The Journal of infectious diseases · 2017
Lessons From Globally Coordinated Cessation of Serotype 2 Oral Poliovirus Vaccine for the Remaining Serotypes.
СтатьяПоддержка службы здравоохранения СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Thompson Kimberly M, Duintjer Tebbens Radboud J
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Comparing model expectations with the experience of oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) containing serotype 2 (OPV2) cessation can inform risk management for the expected cessation of OPV containing serotypes 1 and 3 (OPV13).
METHODS: We compare the expected post-OPV2-cessation OPV2-related viruses from models with the evidence available approximately 6 months after OPV2 cessation. We also model the trade-offs of use vs nonuse of monovalent OPV (mOPV) for outbreak response considering all 3 serotypes.
RESULTS: Although too early to tell definitively, the observed die-out of OPV2-related viruses in populations that attained sufficiently intense trivalent OPV (tOPV) use prior to OPV2 cessation appears consistent with model expectations. As expected, populations that did not intensify tOPV use prior to OPV2 cessation show continued circulation of serotype 2 vaccine-derived polioviruses (VDPVs). Failure to aggressively use mOPV to respond to circulating VDPVs results in a high risk of uncontrolled outbreaks that would require restarting OPV.
CONCLUSIONS: Ensuring a successful endgame requires more aggressive OPV cessation risk management than has occurred to date for OPV2 cessation. This includes maintaining high population immunity to transmission up until OPV13 cessation, meeting all prerequisites for OPV cessation, and ensuring sufficient vaccine supply to prevent and respond to outbreaks.
METHODS: We compare the expected post-OPV2-cessation OPV2-related viruses from models with the evidence available approximately 6 months after OPV2 cessation. We also model the trade-offs of use vs nonuse of monovalent OPV (mOPV) for outbreak response considering all 3 serotypes.
RESULTS: Although too early to tell definitively, the observed die-out of OPV2-related viruses in populations that attained sufficiently intense trivalent OPV (tOPV) use prior to OPV2 cessation appears consistent with model expectations. As expected, populations that did not intensify tOPV use prior to OPV2 cessation show continued circulation of serotype 2 vaccine-derived polioviruses (VDPVs). Failure to aggressively use mOPV to respond to circulating VDPVs results in a high risk of uncontrolled outbreaks that would require restarting OPV.
CONCLUSIONS: Ensuring a successful endgame requires more aggressive OPV cessation risk management than has occurred to date for OPV2 cessation. This includes maintaining high population immunity to transmission up until OPV13 cessation, meeting all prerequisites for OPV cessation, and ensuring sufficient vaccine supply to prevent and respond to outbreaks.