Published online August 1, 2006
PEDIATRICS Vol. 118 No. 2 August 2006, pp. 611-618 (doi:10.1542/peds.2005-2358)
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow P3Rs: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when P3Rs are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jenkins, P. C.
Right arrow Articles by Modlin, J. F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Jenkins, P. C.
Right arrow Articles by Modlin, J. F.
Related Collections
Right arrow Infectious Disease & Immunity
Right arrowRelated AAP Red Book topics:
Poliovirus Infections

ARTICLE

Decision Analysis in Planning for a Polio Outbreak in the United States

Pamela C. Jenkins, MD, PhDa and John F. Modlin, MDb

a Department of Pediatrics, Dartmouth Medical School, Hanover, New Hampshire
b Children's Hospital at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire

OBJECTIVE. Global eradication of poliomyelitis may soon be achieved, but circulating polioviruses could reemerge years after eradication by reversion of live attenuated oral vaccine virus to a virulent form, laboratory stock mishandling, or bioterrorism. If a poliomyelitis outbreak occurs in the United States, access to a vaccine stockpile to interrupt viral spread will be necessary. Options for the stockpile include the inactivated polio vaccine and the live-attenuated trivalent and monovalent oral poliovirus vaccines. With differences in immunogenicity, adverse effects, availability, and other issues, the optimal vaccine choice for the stockpile is not clear. We sought to compare vaccine interventions for poliomyelitis outbreak control.

DESIGN. We applied decision analysis to 8 strategies for outbreak control: no intervention, 1 or 2 inactivated polio vaccine doses, 1 or 2 trivalent oral poliovirus vaccine doses, 1 or 2 monovalent oral poliovirus vaccine doses, and sequential inactivated polio vaccine-monovalent oral poliovirus vaccine. Historical data from outbreaks in developed countries were used to estimate the risk of paralytic disease after a hypothetical reintroduction of circulating polioviruses. The outcome measure was cases of paralytic poliomyelitis.

RESULTS. Monovalent oral poliovirus vaccine provided optimal outbreak control in most scenarios because of high seroconversion rates with 1 dose. Control provided by trivalent oral poliovirus vaccine and inactivated polio vaccine was equivalent at high vaccine coverage rates. At low intervention rates, trivalent oral poliovirus vaccine produced fewer paralytic cases than inactivated polio vaccine in highly immune populations but more cases than inactivated polio vaccine in poorly immunized groups because of secondary transmission of oral poliovirus vaccine virus and vaccine-derived viruses.

CONCLUSIONS. This model suggests that monovalent oral poliovirus vaccine would be the most advantageous vaccine for outbreak control. If a monovalent oral poliovirus vaccine stockpile is impractical, the optimal vaccine choice depends on the previous immunity and the anticipated intervention rates.

Key Words: decision-making • polio • outcomes research • outbreak control

Abbreviations: OPV—oral poliovirus vaccine • VDPV—vaccine-derived poliovirus • IPV—inactivated poliovirus vaccine • tOPV—trivalent oral poliovirus vaccine • mOPV—monovalent oral poliovirus vaccine • VAPP—vaccine-associated paralytic polio • VDPV—vaccine-derived poliovirus

Accepted Mar 2, 2006.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am. J. Public HealthHome page
K. M. Thompson, R. J. D. Tebbens, M. A. Pallansch, O. M. Kew, R. W. Sutter, R. B. Aylward, M. Watkins, H. E. Gary Jr, J. Alexander, H. Jafari, et al.
The Risks, Costs, and Benefits of Possible Future Global Policies for Managing Polioviruses
Am J Public Health, July 1, 2008; 98(7): 1322 - 1330.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]