Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Eurosurveillance logoLink to Eurosurveillance
. 2017 Apr 20;22(16):30509. doi: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2017.22.16.30509

Estimating the annual burden of tick-borne encephalitis to inform vaccination policy, Slovenia, 2009 to 2013

Mario Fafangel 1,2, Alessandro Cassini 3,4, Edoardo Colzani 3,5, Irena Klavs 1, Marta Grgič Vitek 1, Veronika Učakar 1, Marion Muehlen 3, Marko Vudrag 1, Alenka Kraigher 1
PMCID: PMC5404479  PMID: 28449731

Abstract

With an annual incidence between 8 and 15 per 100,000 population in the period from 2009 to 2013, Slovenia has one of the highest notified incidences of tick-borne encephalitis (TBE) in Europe. TBE vaccination coverage remains at about 7.3%. To inform vaccination policy, we used surveillance data from 2009 to 2013 to calculate the overall and age- and sex-specific mean annual TBE incidence. We estimated disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) with 95% uncertainty intervals (UI), using the Burden of Communicable Diseases in Europe approach from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. The mean annual incidence was 11.6 per 100,000 population, peaking in older age groups (50–74 years: 18.5/100,000) while relatively lower among children (5–14 years: 10.2/100,000). We estimated an overall 10.95 DALYs per 100,000 population per year (95% UI: 10.25-11.65). In contrast to the TBE incidence, the disease burden in children aged 5–14 years was higher than in adults aged 50–74 years: 17.31 (95% UI: 14.58–20.08) and 11.58 (95% UI: 10.25–12.91) DALYs per 100,000 stratum-specific population, respectively. In a limited resource setting where prioritisation of TBE vaccination strategies is required, vaccination programmes targeting children may have a higher impact on disease burden.

Keywords: burden of illness, tick-borne encephalitis - TBE, viral meningitis, viral encephalitis, vaccination

Introduction

Tick-borne encephalitis (TBE) is a vector-borne disease caused by the TBE virus [1]. It typically presents as a two-phased illness [2-4]. The first phase is associated with symptoms such as fever, fatigue, headache, myalgia and nausea. The second phase involves the nervous system with symptoms related to meningitis and/or encephalitis. Life-long sequelae can have an important impact on the quality of life of those affected [5]. TBE cases notified in Europe have surged in the last three decades with an estimated increase of 193% [6-8].

In Slovenia, notification of TBE is mandatory and based on the European Union (EU) standardised case definition [9]. Only cases with central nervous system involvement (meningoencephalitic TBE) and laboratory confirmation are notified. Slovenia is one of the countries with the highest notified incidence in Europe, ranging from 8 to 15 per 100,000 in the period from 2009 to 2013, with cases occurring throughout the country [10]. Data for the past 20 years show a non-homogenous age distribution with higher incidence in older age groups (> 40 years) [10]. Preventive measures include the use of repellents, appropriate clothing and daily inspection of the skin to remove ticks [11]. The most effective method of preventing TBE is vaccination [11-13]. Mandatory vaccination against TBE was introduced in Slovenia in 1986 for those at risk of occupational exposure, and in 1990 for students at risk of exposure during curricular training, while the rest of the population needs to pay for the vaccination themselves. TBE vaccination coverage in Slovenia remains low: by 2007, the proportion of the general population reporting to ever have been vaccinated against TBE was 12.4% [14].

In a context where limited resources prevent universal TBE vaccination free of charge, data are needed to identify those groups most affected by the disease so that vaccination can be targeted in order to yield the greatest benefit on population health. Countries have used incidence data to guide vaccination strategies towards specific age groups and geographical areas [15-17]. Estimation of the TBE burden in the form of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), a summary measure of population health, is better suited to express the overall and age group-specific impact of the disease in the population while taking into account the effects of acute illness and its sequelae on mortality and morbidity [18]. The objective of this study was to estimate the overall and age- and sex-specific annual burden of TBE in Slovenia in order to inform vaccination policy in a setting with limited resources.

Methods

Model

To estimate the burden of TBE we used the pathogen-based incidence approach developed by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) Burden of communicable diseases in Europe project (BCoDE) [18-20]. The burden was expressed in DALYs. DALYs have two components: years of life lost due to premature death (YLL) and healthy years of life lost due to disability (YLD) [21].

We used a disease model (outcome tree) based on the current knowledge of the disease progression pathway, linking all health outcomes related to TBE with the initial infection. Starting with the infection a case moved through the outcome tree transitioning into different health outcomes according to different conditional transition probabilities (i.e. probability of occurrence of each health outcome), exiting the tree with a resolved infection, with a life-long disability or with a fatal outcome. In order to measure YLL, life expectancy was based on the standard reference life table developed within the Global Burden of Disease 2010 project [22]. To measure YLD, each health outcome was characterised by a disease duration and a disability weight. Disability weights quantify health losses to reflect the disability experienced by someone living with a health issue. Based on the severity of the disease, they range from 0 (full health) to 1 (death). The disability weights were generated for BCoDE and the Global Burden of Disease study (GBD) 2013 through elicitation methods [23,24]. The outcome tree for TBE used in our model (Figure 1) was based on a thorough review of published studies and on the opinion of ECDC experts [25]. All parameters included in the outcome tree, conditional transition probabilities, durations and disability weights were based on published studies and entailed a certain level of uncertainty. The uncertainty was modelled by incorporating ranges using either uniform or Pert distributions [26] and quantified by performing Monte Carlo simulations with 10,000 iterations to obtain 95% uncertainty intervals (UI). In order to assess age groups of interest for vaccination strategies, we compared the median DALYs and their 95% UIs.

Figure 1.

Outcome tree for tick-borne encephalitis virus infection

DW: disability weight; R: resolution of infection; TBE: tick-borne encephalitis.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Input data

The ECDC BCoDE toolkit was used for DALY estimation [25]. Input data for the model were the mean annual numbers of meningoencephalitic TBE cases notified to the Slovenian national surveillance system for communicable diseases from 2009 to 2013. They were stratified by 5-year age groups and by sex. For those calculations where a population estimate was required, we used the 2011 population data for Slovenia obtained from Eurostat [27]. The main type of input data for TBE in the BCoDE toolkit was the number of symptomatic infections (first phase of the disease); to obtain this, surveillance data were multiplied by the appropriate transitional probabilities as specified by the TBE outcome tree. No time discounting was applied, thus future and present disabilities were weighted equally.

Results

From 2009 to 2013, a total of 1,190 cases (58% males) of TBE in their meningoencephalitic phase were notified in Slovenia, with a mean of 238 cases/year. The median age at diagnosis was 51 years (range: 1–86 years). The mean annual incidence of meningoencephalitic TBE was 11.6 per 100,000 population (9.6/100,000 for females and 13.6/100,000 for males). Incidence was higher in older individuals (50–74 years: 18.5/100,000) than in children (5–14 years: 10.2/100,000). Data by 5-year age groups and by sex are presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Mean annual incidence per100,000 of tick-borne encephalitis, by age and sex, Slovenia, 2009–2013 (n = 1,190)

The estimated DALYs per year were 224.52 (95% UI: 210.14-238.84), corresponding to 10.95 DALYs per 100,000 per year (95% UI: 10.25-11.65). Each case of TBE accounted for an average of 0.23 DALYs (95% UI: 0.22–0.24) In the Table, DALYs and their components (YLL and YLD) are presented for all health outcomes related to TBE. YLDs per year accounted for 67% of the total disease burden. Late sequelae, following the meningoencephalitic phase of the disease, contributed to 63% of the DALYs per year.

Table. Tick-borne encephalitis annual burden estimates, Slovenia, 2009–2013.

     DALYs/year     
(95% UI)		 DALYs/100,000
(95% UI)		      YLL/year     
(95% UI)		        YLD/year       
(95% UI)
Symptomatic infection 0.67
(0.61–0.73)		 0.03
(0.03–0.04)		 0 0.67
(0.61–0.73)
Meningoencephalitic phase 81.94
(76.77–87.15)		 4.00
(3.74–4.25)		 74.88
(70.14–79.56)		 7.06
(5.92–8.36)
Post-encephalitic TBE syndrome 21.36
(19.87–22.91)		 1.04
(0.97–1.12)		 0 21.36
(19.87–22.91)
Paralysis 0.20
(0.18–0.21)		 < 0.001 0 0.20
(0.18–0.21)
Residual paresis 34.32
(31.98–36.73)		 1.67
(1.56–1.79)		 0 34.32
(31.98–36.73)
Chronic post-encephalitic TBE syndrome 86.04
(79.87–92.31)		 4.20
(3.90–4.50)		 0 86.04
(79.87–92.31)
Total 224.52
(210.14–238.84) 		10.95
(10.25–11.65) 		74.88
(70.14–79.56) 		149.64
(139.67–159.75)
Open in a new tab

DALYs: disability-adjusted life years; TBE: tick-borne encephalitis; UI: uncertainty interval; YLD: healthy years of life lost due to disability; YLL: years of life lost.

The group of 50–54-year-old women and the group of 25–29-year-old men had the highest point estimates of DALYs per year with 10.56 (95% UI: 7.34–14.03) and 13.02 (95% UI: 9.25–17.49) DALYs per year respectively. When looking at both sexes together, the 50–54 and 55–59-year-olds accounted for the highest number of DALYs, 21.08 (95% UI: 14.91–28.40) and 20.48 (95% UI: 14.48–27.70), respectively.

In terms of DALYs per 100,000 stratum-specific population, the highest burden point estimate was among the 5–9-year-olds: 19.29 DALYs per 100,000 stratum-specific population per year (95% UI: 15.41–23.90) with 16.62 DALYs (95% UI: 11.48–22.51) and 21.69 DALYs per 100,000 per year (95% UI: 15.12–29.28) for girls and boys, respectively. Data by 5-year age groups and by sex are presented in Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Estimated mean annual disability-adjusted life years per 100,000 stratum-specific population due to tick-borne encephalitis, by age and sex, Slovenia, 2009–2013

DALYs: disability-adjusted life years.

The whiskers represent 95% uncertainty intervals.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

The group of 50–74-year-olds had a lower TBE burden estimate of 11.58 (95% UI: 10.25–12.91) DALYs per 100,000 stratum-specific population per year in comparison to the 5–14-year-olds with a burden of 17.31 (95% UI: 14.58–20.08) DALYs per 100,000 stratum-specific population per year (Figure 4).

Figure 4.

Estimated mean annual incidence per 100,000 and mean annual disability-adjusted life years per 100,000 stratum-specific population due to tick-borne encephalitis, by age group, Slovenia, 2009–2013

DALYs: disability-adjusted life years.

The whiskers represent 95% uncertainty intervals.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

Discussion

In this paper we present the overall and the age- and sex-specific annual burden of TBE in Slovenia expressed in DALYs. The use of DALYs integrates mortality and morbidity from TBE in a single composite health metric, giving a comprehensive estimate of the impact of this disease on population health.

An analysis of notified TBE cases in the 5-year period from 2009 to 2013 confirms Slovenia as one of the countries, together with the Baltic states and the Russian Federation, where reported incidence per 100,000 is the highest in Europe [11,28]. With an estimate of 10.95 DALYs per 100,000 per year (95% UI: 10.25-11.65), TBE has an important impact on the health of the Slovenian population. In accordance with input incidence data, we found consistently higher burden point estimates in male persons across all ages. According to the BCoDE 2009–13 study, the estimated burden of TBE in Slovenia was nine times higher than the corresponding estimated burden of TBE measured in DALYs per 100,000 population per year for the EU and European Economic Area (EEA) for the same time period [29]. Moreover, the impact of TBE on the Slovenian population is comparable to that of healthcare-associated neonatal sepsis (16.8 DALYs/100,000) according to a recent study on healthcare-associated infection in the EU/EEA [30].

Looking at incidence data alone, older age groups (50–74-year-olds) appeared most affected by TBE in Slovenia. However, the use of DALYs identified children (5–14-year-olds) as the group with a higher burden. This difference in impact of TBE would not have been detected, if we had limited our assessment to incidence data, ignoring the combined effects of morbidity, short- and long-term sequelae and mortality. Other countries with a similar TBE incidence profile as Slovenia could profit from this approach to identify groups with important burden, particularly when informing decision makers about the allocation of limited resources for targeted public health interventions (i.e. vaccination).

Vaccination is regarded as the most effective preventive measure for TBE [11]. Studies have shown a 96–99% field effectiveness in persons receiving three doses following the recommended schedule [12,13]. In neighbouring Austria, an estimated 88% of the general population are vaccinated with at least one dose, while 58% are vaccinated regularly following the advised schedule [13]. Austria has managed to reduce the number of TBE cases by 90% by increasing its vaccination rate from 6% in 1980 to its current level [13]. Despite the fact that vaccination has been recommended in Slovenia for decades, only 12% of the population was vaccinated with at least one dose by 2007 and only 7.3% get vaccinated regularly following the advised schedule [31].

TBE vaccination remains a self-paid expense for the majority of the population. The costs are covered by the mandatory insurance system or by the employer only in case of occupational exposure or exposure during education or training. Data from 2007 show that only 4.6% of the population paid themselves for TBE vaccination [14]. A recent study from Šmit et al., estimating DALYs of TBE in Slovenia using the GBD project methodological approach, supports the need for a public health strategy aimed at increasing the national vaccination coverage [32]. Multiple factors influencing the decision to get vaccinated against TBE (knowledge, trust, accessibility, cost) should be considered when planning strategies aimed at increasing vaccination coverage [33]. Projections, however, show that the impact of a vaccine subsidy, making the vaccine free of charge, could alone increase coverage by 45%, and even more in low-income households [34].

Increasing TBE vaccination coverage should be considered as an option for intervention to reduce the impact of TBE [10,32]. In the presence of limited resources, the implementation of such a measure could be difficult in the short term. Our results suggest that effective prevention of TBE in children would have the highest impact in terms of DALYs of TBE averted. This novel insight in the distribution of TBE burden should be considered when prioritising access to TBE vaccination and could improve previous recommendations originating from incidence data alone, where the focus was mainly on older age groups [10].

Prioritising vaccination in children could be easier thanks to the well-functioning Slovenian national childhood immunisation programme. It is also important to take into account the need for booster doses of the TBE vaccine. In the age groups of interest, a three-dose primary vaccination schedule with a first booster dose after 3 years and further boosters every 5 years is recommended to maintain seropositivity [35]. A recent study showed that a schedule that includes the first booster dose yields a high and long-lasting (> 5 years) immune response, thus suggesting that subsequent TBE booster intervals could be extended beyond the current recommendation [36]. Considering the financial implications of lifelong booster doses (and the different schedules that apply at different ages), age-specific cost-effectiveness studies are needed to inform decisions on the extent to which TBE vaccine can be subsidised in order to achieve the highest level of immunopersistence and impact on TBE burden in a cost-effective manner.

We considered prioritising the most affected areas or regions as an alternative approach. Although some regions in Slovenia are more affected then others, TBE occurs throughout the country. Considering the epidemiological situation of TBE in Slovenia, the country`s relatively small area and population size, as well as the mobility of the population between regions, we consider this approach could be potentially misleading and lead to health inequalities. Other countries where restricted areas or regions are affected could consider a modelling approach stratified by region.

This study has certain limitations. The outcome tree describing the progression pathway of the disease assumes no differences in disease progression between different age groups. Lifelong sequelae make an important contribution to the overall burden, especially in the younger age groups. The disease in children is commonly regarded as mild, but evidence is increasing for the relevance of severe acute disease and long-term sequelae of TBE in children, as well as for the lack of knowledge around the matter [5,37-46]. The uncertainty around the disease progression, overall and for different age groups, can lead to an over- or underestimation of the burden overall and in different age groups. Future study of the disease progression of TBE in different age groups is needed and could improve the accuracy of the model. Another limitation of our study is that the data set used for input in the model was not corrected for underestimation (due to under-reporting and under-ascertainment) of the surveillance system [47]. At the moment of writing, data on underestimation of TBE notification were not available. However, taking into consideration the structure of the morbidity surveillance pyramid [47], we can assume that the notified data were still underestimating the true incidence of disease, thus leading to an underestimation of our burden estimates.

DALYs are a composite health metric highly dependent on the assumptions made; it is commonly used for ranking the relative burden of diseases within the same study, in cost-effectiveness analyses or evaluations of interventions (e.g. DALYs averted). The differences in absolute values between our results and the recent study from Šmit et al. [32] are probably due to differences in underlying assumptions and disease modelling approaches. Šmit et al. used data from a single year that had more cases than the 5-year annual average we used; they used an underestimation coefficient (4.5) for the number of cases of meningoencephalitic TBE, but we did not find enough evidence to make such assumptions; they modelled all neurological sequelae as lifelong. Moreover, Šmit et al. used higher transitional probabilities (in the age groups older than 15 years) and higher disability weights when modelling mild sequelae. Taking this into consideration, a direct comparison is not valid. Our focus on the distribution of the TBE burden across different age groups enabled us to suggest efficient options for vaccination.

Conclusion

We identified a higher burden of TBE among children aged 5–14 years than among adults aged 50–74 years despite a lower TBE incidence. Incidence data alone do not fully reflect the disease impact and should not be the only indicator to inform vaccination policy. In a limited resource setting where prioritisation of TBE vaccination strategies is required, vaccination programmes targeting children should be considered as possibly having a higher impact on disease burden. Our data could be used for future cost-effectiveness studies.

Conflict of interest: None declared.

Authors’ contributions: MF and AC were responsible for the conception and design of this study. MF drafted the first study protocol, and AC, EC, IK, MM contributed to further drafts. MF and MG collected and assembled the data. MF undertook the primary data analysis in collaboration with AC. All authors had an opportunity to contribute to the interpretation of the results. MF wrote the first draft of the manuscript, and all other authors contributed to further drafts.

References

  • 1. Chambers TJ, Hahn CS, Galler R, Rice CM. Flavivirus genome organization, expression, and replication. Annu Rev Microbiol. 1990;44(1):649-88. 10.1146/annurev.mi.44.100190.003245 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Gubler JD, Kuno G, Markoff L. Flaviviruses. In: Knipe DM, Howley PM, editors. Fields Virology. 5th ed. London, New York, Tokyo: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2007. pp. 1043-1125. [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Kiffner C, Zucchini W, Schomaker P, Vor T, Hagedorn P, Niedrig M, et al. Determinants of tick-borne encephalitis in counties of southern Germany, 2001-2008. Int J Health Geogr. 2010;9(1):42. 10.1186/1476-072X-9-42 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Gustafson R, Svenungsson B, Forsgren M, Gardulf A, Granström M. Two-year survey of the incidence of Lyme borreliosis and tick-borne encephalitis in a high-risk population in Sweden. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1992;11(10):894-900. 10.1007/BF01962369 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Haglund M, Günther G. Tick-borne encephalitis--pathogenesis, clinical course and long-term follow-up. Vaccine. 2003;21(Suppl 1):S11-8. 10.1016/S0264-410X(02)00811-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Epidemiological situation of tick-borne encephalitis in the European Union and European Free Trade Association countries. Stockholm: ECDC; 2012. Available from: http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications/Publications/TBE-in-EU-EFTA.pdf
  • 7. Suss J. Tick-borne encephalitis in Europe and beyond--the epidemiological situation as of 2007. Euro Surveill. 2008;13(26):18916. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Süss J. Tick-borne encephalitis 2010: epidemiology, risk areas, and virus strains in Europe and Asia-an overview. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2011;2(1):2-15. 10.1016/j.ttbdis.2010.10.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.European Commision. Commission implementing decision of 8 August 2012 amending Decision 2002/253/EC laying down case definitions for reporting communicable diseases to the Community network under Decision No 2119/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. Off J Eur Union 2012;55(L 262):1–57. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.3000/19770677.L_2012.262.eng [DOI]
  • 10. Grgič-Vitek M, Klavs I. High burden of tick-borne encephalitis in Slovenia--challenge for vaccination policy. Vaccine. 2011;29(32):5178-83. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.05.033 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Vaccines against tick-borne encephalitis: WHO position paper. Wkly Epidemiol Rec. 2011;86(24):241-56. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Heinz FX, Holzmann H, Essl A, Kundi M. Field effectiveness of vaccination against tick-borne encephalitis. Vaccine. 2007;25(43):7559-67. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2007.08.024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Kunz C. TBE vaccination and the Austrian experience. Vaccine. 2003;21(Suppl 1):S50-5. 10.1016/S0264-410X(02)00813-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Grgic-Vitek M, Klavs I. Low coverage and predictors of vaccination uptake against tick-borne encephalitis in Slovenia. Eur J Public Health. 2012;22(2):182-6. 10.1093/eurpub/ckr018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Košnik IG, Lah AK. A campaign to increase the vaccination rate in a highly endemic tick-borne encephalitis region of Slovenia. Vaccine. 2013;31(5):732-4. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.12.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Rapola S. National immunization program in Finland. Int J Circumpolar Health. 2007;66(5):382-9. 10.3402/ijch.v66i5.18310 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Lucenko I, Jansone I, Velicko I, Pujate E. Tickborne encephalitis in Latvia. Euro Surveill. 2004;8(26):2495. [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Mangen M-JJ, Plass D, Havelaar AH, Gibbons CL, Cassini A, Mühlberger N, et al. The pathogen- and incidence-based DALY approach: an appropriate [corrected] methodology for estimating the burden of infectious diseases. PLoS One. 2013;8(11):e79740. 10.1371/journal.pone.0079740 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Kretzschmar M, Mangen M-JJ, Pinheiro P, Jahn B, Fèvre EM, Longhi S, et al. New methodology for estimating the burden of infectious diseases in Europe. PLoS Med. 2012;9(4):e1001205. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001205 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Colzani E, Cassini A, Lewandowski D, Mangen MJ, Plass D, McDonald SA, et al. A Software Tool for Estimation of Burden of Infectious Diseases in Europe Using Incidence-Based Disability Adjusted Life Years. PLoS One. 2017;12(1):e0170662. 10.1371/journal.pone.0170662 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Murray CJ. Quantifying the burden of disease: the technical basis for disability-adjusted life years. Bull World Health Organ. 1994;72(3):429-45. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Murray CJL, Ezzati M, Flaxman AD, Lim S, Lozano R, Michaud C, et al. GBD 2010: design, definitions, and metrics. Lancet. 2012;380(9859):2063-6. 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61899-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Haagsma JA, Maertens de Noordhout C, Polinder S, Vos T, Havelaar AH, Cassini A, et al. Assessing disability weights based on the responses of 30,660 people from four European countries. Popul Health Metr. 2015;13(1):10. 10.1186/s12963-015-0042-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Salomon JA, Haagsma JA, Davis A, de Noordhout CM, Polinder S, Havelaar AH, et al. Disability weights for the Global Burden of Disease 2013 study. Lancet Glob Health. 2015;3(11):e712-23. 10.1016/S2214-109X(15)00069-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). Burden of communicable diseases in Europe Toolkit. Application to calculate DALYs. Version 1.1. Stockholm: ECDC; 2015. Available from: http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/healthtopics/burden_of_communicable_diseases/Pages/Tool.aspx
  • 26.Vose D. Risk Analysis: A Quantitative Guide. 2nd ed. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd; 2001. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Eurostat database. Brussels: European Commission. [Accessed 1 Sep 2015]. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database
  • 28. Stefanoff P, Polkowska A, Giambi C, Levy-Bruhl D, O’Flanagan D, Dematte L, et al. Reliable surveillance of tick-borne encephalitis in European countries is necessary to improve the quality of vaccine recommendations. Vaccine. 2011;29(6):1283-8. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2010.11.077 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Colzani E. Results from the 2015 Burden of Communicable Diseases in Europe (BCoDE) study. Milan: European Public Health Conference, 14-18 October; 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Cassini A, Plachouras D, Eckmanns T, Abu Sin M, Blank HP, Ducomble T, et al. Burden of Six Healthcare-Associated Infections on European Population Health: Estimating Incidence-Based Disability-Adjusted Life Years through a Population Prevalence-Based Modelling Study. PLoS Med. 2016;13(10):e1002150. 10.1371/journal.pone.0144988 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.National Institute of Public Health (NIJZ). Epidemiološko spremljanje nalezljivih bolezni v sloveniji v letu 2013. [Epidemiological surveillance of communicable disease in Slovenia in 2013]. Ljubljana: NIJZ; 2014. Slovenian. Available from: http://www.nijz.si/sites/www.nijz.si/files/publikacije-datoteke/epidemilosko_spremljanje_nalezljivih_bolezni_2013.pdf
  • 32. Šmit R, Postma MJ. The Burden of Tick-Borne Encephalitis in Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) for Slovenia. PLoS One. 2015;10(12):e0144988. 10.1371/journal.pone.0144988 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Askling HH, Insulander M, Hergens M-P, Leval A. Tick borne encephalitis (TBE)-vaccination coverage and analysis of variables associated with vaccination, Sweden. Vaccine. 2015;33(38):4962-8. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.07.030 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Slunge D. The Willingness to Pay for Vaccination against Tick-Borne Encephalitis and Implications for Public Health Policy: Evidence from Sweden. PLoS One. 2015;10(12):e0143875. 10.1371/journal.pone.0143875 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Loew-Baselli A, Poellabauer EM, Pavlova BG, Fritsch S, Firth C, Petermann R, et al. Prevention of tick-borne encephalitis by FSME-IMMUN vaccines: review of a clinical development programme. Vaccine. 2011;29(43):7307-19. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.07.089 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Beran J, Xie F, Zent O. Five year follow-up after a first booster vaccination against tick-borne encephalitis following different primary vaccination schedules demonstrates long-term antibody persistence and safety. Vaccine. 2014;32(34):4275-80. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.06.028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Cizman M, Rakar R, Zakotnik B, Pokorn M, Arnez M. Severe forms of tick-borne encephalitis in children. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 1999;111(12):484-7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Fröding I, Hjertqvist M. [Severe TBE with sequelae can also affect young children. Vaccination advice to children should be individualized, degree of exposure essential]. Lakartidningen. 2013;110(42):1861-4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39. Sundin M, Hansson MEA, Engman M-L, Orvell C, Lindquist L, Wide K, et al. Pediatric tick-borne infections of the central nervous system in an endemic region of Sweden: a prospective evaluation of clinical manifestations. Eur J Pediatr. 2012;171(2):347-52. 10.1007/s00431-011-1542-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Schmolck H, Maritz E, Kletzin I, Korinthenberg R. Neurologic, neuropsychologic, and electroencephalographic findings after European tick-borne encephalitis in children. J Child Neurol. 2005;20(6):500-8. 10.1177/088307380502000606 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41. Engman M-L, Lindström K, Sallamba M, Hertz C, Sundberg B, Hansson MEA, et al. One-year follow-up of tick-borne central nervous system infections in childhood. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2012;31(6):570-4. 10.1097/INF.0b013e31824f23c0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42. Hansson MEA, Orvell C, Engman M-L, Wide K, Lindquist L, Lidefelt K-J, et al. Tick-borne encephalitis in childhood: rare or missed? Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2011;30(4):355-7. 10.1097/INF.0b013e3181fe3b5a [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43. Lidefelt K-J, Lindquist L, Engman M-L, Sundin M. [TBE (tick-borne encephalitis) in childhood--is it dangerous?]. Lakartidningen. 2013;110(9-10):452-3. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44. Leistner C, Dahlem P. Tick-borne meningoencephalitis in a 4.5-month-old infant. Klin Padiatr. 2011;223(4):242-3. 10.1055/s-0030-1263193 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45. Fowler Å, Forsman L, Eriksson M, Wickström R. Tick-borne encephalitis carries a high risk of incomplete recovery in children. J Pediatr. 2013;163(2):555-60. 10.1016/j.jpeds.2013.01.037 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46. Fritsch P, Gruber-Sedlmayr U, Pansi H, Zöhrer B, Mutz I, Spork D, et al. Tick-borne encephalitis in Styrian children from 1981 to 2005: a retrospective study and a review of the literature. Acta Paediatr. 2008;97(5):535-8. 10.1111/j.1651-2227.2008.00763.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47. Gibbons CL, Mangen M-JJ, Plass D, Havelaar AH, Brooke RJ, Kramarz P, et al. Measuring underreporting and under-ascertainment in infectious disease datasets: a comparison of methods. BMC Public Health. 2014;14(1):147. 10.1186/1471-2458-14-147 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Eurosurveillance are provided here courtesy of European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control

RESOURCES