Why the study?
Does a sequential IPV-OPV vaccination scheme reduce the incidence of vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis compared to an OPV-only scheme?
Does a sequential IPV-OPV vaccination scheme reduce the incidence of vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis compared to an OPV-only scheme?
The sequential IPV-OPV vaccination scheme reduced the incidence of vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis compared to the OPV-only scheme in the Russian Federation.
Sequential IPV-OPV schedules may reduce VAPP incidence versus OPV alone; leaves open optimal transition strategies for global polio programs.
OBJECTIVES: Different polio vaccination schemes have been used in Russia: oral polio vaccine (OPV) was used in 1998-2007 and inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) followed by OPV in 2008-2014. This article presents the characteristics of vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP) cases in Russia during this period. METHODS: VAPP cases were identified through the acute flaccid paralysis surveillance system, classified by the National Expert Classification Committee. Criteria for a 'recipient VAPP' (rVAPP) case were poliomyelitis symptoms 6-30days after OPV administration, isolation of the vaccine virus, and residual paralysis 60days after disease onset. Unvaccinated cases with a similar picture 6-60days after contact with an OPV recipient were classified as 'contact VAPP' (cVAPP) cases. RESULTS: During 1998-2014, 127 VAPP cases were registered: 82 rVAPP and 45 cVAPP. During the period in which only OPV was used, rVAPP cases prevailed (73.8%); cases of rVAPP were reduced during the sequential scheme period (15%). Poliovirus type 3 (39.5%) and type 2 (23.7%) were isolated more often. Vaccine-derived poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3 were isolated from three cases of cVAPP. The incidence of VAPP cases was higher during the period of OPV use (1 case/1.59 million OPV doses) than during the sequential scheme period (1 case/4.18 million doses). CONCLUSION: The risk of VAPP exists if OPV remains in the vaccination schedule.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ivanova et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: