Why the study?
Under what circumstances should inactivated poliomyelitis vaccine (IPV) or live oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) be used in the United States?
Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Design
Editorial
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This editorial discusses the trade-offs between the safety of IPV and the immunizing power of OPV for polio prevention in the United States.
To the Editor:— Two excellent vaccines are in current use to protect against poliomyelitis. Inactivated poliomyelitis vaccine (IPV) developed by Salk has been widely used since 1955. IPV is characterized by complete safety, imperfect immunizing power, and the need for percutaneous administration. Live oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) developed by Sabin has been widely used in the United States since 1961, mostly in community immunization programs. OPV is characterized by a very small risk of poliomyelitis, very high immunizing power, and the convenience of oral administration. Each vaccine has proved its ability to bring poliomyelitis under control. The question remains, under what circumstances should each vaccine be used in the United States today? The answer should be based on a critical analysis that predicts which vaccine will prevent more cases of poliomyelitis. The answer may be different for different segments of the population and changing from time to time. Present recommendations
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Elton Kessel (1966) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: