Adult vaccination for pneumococcal disease: a comparison of the national guidelines in Europe.

Pneumococcal disease constitutes a major global health problem. Adults aged over 50 years and younger adults with specific chronic health conditions are at risk for invasive pneumococcal disease, associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. In Europe, two vaccine types are used in adults for pneumococcal immunization: pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV23) and pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13). To provide an overview and to compare the national guidelines for pneumococcal immunization for adults in Europe. In November 2016, national guidelines on pneumococcal vaccination for adults of 31 European countries were obtained by Google search, the website of European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, and contacting public health officials. In our analysis, we distinguished between age-based and risk-based guidelines. In October 2017, we used the same method to retrieve guideline updates. We observed great variability regarding age, risk groups, vaccine type, and use of boosters. In age-based guidelines, vaccination is mostly recommended in adults aged over 65 years using PPV23. Boosters are generally not recommended. An upper age limit for vaccination is reported in three countries. In the immunocompromised population, vaccination with both vaccines and administration of a booster is mostly recommended. In the population with chronic health conditions, there is more heterogeneity according vaccine type, sequence, and administration of boosters. Asplenia is the only comorbidity for which all countries recommend vaccination. The great variability in European pneumococcal vaccination guidelines warrants European unification of the guidelines for better control of pneumococcal disease.

First-generation versus third-generation comprehensive geriatric assessment instruments in the acute hospital setting: a comparison of the Minimum Geriatric Screening Tools (MGST) and the interRAI Acute Care (interRAI AC).

OBJECTIVE: Comparison of the first-generation Minimum Geriatric Screening Tools (MGST) and the third-generation interRAI Acute Care (interRAI AC). DESIGN: Based on a qualitative multiphase exchange of expert opinion, published evidence was critically analyzed and translated into a consensus. RESULTS: Both methods are intended for a multi-domain geriatric assessment in acute hospital settings, but each with a different scope and goal. MGST contains a collection of single-domain, internationally validated instruments. Assessment is usually triggered by care givers' clinical impression based on geriatric expertise. A limited selection of domains is usually assessed only once, by disciplines with domain-specific expertise. Clinical use results in improvement to screen geriatric problems. InterRAI AC, tailored for acute settings, intends to screen a large number of geriatric domains. Based on systematic observational data, risk domains are triggered and clinical guidelines are suggested. Multiple observation periods outline the evolution of patients' functioning over stay in comparison to the premorbid situation. The method is appropriate for application on geriatric and non-geriatric wards, filling geriatric knowledge gaps. The interRAI Suite contains a common set of standardized items across settings, facilitating data transfer in transitional care. CONCLUSION: The third-generation interRAI AC has advantages compared to the first-generation MGST. A cascade system is proposed to integrate both, complementary methods in practice. The systematic interRAI AC assessment detects risk domains. Subsequently, clinical protocols suggest components of the MGST as additional assessment. This cascade approach unites the strength of exhaustive assessment of the interRAI AC with domain-specific tools of the MGST.