Friday, 16th of November 2012 |
Original Text
Dr Kathleen M O'Reilly PhD a , Elias Durry MD b, Obaid ul Islam MBBS b, Arshad Quddus MSc c, Ni'ma Abid FICM b, Tahir P Mir MPH d, Rudi H Tangermann MD e, R Bruce Aylward MD e, Nicholas C Grassly DPhil a
The Lancet, Volume 380, Issue 9840, Pages 491 - 498, 4 August 2012
)
Published Online: 04 July 2012
Full text is at
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(12)60648-5/fulltext
Summary
Background
Pakistan and Afghanistan are two of the three remaining countries yet to interrupt wild-type poliovirus transmission. The increasing incidence of poliomyelitis in these countries during 2010—11 led the Executive Board of WHO in January, 2012, to declare polio eradication a “programmatic emergency for global public health”. We aimed to establish why incidence is rising in these countries despite programme innovations including the introduction of new vaccines.
Methods
We did a matched case-control analysis based on a database of 46 977 children aged 0—14 years with onset of acute flaccid paralysis between Jan 1, 2001, and Dec 31, 2011. The vaccination history of children with poliomyelitis was compared with that of children with acute flaccid paralysis due to other causes to estimate the clinical effectiveness of oral poliovirus vaccines (OPVs) in Afghanistan and Pakistan by conditional logistic regression. We estimated vaccine coverage and serotype-specific vaccine-induced population immunity in children aged 0—2 years and assessed their association with the incidence of poliomyelitis over time in seven regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Findings
Between Jan 1, 2001, and Dec 31, 2011, there were 883 cases of serotype 1 poliomyelitis (710 in Pakistan and 173 in Afghanistan) and 272 cases of poliomyelitis serotype 3 (216 in Pakistan and 56 in Afghanistan). The estimated clinical effectiveness of a dose of trivalent OPV against serotype 1 poliomyelitis was 12·5% (95% CI 5·6—18·8) compared with 34·5% (16·1—48·9) for monovalent OPV (p=0·007) and 23·4% (10·4—34·6) for bivalent OPV (p=0·067). Bivalent OPV was non-inferior compared with monovalent OPV (p=0·21). Vaccination coverage decreased during 2006—11 in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), Balochistan, and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in Pakistan and in southern Afghanistan. Although partially mitigated by the use of more effective vaccines, these decreases in coverage resulted in lower vaccine-induced population immunity to poliovirus serotype 1 in FATA and Balochistan and associated increases in the incidence of poliomyelitis.
Interpretation
The effectiveness of bivalent OPV is comparable with monovalent OPV and can therefore be used in eradicating serotype 1 poliomyelitis whilst minimising the risks of serotype 3 outbreaks. However, decreases in vaccination coverage in parts of Pakistan and southern Afghanistan have severely limited the effect of this vaccine.
Funding
Poliovirus Research subcommittee of WHO, Royal Society, and Medical Research Council.
Are three drugs for malaria better than two?
Friday, 24th of April 2020 |
Public health Interventions and epidemic intensity during the 1918 influenza pandemic
Thursday, 16th of April 2020 |
Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine as available weapons to fight COVID-19
Tuesday, 17th of March 2020 |
Using models to shape measles control and elimination strategies in low- and middle-income countries: A review of recent applications
Monday, 17th of February 2020 |
Immunization Agenda 2030
Tuesday, 11th of February 2020 |
41036032 |
www.measlesinitiative.org www.technet21.org www.polioeradication.org www.globalhealthlearning.org www.who.int/bulletin allianceformalariaprevention.com www.malariaworld.org http://www.panafrican-med-journal.com/ |