-
Expert Opinion on Drug Safety May 2024Vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP) is a rare adverse event of oral poliovirus vaccines (OPV), particularly affecting immunodeficient individuals.
BACKGROUND
Vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP) is a rare adverse event of oral poliovirus vaccines (OPV), particularly affecting immunodeficient individuals.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
This study aimed to (1) Assess the association between OPV and VAPP using Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database (2) Outline patient characteristics and risk factors associated with the occurrence of VAPP in OPV recipients through a systematic review of case reports and case series. A disproportionality analysis was conducted using the data from VAERS, encompassing adverse events reported from 1990 till February 2023. Additionally, we conducted a systematic review of case reports and case series using PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases.
RESULTS
The VAERS data revealed 130 VAPP reports among 1,739,903 OPV linked adverse events, with year 2010 reporting the strongest association. The systematic review of 37 studies highlighted VAPP occurrence within 2 months to 4 years post-vaccination, typically with acute flaccid paralysis. Immunodeficiency and perianal abscess emerged as major risk factors. Out of the 37 included studies, 27 showed consistent causal association of VAPP with OPV using WHO-AEFI causality assessment tool.
CONCLUSION
The study emphasized the seriousness of VAPP and highlights its association with OPV, identifying immunodeficiency as a prominent contributor to VAPP manifestation.
PubMed: 38813942
DOI: 10.1080/14740338.2024.2359616 -
Conflict and Health Apr 2024Conflict situations, armed or not, have been associated with emergence and transmission of infectious diseases. This review aims to identify the pathways through which... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Conflict situations, armed or not, have been associated with emergence and transmission of infectious diseases. This review aims to identify the pathways through which infectious diseases emerge within conflict situations and to outline appropriate infectious disease preparedness and response strategies.
METHODS
A systematic review was performed representing published evidence from January 2000 to October 2023. Ovid Medline and Embase were utilised to obtain literature on infectious diseases in any conflict settings. The systematic review adhered to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis). No geographical restrictions were imposed.
FINDINGS
Our review identified 51 studies covering AIDS, Hepatitis B, Tuberculosis, Cholera, Coronavirus 2, Ebola, Poliomyelitis, Malaria, Leishmaniasis, Measles, Diphtheria, Dengue and Acute Bacterial Meningitis within conflict settings in Europe, Middle East, Asia, and Africa since October 2023. Key factors contributing to disease emergence and transmission in conflict situations included population displacement, destruction of vital infrastructure, reduction in functioning healthcare systems and healthcare personnel, disruption of disease control programmes (including reduced surveillance, diagnostic delays, and interrupted vaccinations), reduced access by healthcare providers to populations within areas of active conflict, increased population vulnerability due to limited access to healthcare services, and disruptions in the supply chain of safe water, food, and medication. To mitigate these infectious disease risks reported preparedness and response strategies included both disease-specific intervention strategies as well as broader concepts such as the education of conflict-affected populations through infectious disease awareness programmes, investing in and enabling health care in locations with displaced populations, intensifying immunisation campaigns, and ensuring political commitment and intersectoral collaborations between governments and international organisations.
CONCLUSION
Conflict plays a direct and indirect role in the transmission and propagation of infectious diseases. The findings from this review can assist decision-makers in the development of evidence-based preparedness and response strategies for the timely and effective containment of infectious disease outbreaks in conflict zones and amongst conflict-driven displaced populations.
FUNDING
European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control under specific contract No. 22 ECD.13,154 within Framework contract ECDC/2019/001 Lot 1B.
PubMed: 38584269
DOI: 10.1186/s13031-023-00568-z -
Vaccine Feb 2024Delays in achieving polio eradication have led to ongoing risks of poliovirus importations that may cause outbreaks in polio-free countries. Because of the low, but...
Trade-offs of different poliovirus vaccine options for outbreak response in the United States and other countries that only use inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) in routine immunization.
Delays in achieving polio eradication have led to ongoing risks of poliovirus importations that may cause outbreaks in polio-free countries. Because of the low, but non-zero risk of paralysis with oral poliovirus vaccines (OPVs), countries that achieve and maintain high national routine immunization coverage have increasingly shifted to exclusive use of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) for all preventive immunizations. However, immunization coverage within countries varies, with under-vaccinated subpopulations potentially able to sustain transmission of imported polioviruses and experience local outbreaks. Due to its cost, ease-of-use, and ability to induce mucosal immunity, using OPV as an outbreak control measure offers a more cost-effective option in countries in which OPV remains in use. However, recent polio outbreaks in IPV-only countries raise questions about whether and when IPV use for outbreak response may fail to stop poliovirus transmission and what consequences may follow from using OPV for outbreak response in these countries. We systematically reviewed the literature to identify modeling studies that explored the use of IPV for outbreak response in IPV-only countries. In addition, applying a model of the 2022 type 2 poliovirus outbreak in New York, we characterized the implications of using different OPV formulations for outbreak response instead of IPV. We also explored the hypothetical scenario of the same outbreak except for type 1 poliovirus instead of type 2. We find that using IPV for outbreak response will likely only stop outbreaks for polioviruses of relatively low transmission potential in countries with very high overall immunization coverage, seasonal transmission dynamics, and only if IPV immunization interventions reach some unvaccinated individuals. Using OPV for outbreak response in IPV-only countries poses substantial risks and challenges that require careful consideration, but may represent an option to consider for some outbreaks in some populations depending on the properties of the available vaccines and coverage attainable.
Topics: Humans; United States; Poliovirus Vaccine, Inactivated; Poliovirus; Poliovirus Vaccine, Oral; Poliomyelitis; Disease Outbreaks; Vaccination; New York
PubMed: 38218668
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2023.12.081