Thompson Kimberly M, Duintjer Tebbens Radboud J
Kid Risk, Inc, 10524 Moss Park Rd., Ste. 204-364, Orlando, FL, 32832, USA.
BMC Infect Dis. 2015 Sep 17;15:374. doi: 10.1186/s12879-015-1113-7.
World leaders remain committed to globally-coordinated oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) cessation following successful eradication of wild polioviruses, but the best timing and strategy for implementation depend on existing and emerging conditions.
Using an existing integrated global poliovirus risk management model, we explore alternatives to the current timing plan of coordinated cessation of each OPV serotype (i.e., OPV1, OPV2, and OPV3 cessation for serotypes 1, 2, and 3, respectively). We assume the current timing plan involves OPV2 cessation in 2016 followed by OPV1 and OPV3 cessation in 2019 and we compare this to alternative timing options, including cessation of all three serotypes in 2018 or 2019, and cessation of both OPV2 and OPV3 in 2017 followed by OPV1 in 2019.
If Supplemtal Immunization Activity frequency remains sufficiently high through cessation of the last OPV serotype, then all OPV cessation timing options prevent circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus (cVDPV) outbreaks after OPV cessation of any serotype. The various OPV cessation timing options result in relatively modest differences in expected vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis cases and expected total of approximately 10-13 billion polio vaccine doses used. However, the expected amounts of vaccine of different OPV formulations needed changes dramatically with each OPV cessation timing option. Overall health economic impacts remain limited for timing options that only change the OPV formulation but preserve the currently planned year for cessation of the last OPV serotype and the global introduction of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) introduction. Earlier cessation of the last OPV serotype or later global IPV introduction yield approximately $1 billion in incremental net benefits due to saved vaccination costs, although the logistics of implementation of OPV cessation remain uncertain and challenging.
All countries should maintain the highest possible levels of population immunity to transmission for each poliovirus serotype prior to the coordinated cessation of the OPV serotype to manage cVDPV risks. If OPV2 cessation gets delayed, then global health leaders should consider other OPV cessation timing options.
在成功根除野生脊髓灰质炎病毒后,世界各国领导人仍致力于全球协调停止口服脊髓灰质炎病毒疫苗(OPV)的使用,但其最佳实施时机和策略取决于现有及新出现的情况。
我们使用现有的全球脊髓灰质炎病毒综合风险管理模型,探讨替代当前按每种OPV血清型(即分别针对血清型1、2和3停止使用OPV1、OPV2和OPV3)协调停止使用计划的方案。我们假设当前的停止使用计划是在2016年停止使用OPV2,随后在2019年停止使用OPV1和OPV3,并将其与其他替代的停止使用时机选项进行比较,包括在2018年或2019年停止使用所有三种血清型,以及在2017年停止使用OPV2和OPV3,随后在2019年停止使用OPV1。
如果在停止使用最后一种OPV血清型之前补充免疫活动频率保持足够高,那么所有OPV停止使用时机选项都能预防在停止使用任何血清型OPV后发生的疫苗衍生脊髓灰质炎病毒(cVDPV)疫情。不同的OPV停止使用时机选项在预期的疫苗相关麻痹性脊髓灰质炎病例以及预期总共使用约100 - 130亿剂脊髓灰质炎疫苗方面导致的差异相对较小。然而,随着每个OPV停止使用时机选项的不同,所需不同OPV制剂的预期疫苗量会发生显著变化。对于仅改变OPV制剂但保留当前计划的最后一种OPV血清型停止使用年份以及全球引入灭活脊髓灰质炎病毒疫苗(IPV)的时机选项,总体健康经济影响仍然有限。由于节省了疫苗接种成本,提前停止使用最后一种OPV血清型或推迟全球IPV引入可产生约10亿美元的增量净效益,尽管OPV停止使用的实施后勤工作仍不确定且具有挑战性。
在协调停止使用OPV血清型之前,所有国家应维持针对每种脊髓灰质炎病毒血清型尽可能高的人群传播免疫力水平,以管理cVDPV风险。如果OPV2停止使用被推迟,那么全球卫生领导人应考虑其他OPV停止使用时机选项。