Davis Robert, Mbabazi William Baguma
American Red Cross, PO Box 41275-00100, Nairobi, Kenya.
African Field Epidemiology Network, Lugogo House, Plot 42, Lugogo By-pass, P.O. Box 12874 Kampala, Uganda.
Pan Afr Med J. 2017 Jun 21;27(Suppl 3):11. doi: 10.11604/pamj.supp.2017.27.3.12553. eCollection 2017.
The case for global eradication of measles was first made in 1982. Since then, technical aspects of measles eradication have concluded that measles satisfied all criteria required for eradication. To date, only smallpox, among human diseases, has been eradicated, with polio, the next eradication candidate. In all previous eradication programmes, the pattern of slow implementation and missed deadlines is similar. Lessons from these past eradication programs should inform development of a time-limited measles eradication program. Notably, no measles eradication resolution is likely until member states are satisfied that polio eradication is accomplished. However, there is an impetus for measles eradication from the western hemisphere, where governments continue to pay the high costs of keeping their region measles free until global measles eradication is achieved. While previous vaccine preventable diseases eradications have depended on supplemental immunizations (SIAs), measles eradication will have to build both on SIAs and routine immunization systems strengthening. This article reviews non-technical considerations that could facilitate the delivery of a time-limited measles eradication initiative. The issues discussed are categorized as a) specificities of measles disease; b) specifics of measles vaccine/vaccination; c) special considerations for endemic countries and d) organization of international partnerships. The disease and vaccine specific issues are not insurmountable. The introduction of routine measles second dose, in the context of EPI systems strengthening, is paramount to endemic developing countries. In the international partnerships, it should be noted that i) Measles eradication will be easier and cheaper; ii) the return on investment is compelling; iii) leverage is feasible on the experiences of the Measles/Rubella initiative; iv) two disease eradication targets in one initiative are feasible and v) for the first time, an eradication investment case will inform the decisions. However, if previous eradication efforts have been marathons, measles eradication will need to be a sprint.
全球消除麻疹的目标最早于1982年提出。自那时起,麻疹消除工作的技术层面得出结论,麻疹满足消除所需的所有标准。迄今为止,在人类疾病中,只有天花已被消除,脊髓灰质炎是下一个有望被消除的疾病。在以往所有的消除计划中,实施缓慢和错过最后期限的模式都是相似的。这些过去的消除计划所吸取的经验教训应有助于制定一个有时限的麻疹消除计划。值得注意的是,在成员国确信脊髓灰质炎消除工作完成之前,不太可能有麻疹消除决议。然而,西半球有推动麻疹消除的动力,在那里,各国政府继续承担着高昂的成本,以保持其地区无麻疹状态,直到实现全球麻疹消除。虽然以往消除疫苗可预防疾病的工作依赖于补充免疫活动(SIAs),但麻疹消除工作将必须建立在补充免疫活动和加强常规免疫系统的基础上。本文回顾了有助于实施有时限的麻疹消除倡议的非技术因素。所讨论的问题分为以下几类:a)麻疹疾病的特殊性;b)麻疹疫苗/接种的特殊性;c)流行国家的特殊考虑因素;d)国际伙伴关系的组织。疾病和疫苗的具体问题并非无法克服。在加强扩大免疫规划(EPI)系统的背景下引入常规麻疹第二剂疫苗,对流行的发展中国家至关重要。在国际伙伴关系方面,应注意到:i)消除麻疹将更容易、更便宜;ii)投资回报率很高;iii)可以借鉴麻疹/风疹倡议的经验;iv)在一项倡议中实现两个疾病消除目标是可行的;v)首次将消除投资案例纳入决策过程。然而,如果以往的消除努力是马拉松式的,那么麻疹消除工作将需要全力冲刺。