McBean A M, Modlin J F
Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health, Baltimore, MD 20205.
Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1987 Oct;6(10):881-7. doi: 10.1097/00006454-198710000-00001.
Despite the concerns mentioned in the last section, there are many reasons to believe that a polio immunization schedule that incorporates sequential doses of inactivated poliovirus vaccine and live attenuated poliovirus vaccine would provide both humoral and intestinal immunity to the fully immunized person that is at least as good, if not better, than the immunity achieved by the use of IPV or OPV alone. A substantial degree of protection should also extend to partially immunized and unimmunized preschool aged children in the community. Furthermore most of the cases of OPV-associated paralytic poliomyelitis could be prevented. Because the reasons for these beliefs are based on data from small studies and on inferences from related research, specific recommendations for a change from current polio immunization policy must depend on additional clinical research. Well-designed trials comparing several different options for sequencing both inactivated and live vaccines are needed, and these studies should focus carefully on both humoral and intestinal immunity conferred by the various vaccine schedules.
尽管上一节提到了一些担忧,但有很多理由相信,采用灭活脊髓灰质炎病毒疫苗和减毒活脊髓灰质炎病毒疫苗序贯接种的脊髓灰质炎免疫程序,能为完全免疫的人提供体液免疫和肠道免疫,即便不比单独使用灭活脊髓灰质炎疫苗(IPV)或口服脊髓灰质炎疫苗(OPV)所获得的免疫力更好,至少也一样好。相当程度的保护作用还应能扩展至社区中部分免疫和未免疫的学龄前儿童。此外,大多数与口服脊髓灰质炎疫苗相关的麻痹性脊髓灰质炎病例是可以预防的。由于这些观点的依据是小型研究的数据以及相关研究的推断,因此要改变当前的脊髓灰质炎免疫政策,具体建议必须依赖于更多的临床研究。需要开展精心设计的试验,比较灭活疫苗和活疫苗几种不同序贯接种方案,而且这些研究应密切关注各种疫苗接种程序所赋予的体液免疫和肠道免疫。