Review of: "Oral Polio Vaccine Is Unsafe for the World and Should Be Replaced with Inactivated Poliovirus Vaccine Globally"
Résumé
This is a critical review that highlights author-perceived aws in the global polio eradication initiative and its progress to date.The author makes a number of important points, including the under-utilisation of IPV as a tool to enhance global polio eradication.This article draws attention to the previous inclusion of only 1 dose of IPV rather than 2 on the recommended immunisation schedule of the WHO.Inadequate upscaling of IPV is the most important contribution of the paper and warrants global discussion.The relative contribution of cost concerns, manufacturing constraints, insuf cient immunization coverage, and theoretical factors to the constraints on IPV use are not widely articulated by the WHO or the GPEI.However, the paper has a number of important omissions that need to be taken into consideration for this to be a balanced and thoroughly researched article.In particular, the following points should be elucidated for the readers:. The reason for the sustained use of OPV: While both IPV and OPV have high immunogenicity and work well to ensure that a vaccinated individual will not become paralysed on a future exposure to wild poliovirus, OPV creates intestinal immunity, which is valuable for decreasing the duration of poliovirus shedding if there is a future exposure to wild poliovirus or cVDPV.OPV is therefore valuable to interrupt the transmission of poliovirus within communities.Thus, both vaccines are good for individual protection from disease, but only OPV is good for preventing poliovirus transmission.
Citer ce document
Accès au document
Texte intégral en lecture en ligne, réservé aux abonnés SPHAERO et aux membres de l'institution. Se connecter
Voir l'article sur le site de la revueAuteur(s)
Statistiques
Consultations : 1
Téléchargements : 0