Cargando…

Is clinical primary care surveillance for tularaemia a useful addition to laboratory surveillance? An analysis of notification data for Finland, 2013 to 2019

BACKGROUND: In Finland, surveillance of tularaemia relies on laboratory-confirmed case notifications to the National infectious Diseases Register (NIDR). AIM: The aim of the study was to assess the suitability and usefulness of clinical surveillance as an addition to laboratory notification to impro...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hammer, Charlotte C, Dub, Timothee, Luomala, Oskari, Sane, Jussi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8796291/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35086610
http://dx.doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2022.27.4.2100098
_version_ 1784641272825249792
author Hammer, Charlotte C
Dub, Timothee
Luomala, Oskari
Sane, Jussi
author_facet Hammer, Charlotte C
Dub, Timothee
Luomala, Oskari
Sane, Jussi
author_sort Hammer, Charlotte C
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In Finland, surveillance of tularaemia relies on laboratory-confirmed case notifications to the National infectious Diseases Register (NIDR). AIM: The aim of the study was to assess the suitability and usefulness of clinical surveillance as an addition to laboratory notification to improve tularaemia surveillance in Finland. METHODS: We retrieved NIDR tularaemia surveillance and primary healthcare data on clinically diagnosed tularaemia cases in Finland between 2013 and 2019. We compared incidences, demographic distributions and seasonal trends between the two data sources. RESULTS: The median annual incidence was 0.6 (range: 0.1–12.7) and 0.8 (range: 0.6–7.2) per 100,000 for NIDR notifications and primary healthcare notifications, respectively. Cases reported to NIDR were slightly older than cases reported to primary healthcare (median: 53 years vs 50 years, p = 0.04), but had similar sex distribution. Seasonal peaks differed between systems, both in magnitude and in timing. On average, primary healthcare notifications peaked 3 weeks before NIDR. However, peaks in NIDR were more pronounced, for example in 2017, monthly incidence per 100,000 of NIDR notifications peaked at 12.7 cases in September, while primary healthcare notifications peaked at 7.2 (1.8 ratio) in August. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically diagnosed cases provide a valuable additional data source for surveillance of tularaemia in Finland. A primary healthcare-based system would allow for earlier detection of increasing incidences and thereby for early warning of outbreaks. This is crucial in order to implement targeted control and prevention measures as early as possible.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8796291
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-87962912022-02-22 Is clinical primary care surveillance for tularaemia a useful addition to laboratory surveillance? An analysis of notification data for Finland, 2013 to 2019 Hammer, Charlotte C Dub, Timothee Luomala, Oskari Sane, Jussi Euro Surveill Surveillance BACKGROUND: In Finland, surveillance of tularaemia relies on laboratory-confirmed case notifications to the National infectious Diseases Register (NIDR). AIM: The aim of the study was to assess the suitability and usefulness of clinical surveillance as an addition to laboratory notification to improve tularaemia surveillance in Finland. METHODS: We retrieved NIDR tularaemia surveillance and primary healthcare data on clinically diagnosed tularaemia cases in Finland between 2013 and 2019. We compared incidences, demographic distributions and seasonal trends between the two data sources. RESULTS: The median annual incidence was 0.6 (range: 0.1–12.7) and 0.8 (range: 0.6–7.2) per 100,000 for NIDR notifications and primary healthcare notifications, respectively. Cases reported to NIDR were slightly older than cases reported to primary healthcare (median: 53 years vs 50 years, p = 0.04), but had similar sex distribution. Seasonal peaks differed between systems, both in magnitude and in timing. On average, primary healthcare notifications peaked 3 weeks before NIDR. However, peaks in NIDR were more pronounced, for example in 2017, monthly incidence per 100,000 of NIDR notifications peaked at 12.7 cases in September, while primary healthcare notifications peaked at 7.2 (1.8 ratio) in August. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically diagnosed cases provide a valuable additional data source for surveillance of tularaemia in Finland. A primary healthcare-based system would allow for earlier detection of increasing incidences and thereby for early warning of outbreaks. This is crucial in order to implement targeted control and prevention measures as early as possible. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) 2022-01-27 /pmc/articles/PMC8796291/ /pubmed/35086610 http://dx.doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2022.27.4.2100098 Text en This article is copyright of the authors or their affiliated institutions, 2022. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) Licence. You may share and adapt the material, but must give appropriate credit to the source, provide a link to the licence, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Surveillance
Hammer, Charlotte C
Dub, Timothee
Luomala, Oskari
Sane, Jussi
Is clinical primary care surveillance for tularaemia a useful addition to laboratory surveillance? An analysis of notification data for Finland, 2013 to 2019
title Is clinical primary care surveillance for tularaemia a useful addition to laboratory surveillance? An analysis of notification data for Finland, 2013 to 2019
title_full Is clinical primary care surveillance for tularaemia a useful addition to laboratory surveillance? An analysis of notification data for Finland, 2013 to 2019
title_fullStr Is clinical primary care surveillance for tularaemia a useful addition to laboratory surveillance? An analysis of notification data for Finland, 2013 to 2019
title_full_unstemmed Is clinical primary care surveillance for tularaemia a useful addition to laboratory surveillance? An analysis of notification data for Finland, 2013 to 2019
title_short Is clinical primary care surveillance for tularaemia a useful addition to laboratory surveillance? An analysis of notification data for Finland, 2013 to 2019
title_sort is clinical primary care surveillance for tularaemia a useful addition to laboratory surveillance? an analysis of notification data for finland, 2013 to 2019
topic Surveillance
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8796291/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35086610
http://dx.doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2022.27.4.2100098
work_keys_str_mv AT hammercharlottec isclinicalprimarycaresurveillancefortularaemiaausefuladditiontolaboratorysurveillanceananalysisofnotificationdataforfinland2013to2019
AT dubtimothee isclinicalprimarycaresurveillancefortularaemiaausefuladditiontolaboratorysurveillanceananalysisofnotificationdataforfinland2013to2019
AT luomalaoskari isclinicalprimarycaresurveillancefortularaemiaausefuladditiontolaboratorysurveillanceananalysisofnotificationdataforfinland2013to2019
AT sanejussi isclinicalprimarycaresurveillancefortularaemiaausefuladditiontolaboratorysurveillanceananalysisofnotificationdataforfinland2013to2019