The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) has recorded a rise in bacterial infections transmitted through sexual contact that is the highest in the last decade. Against this backdrop, questions have once again arisen about the effectiveness of detecting and controlling the spread of infections.
In Kazakhstan, the topic of infection safety has also recently come under the spotlight. At a briefing by the Central Communications Service (CCS) under the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan, representatives of the Ministry of Health answered questions about the diagnosis of brucellosis, fake medical records, and sanitary control. Despite the difference in topics, both stories are united by one question: how far does the current control system actually allow us to see the real risks.
DECADE-HIGH RECORD
In 2024, the incidence of gonorrhoea in Europe reached 106,331 cases - an increase of 303% since 2015. The number of reported cases of syphilis exceeded 45,000, having more than doubled over the decade. Chlamydia remains the most common sexually transmitted infection. 213,443 cases were reported for 2025.
The rise in congenital syphilis is causing particular concern among specialists. In 14 countries, the number of cases increased from 78 in 2023 to 140 in 2024.
WHAT THE KAZAKHSTANI BRIEFING REVEALED
In Kazakhstan, infectious diseases have also been in the spotlight, becoming the subject of a recent CCS briefing. The officials' responses to questions from the FBRK essentially boiled down to one theme: how far do the current control mechanisms actually help in identifying risks in a timely manner.
The FBRK editorial team has previously reported in detail on the problems of diagnosing brucellosis. According to the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Biological Safety", laboratory diagnostics for brucellosis can only be carried out by state organisations.
This restriction is explained by the fact that the pathogen belongs to the second pathogenicity group, meaning that working with it requires enhanced safety measures. However, according to the Ministry of Health's own data, in 2025, there were no cases of intra-laboratory infection of staff reported.
An obvious contradiction arises. Private laboratories cannot carry out diagnostics for the disease, but at the same time, they are entitled to work with the biomaterial of patients whose diagnosis has already been confirmed, performing other laboratory tests.
CONTROL WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO INSPECT
A similar logic was heard in response to a question about fake medical examinations for catering workers.
Due to restrictions on unannounced inspections, inspectors cannot always quickly identify violations. The state is trying to compensate for this with digital tools.
Since 1 January 2025, personal medical records have been transferred to an electronic format, and the results of medical examinations are automatically transmitted to the medical information system.
But it goes without saying that digital solutions do not replace the ability to identify violations in a timely manner.
DOES THE STATISTICS FULLY REFLECT THE SITUATION?
This same question arises when analysing statistics on sexually transmitted infections.
Officially, the incidence of syphilis in Kazakhstan is declining: from 8.5 per 100,000 population in 2024 (1,706 cases) to 8.3 in 2025 (1,678 cases), and since 2020, the rate has fallen by almost half. At the same time, the incidence of chlamydia in 2025 increased by 12.1%.
As dermatovenerologist Gulnara Abeteyeva notes, official statistics may not cover some patients undergoing treatment in private clinics.
In other words, the dynamics of the indicators depend not only on the actual spread of diseases but also on the completeness of their detection and recording. A similar question arises in the situation with brucellosis diagnostics, where the involvement of private laboratories is restricted by legislation.
Ultimately, the European rise in STIs and the Kazakhstani discussions about brucellosis, medical records, and sanitary control are united not by the nature of the diseases themselves, but by a broader question - how far does the existing epidemiological control system allow the state to see the full picture and respond in a timely manner to emerging risks.
