Primary reliance on inactivated poliovirus vaccine would result in more cases of paralytic poliomyelitis compared to continued oral poliomyelitis vaccine use (74.1 vs 10.0 cases).
Absolute Event Rate: 74.1% vs 10%
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.
Hinman et al. (Tue,) conducted a other in Poliomyelitis (n=3,500,000). Inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) vs. Oral poliomyelitis vaccine (OPV) was evaluated on Cases of paralytic poliomyelitis. Primary reliance on inactivated poliovirus vaccine would result in more cases of paralytic poliomyelitis compared to continued oral poliomyelitis vaccine use (74.1 vs 10.0 cases).