ABSTRACT
La incorporación de la vacuna conjugada antineumocóc-cica 10 valente (PCV10) en lactantes en Chile el año 2011 ha permitido reducir las hospitalizaciones y muertes por neumonía en este grupo etario. Sin embargo, se ha observado desde entonces un aumento progresivo de los aislados de Streptococcus pneumoniae del serotipo 19A no incluido en la vacuna en uso (de < 5% del total de cepas recibidas en el Laboratorio de Referencia Nacional del Instituto de Salud Pública para vigilancia de infecciones invasores causadas por S. pneumoniae hasta el año 2010, a 12-23% en los años 2014-2015). En lactantes, el serotipo 19A representaba 4 a 8% de los aislados en la era pre vacuna, porcentaje que se incrementa a 25% el 2014. Este aumento ha ocurrido en dos terceras partes de las regiones administrativas del país. Cepas del serotipo 19A de pacientes menores de 5 años, muestran 25% de resistencia a penicilina para aislados extra-meníngeos y casi 100% para aislados de meningitis. El análisis genético de las cepas del serotipo 19A ha demostrado que 48% pertenecen al complejo clonal 320 de carácter pandémico y asociado a resistencia antimicrobiana. Además, casi todas las infecciones invasoras por serotipo 19A en niños se han dado en pacientes con esquema completo de vacunación PCV10. Los cambios epidemiológicos presentados indican la emergencia de infecciones invasoras por el serotipo 19A y la necesidad de controlar este problema con el cambio de la vacuna PCV10 a la vacuna PCV13 que contiene el serotipo 19A.
Inclusion of the 10-valent pneumococcal conjugated vaccine (PCV10) in the Chilean infant vaccination Program in 2011 was followed by a reduction of hospital admissions and pneumonia-related deaths in this age group. However, a progressive increase of serotype 19A pneumococcal isolates (not included in PCV10) has been observed. According to the analysis of pneumococcal strains performed by the national reference laboratory of the Institute of Public Health as part of a national surveillance on invasive pneumococcal infections, the relative proportion of serotype 19A isolates increased from <5% before 2010 to 12-23% in years 2014-2015. Serotype 19A represented 4-8% of the isolates in the pre-vaccine era among children less than 2 years, increasing to 25% during 2014. This increase has been documented in two-thirds of the national territory. Aimong children <5 years of age, 25% of 19A serotype isolates from non-meningeal infections were penicillin resistant wheras from meningeal infections near 100% were penicillin resistant. Genetic analysis indicates that 48% of these 19A strains belong to clonal complex 320, recognized for its pandemic potential and high antimicrobial resistance. Among children, most invasive infections secondary to serotype 19A have occurred in patients fully vaccinated with PCV10. These epidemiological changes indicate an increase in invasive pneumococcal infections by serotype 19A in Chile and the need to control this problem by changing the current PCV10 for the PCV13 vaccine containing serotype 19A.
Subject(s)
Humans , Child , Pneumococcal Infections/prevention & control , Streptococcus pneumoniae/classification , Vaccination/standards , Pneumococcal Vaccines/therapeutic use , Advisory Committees/standards , Chile , Drug Resistance, Bacterial , SerogroupABSTRACT
PURPOSE: This study was performed to identify current characteristics of the Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing and to explore a way to elevate it to an international level and to critique the overall review process so as to delineate the advanced, objective paper appraisal in this journal. METHODS: Data was collected using self administered questionnaires to 75 journal reviewers belonging to the Korean academy of nursing and its division academy of nursing from August 15th to September 30th, 2006. RESULTS: The majority of reviewers pointed out a lack of discrimination between the Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing and other journals. Among the main answers of reviewers, Creativeness(52.3%) and excellence of nursing(38%) will be critical factors to develop in order to elevate to an the journal to an international level. In specific evaluation areas, reviewers preferred a subjective critique method(60%), and the condition of the decision making process regarding paper acceptance as a combination of checklist and subjective evaluation(84%). Subjective evaluation opinions with major categories will occur in the next revised evaluation format. 76% of reviewers agreed with the current objective evaluation form. CONCLUSIONS: The journal review process should be evaluated on a regular basis to elevate the journal level and a mutual agreement of the journal's scope, range, and purpose will be necessary. As a recommendation, an attempt at various approaches in journal reviews and reviewer training should be made.
Subject(s)
Adult , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Advisory Committees/standards , Editorial Policies , Korea , Nursing Research , Peer Review, Research , Periodicals as Topic/standardsABSTRACT
PURPOSE: This study was performed to identify current characteristics of the Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing and to explore a way to elevate it to an international level and to critique the overall review process so as to delineate the advanced, objective paper appraisal in this journal. METHODS: Data was collected using self administered questionnaires to 75 journal reviewers belonging to the Korean academy of nursing and its division academy of nursing from August 15th to September 30th, 2006. RESULTS: The majority of reviewers pointed out a lack of discrimination between the Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing and other journals. Among the main answers of reviewers, Creativeness(52.3%) and excellence of nursing(38%) will be critical factors to develop in order to elevate to an the journal to an international level. In specific evaluation areas, reviewers preferred a subjective critique method(60%), and the condition of the decision making process regarding paper acceptance as a combination of checklist and subjective evaluation(84%). Subjective evaluation opinions with major categories will occur in the next revised evaluation format. 76% of reviewers agreed with the current objective evaluation form. CONCLUSIONS: The journal review process should be evaluated on a regular basis to elevate the journal level and a mutual agreement of the journal's scope, range, and purpose will be necessary. As a recommendation, an attempt at various approaches in journal reviews and reviewer training should be made.