Hinman A R, Koplan J P, Orenstein W A, Brink E W, Nkowane B M
Division of Immunization, CDC, Atlanta, GA 30333.
Am J Public Health. 1988 Mar;78(3):291-5. doi: 10.2105/ajph.78.3.291.
Using decision analysis we evaluated the benefits and risks of continued primary reliance on oral poliomyelitis vaccine (OPV) compared to use of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV). We followed a hypothetical cohort of 3.5 million children from birth to age 30 assuming 95 per cent coverage with 98 per cent effective vaccine. Primary reliance on IPV would result in more cases of paralytic poliomyelitis as well as more susceptibles remaining in the population than would be expected with continuing OPV use (74.1 vs 10.0 cases and 5.9 per cent vs 1.1 per cent susceptibles, respectively). However, with OPV use, most cases of paralysis seen would be associated with the vaccine. Our analysis supports a continuation of current US policy placing primary reliance on OPV but the conclusion is heavily dependent on assumptions of risk of exposure to wild virus in the United States. Major declines in risk of exposure to wild virus could alter the balance significantly.
我们运用决策分析方法,评估了与使用灭活脊髓灰质炎病毒疫苗(IPV)相比,继续主要依赖口服脊髓灰质炎疫苗(OPV)的益处和风险。我们追踪了一个假设的350万儿童队列,从出生到30岁,假设疫苗覆盖率为95%,有效性为98%。与继续使用OPV相比,主要依赖IPV会导致更多的麻痹性脊髓灰质炎病例,以及人群中更多的易感者(分别为74.1例对10.0例,易感者比例为5.9%对1.1%)。然而,使用OPV时,所见的大多数麻痹病例将与疫苗相关。我们的分析支持美国继续目前主要依赖OPV的政策,但这一结论在很大程度上依赖于美国接触野生病毒风险的假设。接触野生病毒风险的大幅下降可能会显著改变这种平衡。