences can be related to biological sex or gender i.e. socio-cultural factors that may impact exposure and healthcare access.
AimWe aimed to quantify differences between males and females in infectious disease notifications in Europe and identify countries with these differences significantly different from the European Union and European Economic Area (EU/EEA) average.
MethodsNotifiable infectious disease surveillance data are reported by EU/EEA countries to ECDC. We retrieved surveillance data for 2012−2021. Using a cut-off median of annual disability-adjusted life years above 1 per 100,000 population, we included 16 infectious diseases. We calculated median male proportion and interquartile range by disease, year, country and age group and used boxplots to identify outliers.
ResultsFor campylobacteriosis, acute hepatitis B, Legionnaires’ disease, malaria and HIV and AIDS, all countries had male proportion above 50%. Most countries had a male proportion below 50% for pertussis (25/28 countries), STEC infection (21/28 countries) and Chlamydia trachomatis infection (16/24 countries). Chlamydia trachomatis infection and listeriosis showed the greatest dispersion of male proportion across age groups. Most outliers were countries reporting few cases.
ConclusionWe observed important differences in male proportion across infectious disease notifications in EU/EEA countries. For some diseases with high male proportions in all countries, such as HIV and hepatitis B, behaviours play a role in disease transmission. Screening offered to specific populations may explain differences across countries for example for C. trachomatis infection.
-
- Top
- Miscellaneous
-
Volumes & issues
-
Volume 29 (2024)
-
Volume 28 (2023)
-
Volume 27 (2022)
-
Volume 26 (2021)
-
Volume 25 (2020)
-
Volume 24 (2019)
-
Volume 23 (2018)
-
Volume 22 (2017)
-
Volume 21 (2016)
-
Volume 20 (2015)
-
Volume 19 (2014)
-
Volume 18 (2013)
-
Volume 17 (2012)
-
Volume 16 (2011)
-
Volume 15 (2010)
-
Volume 14 (2009)
-
Volume 13 (2008)
-
Volume 12 (2007)
-
Volume 11 (2006)
-
Volume 10 (2005)
-
Volume 9 (2004)
-
Volume 8 (2003)
-
Volume 7 (2002)
-
Volume 6 (2001)
-
Volume 5 (2000)
-
Volume 4 (1999)
-
Volume 3 (1998)
-
Volume 2 (1997)
-
Volume 1 (1996)
-
Volume 0 (1995)
Most Read This Month
-
-
Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR
Victor M Corman , Olfert Landt , Marco Kaiser , Richard Molenkamp , Adam Meijer , Daniel KW Chu , Tobias Bleicker , Sebastian Brünink , Julia Schneider , Marie Luisa Schmidt , Daphne GJC Mulders , Bart L Haagmans , Bas van der Veer , Sharon van den Brink , Lisa Wijsman , Gabriel Goderski , Jean-Louis Romette , Joanna Ellis , Maria Zambon , Malik Peiris , Herman Goossens , Chantal Reusken , Marion PG Koopmans and Christian Drosten
-
- More Less