-
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 -
Vaccine Jun 2023The introduction of anti-poliomyelitis vaccines has driven progress toward the global eradication of wild polioviruses, a millennium goal of the World Health... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
The introduction of anti-poliomyelitis vaccines has driven progress toward the global eradication of wild polioviruses, a millennium goal of the World Health Organization. With the vaccination campaigns carried out since 1964, in 2002 Italy was certified polio-free, considering that no cases had been recorded since 1983. Nevertheless, it is crucial to guarantee high level of immunization coverage also in low-endemicity countries, considering that sporadic polio cases can be recorded. To evaluate the presence of susceptible subjects in the population, seroepidemiological studies are key actions.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of the relevant literature to evaluate the prevalence of anti-PV neutralizing antibodies in Italian population. Seven studies, selected among scientific articles available in MEDLINE/PubMed, ISI Web of Knowledge and Scopus and published from January 1, 2012, to November 15, 2022, were included.
RESULTS
The pooled prevalence of subjects without PV1 neutralizing antibodies was 6.4% (95%CI = 0.5-16.9), for PV2 it was 5.3% (95%CI = 0.4-14.2), and for PV3 it was 13.0% (95%CI = 4.0-25.7; I2 = 98.5%). Levels of neutralizing antibodies appears to decrease with increasing age; this decline is a proxy for the real risk factor, which is the time since the last vaccine dose.
CONCLUSIONS
Public health institutions must be aware of the risk of reintroduction of wild PV in polio-free countries and therefore they must keep high level of immunization in population and reinforce the active surveillance systems.
Topics: Humans; Poliovirus; Prevalence; Antibodies, Viral; Poliomyelitis; Poliovirus Vaccines; Antibodies, Neutralizing; Italy; Poliovirus Vaccine, Oral
PubMed: 37121798
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2023.04.047 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2021Viruses cause various human diseases, some of which become pandemic outbreaks. This study synthesized evidence on antiviral medicinal plants in Africa which could... (Review)
Review
Viruses cause various human diseases, some of which become pandemic outbreaks. This study synthesized evidence on antiviral medicinal plants in Africa which could potentially be further studied for viral infections including Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment. PUBMED, CINAHIL, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Google databases were searched through keywords; antiviral, plant, herb, and Africa were combined using "AND" and "OR". studies, studies, or clinical trials on botanical medicine used for the treatment of viruses in Africa were included. Thirty-six studies were included in the evidence synthesis. Three hundred and twenty-eight plants were screened for antiviral activities of which 127 showed noteworthy activities against 25 viral species. These, were Poliovirus (42 plants), HSV (34 plants), Coxsackievirus (16 plants), Rhinovirus (14plants), Influenza (12 plants), Astrovirus (11 plants), SARS-CoV-2 (10 plants), HIV (10 plants), Echovirus (8 plants), Parvovirus (6 plants), Semiliki forest virus (5 plants), Measles virus (5 plants), Hepatitis virus (3 plants), Canine distemper virus (3 plants), Zika virus (2 plants), Vesicular stomatitis virus T2 (2 plants). Feline herpesvirus (FHV-1), Enterovirus, Dengue virus, Ebola virus, Chikungunya virus, Yellow fever virus, Respiratory syncytial virus, Rift Valley fever virus, Human cytomegalovirus each showed sensitivities to one plant. The current study provided a list of African medicinal plants which demonstrated antiviral activities and could potentially be candidates for COVID-19 treatment. However, all studies were preliminary and screening. Further are required for plant-based management of viral diseases.
PubMed: 35002686
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2021.682794 -
BMJ Global Health Nov 2021The Global Polio Eradication Initiative uses polio supplementary immunisation activities (SIAs) as a strategy to increase vaccine coverage and cease poliovirus...
INTRODUCTION
The Global Polio Eradication Initiative uses polio supplementary immunisation activities (SIAs) as a strategy to increase vaccine coverage and cease poliovirus transmission. Impact of polio SIAs on immunisation systems is frequently debated. We reviewed the impact of polio SIAs on routine immunisation and health systems during the modern era of polio eradication.
METHODS
We searched nine databases for studies reporting on polio SIAs and immunisation coverage, financial investment, workforce and health services delivery. We conducted a narrative synthesis of evidence. Records prior to 1994, animal, modelling or case studies data were excluded.
RESULTS
20/1637 unique records were included. Data on vaccine coverage were included in 70% (14/20) studies, workforce in 65% (13/20) and health services delivery in 85% (17/20). SIAs positively contributed to vaccination uptake of non-polio vaccines in seven studies, neutral in three and negative in one. Some polio SIAs contributed to workforce strengthening through training and capacity building. Polio SIAs were accompanied with increased social mobilisation and community awareness building confidence in vaccination programmes. Included studies were programmatic in nature and contained variable data, thus could not be justly critically appraised.
CONCLUSION
Polio SIAs are successful at increasing polio vaccine coverage, but the resources and infrastructures were not always utilised for delivery of non-polio vaccines and integration into routine service delivery. We found a gap in standardised tools to evaluate SIAs, which can then inform service integration. Our study provides data to inform SIAs evaluations, and provides important considerations for COVID-19 vaccine roll-out to strengthen health systems.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42020152195.
Topics: COVID-19; COVID-19 Vaccines; Humans; Immunization; Immunization Programs; Poliomyelitis; SARS-CoV-2; Vaccination
PubMed: 34776411
DOI: 10.1136/bmjgh-2021-006568 -
Frontiers in Neurology 2021Myasthenia gravis (MG) is an autoimmune disorder of unknown etiology in most patients, in which autoantibodies target components of neuromuscular junctions and impair...
Myasthenia gravis (MG) is an autoimmune disorder of unknown etiology in most patients, in which autoantibodies target components of neuromuscular junctions and impair nerve to muscle transmission. To provide a synthesis of the evidence examining infectious agents associated with the onset of MG. We hypothesized that microbes play a pathogenic role in the initiation of MG. For clinical cases, the onset of clinical signs is used as a proxy for the true onset of autoimmunity. We searched PubMed and Web of Science. Papers captured through database searching ( = 827) were assessed, yielding a total of 42 publications meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria. An additional 6 papers were retrieved from the reference lists of relevant articles. For each pathogen, an integrated metric of evidence (IME) value, from minus 8 to plus 8, was computed based on study design, quality of data, confidence of infectious disease diagnosis, likelihood of a causal link between the pathogen and MG, confidence of MG diagnosis, and the number of infected patients. Negative IME values corresponded to studies providing evidence against a role for microbes as triggers of MG. One hundred and sixty-nine myasthenic patients infected with 21 different pathogens were documented. Epstein-Barr virus (median = 4.71), human papillomavirus (median = 4.35), and poliovirus (median = 4.29) demonstrated the highest IME values. The total median IME was 2.63 (mean = 2.53; range -3.79-5.25), suggesting a general lack of evidence for a causal link. There was a notable absence of mechanistic studies designed to answer this question directly. The question of the pathogenic contribution of microbes to MG remains open.
PubMed: 34194378
DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2021.618021 -
Vaccines Mar 2020Live-attenuated vaccines (LAV) are currently contraindicated during pregnancy, given uncertain safety records for the mother-infant pair. LAV might, however, play an... (Review)
Review
Live-attenuated vaccines (LAV) are currently contraindicated during pregnancy, given uncertain safety records for the mother-infant pair. LAV might, however, play an important role to protect them against serious emerging diseases, such as Ebola and Lassa fever. For this systematic review we searched relevant databases to identify studies published up to November 2019. Controlled observational studies reporting pregnancy outcomes after maternal immunization with LAV were included. The ROBINS-I tool was used to assess risk of bias. Pooled odds ratios (OR) were obtained under a random-effects model. Of 2831 studies identified, fifteen fulfilled inclusion criteria. Smallpox, rubella, poliovirus, yellow fever and dengue vaccines were assessed in these studies. No association was found between vaccination and miscarriage (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.87-1.10), stillbirth (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.74-1.48), malformations (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.98-1.21), prematurity (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.90-1.08) or neonatal death (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.68-1.65) overall. However, increased odds of malformations (OR 1.24; 95% CI 1.03-1.49) and miscarriage after first trimester immunization (OR 4.82; 95% CI 2.38-9.77) was found for smallpox vaccine. Thus, we did not find evidence of harm related to LAV other than smallpox with regards to pregnancy outcomes, but quality of evidence was very low. Overall risks appear to be small and have to be balanced against potential benefits for the mother-infant pair.
PubMed: 32168941
DOI: 10.3390/vaccines8010124 -
Vaccines Dec 2019The growing number of available vaccines that can be potentially co-administered makes the assessment of the safety of vaccine co-administration increasingly relevant... (Review)
Review
The growing number of available vaccines that can be potentially co-administered makes the assessment of the safety of vaccine co-administration increasingly relevant but complex. We aimed to synthesize the available scientific evidence on the safety of vaccine co-administrations in children by performing a systematic literature review of studies assessing the safety of vaccine co-administrations in children between 1999 and 2019, in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Fifty studies compared co-administered vaccines versus the same vaccines administered separately. The most frequently studied vaccines included quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate (MenACWY) vaccine, diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis (DTaP) or tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccines, diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis adsorbed, hepatitis B, inactivated poliovirus and type b conjugate (DTaP-HepB-IPV/Hib) vaccine, measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine, and pneumococcal conjugate 7-valent (PCV7) or 13-valent (PCV13) vaccines. Of this, 16% (n = 8) of the studies reported significantly more adverse events following immunization (AEFI) while in 10% (n = 5) significantly fewer adverse events were found in the co-administration groups. Statistically significant differences between co-administration and separate administration were found for 16 adverse events, for 11 different vaccine co-administrations. In general, studies briefly described safety and one-third of studies lacked any statistical assessment of AEFI. Overall, the evidence on the safety of vaccine co-administrations compared to separate vaccine administrations is inconclusive and there is a paucity of large post-licensure studies addressing this issue.
PubMed: 31906218
DOI: 10.3390/vaccines8010012 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2019Poliomyelitis is a debilitating and deadly infection. Despite exponential growth in medical science, there is still no cure for the disease, which is caused by three... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Poliomyelitis is a debilitating and deadly infection. Despite exponential growth in medical science, there is still no cure for the disease, which is caused by three types of wild polioviruses: types 1, 2, and 3. According to the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI), wild poliovirus is still in circulation in three countries, and fresh cases have been reported even in the year 2018. Due to the administration of live vaccines, the risk for vaccine-derived poliovirus (VDPV) is high in areas that are free from wild polioviruses. This is evident based on the fact that VDPV caused 20 outbreaks between 2000 and 2011. Recent recommendations from the World Health Organization favoured the inclusion of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) in the global immunisation schedule. IPV can be delivered in two ways: intramuscularly and intradermally. IPV was previously administered intramuscularly, but shortages in vaccine supplies, coupled with the higher costs of the vaccines, led to the innovation of delivering a fractional dose (one-fifth) of IPV intradermally. However, there is uncertainty regarding the efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of an intradermal, fractional dose of IPV compared to an intramuscular, full dose of IPV.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the immunogenicity and efficacy of an inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) in equivalent immunisation schedules using fractional-dose IPV given via the intradermal route versus full-dose IPV given via the intramuscular route.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 10 other databases, and two trial registers up to February 2019. We also searched the GPEI website and scanned the bibliographies of key studies and reviews in order to identify any additional published and unpublished trials in this area not captured by our electronic searches.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of healthy individuals of any age who are eligible for immunisation with IPV, comparing intradermal fractional-dose (one-fifth) IPV to intramuscular full-dose IPV.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 13 RCTs involving a total of 7292 participants, both children (n = 6402) and adults (n = 890). Nine studies were conducted in middle-income countries, three studies in high-income countries, and only one study in a low-income country. Five studies did not report methods of randomisation, and one study failed to conceal the allocations. Eleven studies did not blind participants, and six studies did not blind outcome assessments. Two studies had high attrition rates, and one study selectively reported the results. Three studies were funded by pharmaceutical companies. Paralytic poliomyelitis. No study reported data on this outcome. Seroconversion rates. These were significantly higher for all three types of wild poliovirus for children given intramuscular full-dose IPV after a single primary dose and two primary doses, but only significantly higher for type two wild poliovirus given intramuscularly after three primary doses: • dose one (six studies): poliovirus type 1 (odds ratio (OR) 0.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 0.41; 2570 children); poliovirus type 2 (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.60; 2567 children); poliovirus type 3 (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.30; 2571 children); • dose two (three studies): poliovirus type 1 (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.33; 981 children); poliovirus type 2 (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.60; 853 children); and poliovirus type 3 (OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.22; 855 children); and • dose three (three studies): poliovirus type 1 (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.15; 973 children); poliovirus type 2 (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.63; 973 children); and poliovirus type 3 (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.58; 973 children). Using the GRADE approach, we rated the certainty of the evidence as low or very low for seroconversion rate (after a single, two, or three primary doses) for all three poliovirus types due to significant risk of bias, heterogeneity, and indirectness in applicability/generalisability. Geometric mean titres. No study reported mean antibody titres. Median antibody titres were higher for intramuscular full-dose IPV (7 studies with 4887 children); although these studies also reported a rise in antibody titres in the intradermal group, none reported the duration for which the titres remained high. Any vaccine-related adverse event. Five studies (2217 children) reported more adverse events, such as fever and redness, in the intradermal group, whilst two studies (1904 children) reported more adverse events in the intramuscular group.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is low- and very low-certainty evidence that intramuscular full-dose IPV may result in a slight increase in seroconversion rates for all three types of wild poliovirus, compared with intradermal fractional-dose IPV. We are uncertain whether intradermal fractional-dose (one-fifth) IPV has better protective effects and causes fewer adverse events in children than intramuscular full-dose IPV.
Topics: Humans; Immunization Schedule; Injections, Intradermal; Injections, Intramuscular; Poliomyelitis; Poliovirus; Poliovirus Vaccine, Inactivated; Poliovirus Vaccine, Oral; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vaccination
PubMed: 31858595
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011780.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2019Poliomyelitis mainly affects unvaccinated children under five years of age, causing irreversible paralysis or even death. The oral polio vaccine (OPV) contains live... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Poliomyelitis mainly affects unvaccinated children under five years of age, causing irreversible paralysis or even death. The oral polio vaccine (OPV) contains live attenuated virus, which can, in rare cases, cause a paralysis known as vaccine-associated paralytic polio (VAPP), and also vaccine-derived polioviruses (VDPVs) due to acquired neurovirulence after prolonged duration of replication. The incidence of poliomyelitis caused by wild polio virus (WPV) has declined dramatically since the introduction of OPV and later the inactivated polio vaccine (IPV), however, the cases of paralysis linked to the OPV are currently more frequent than those related to the WPV. Therefore, in 2016, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended at least one IPV dose preceding routine immunisation with OPV to reduce VAPPs and VDPVs until polio could be eradicated.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness, safety, and immunogenicity of sequential IPV-OPV immunisation schemes compared to either OPV or IPV alone.
SEARCH METHODS
In May 2019 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 14 other databases, three trials registers and reports of adverse effects on four web sites. We also searched the references of identified studies, relevant reviews and contacted authors to identify additional references.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, controlled before-after studies, nationwide uncontrolled before-after studies (UBAs), interrupted time series (ITS) and controlled ITS comparing sequential IPV-OPV schedules (one or more IPV doses followed by one or more OPV doses) with IPV alone, OPV alone or non-sequential IPV-OPV combinations.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 21 studies: 16 RCTs involving 6407 healthy infants (age range 96 to 975 days, mean 382 days), one ITS with 28,330 infants and four nationwide studies (two ITS, two UBA). Ten RCTs were conducted in high-income countries; five in the USA, two in the UK, and one each in Chile, Israel, and Oman. The remaining six RCTs were conducted in middle-income countries; China, Bangladesh, Guatemala, India, and Thailand. We rated all included RCTs at low or unclear risk of bias for randomisation domains, most at high or unclear risk of attrition bias, and half at high or unclear risk for conflict of interests. Almost all RCTs were at low risk for the remaining domains. ITSs and UBAs were mainly considered at low risk of bias for most domains. IPV-OPV versus OPV It is uncertain if an IPV followed by OPV schedule is better than OPV alone at reducing the number of WPV cases (very low-certainty evidence); however, it may reduce VAPP cases by 54% to 100% (three nationwide studies; low-certainty evidence). There is little or no difference in vaccination coverage between IPV-OPV and OPV-only schedules (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 1.06; 1 ITS study; low-certainty evidence). Similarly, there is little or no difference between the two schedule types for the number of serious adverse events (SAEs) (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.70; 4 studies, 1948 participants; low-certainty evidence); or the number of people with protective humoral response P1 (moderate-certainty evidence), P2 (for the most studied schedule; two IPV doses followed by OPV; low-certainty evidence), and P3 (low-certainty evidence). Two IPV doses followed by bivalent OPV (IIbO) may reduce P2 neutralising antibodies compared to trivalent OPV (moderate-certainty evidence), but may make little or no difference to P1 or P2 neutralising antibodies following an IIO schedule or OPV alone (low-certainty evidence). Both IIO and IIbO schedules may increase P3 neutralising antibodies compared to OPV (moderate-certainty evidence). It may also lead to lower mucosal immunity given increased faecal excretion of P1 (low-certainty evidence), P2 and P3 (moderate-certainty evidence) after OPV challenge. IPV-OPV versus IPV It is uncertain if IPV-OPV is more effective than IPV alone at reducing the number of WPV cases (very low-certainty evidence). There were no data regarding VAPP cases. There is no clear evidence of a difference between IPV-OPV and OPV schedules for the number of people with protective humoral response (low- and moderate-certainty evidence). IPV-OPV schedules may increase mean titres of P1 neutralising antibodies compared to OPV alone (low- and moderate-certainty evidence), but the effect on P2 and P3 titres is not clear (very low- and moderate-certainty evidence). IPV-OPV probably reduces the number of people with P3 poliovirus faecal excretion after OPV challenge with IIO and IIOO sequences (moderate-certainty evidence), and may reduce the number with P2 (low-certainty evidence), but not with P1 (very low-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference between the schedules in number of SAEs (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.43; 2 studies, 1063 participants, low-certainty evidence). The number of persons with P2 protective humoral immunity and P2 neutralising antibodies are probably lower with most sequential schemes without P2 components (i.e. bOPV) than with trivalent OPV or IVP alone (moderate-certainty evidence). IPV (3)-OPV versus IPV (2)-OPV One study (137 participants) showed no clear evidence of a difference between three IPV doses followed by OPV and two IPV doses followed by OPV, on the number of people with P1 (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.03), P2 (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.03), or P3 (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.05) protective humoral and intestinal immunity; all moderate-certainty evidence. This study did not report on any other outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
IPV-OPV compared to OPV may reduce VAPPs without affecting vaccination coverage, safety or humoral response, except P2 with sequential schemes without P2 components, but increase poliovirus faecal excretion after OPV challenge for some polio serotypes. Compared to IPV-only schedules, IPV-OPV may have little or no difference on SAEs, probably has little or no effect on persons with protective humoral response, may increase neutralising antibodies, and probably reduces faecal excretion after OPV challenge of certain polio serotypes. Using three IPV doses as part of a IPV-OPV schedule does not appear to be better than two IPV doses for protective humoral response. Sequential schedules during the transition from OPV to IPV-only immunisation schedules seems a reasonable option aligned with current WHO recommendations. Findings could help decision-makers to optimise polio vaccination policies, reducing inequities between countries.
Topics: Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems; Child, Preschool; Female; Humans; Immunity, Mucosal; Immunization Schedule; Infant; Interrupted Time Series Analysis; Male; Poliomyelitis; Poliovirus; Poliovirus Vaccine, Inactivated; Poliovirus Vaccine, Oral; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31801180
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011260.pub2 -
Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation... Nov 2020Sleep disturbances, especially sleep disordered breathing and sleep movement disorders, seem to be highly prevalent among aging polio survivors. They could contribute to...
BACKGROUND
Sleep disturbances, especially sleep disordered breathing and sleep movement disorders, seem to be highly prevalent among aging polio survivors. They could contribute to late functional deterioration, fatigue, poor quality of life and negative health outcomes, thereby increasing cardiovascular risk.
OBJECTIVES
This review focused on current knowledge of the prevalence of sleep disorders in polio survivors, their features, predictive factors and management.
DATA SOURCES
Articles were searched in PubMed and the Cochrane Library up to March 2018.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS
Articles needed to 1) be written in English; 2) include only participants with previous poliomyelitis or post-polio syndrome diagnosis; and 3) involve any form of sleep disorders. Articles about isolated fatigue or non-specific sleep complaints as well as non-polio specific articles (neuromuscular disorders) were not included in the qualitative analysis.
RESULTS
Among 166 studies identified, 41 were included in this review. The prevalence of sleep apnea syndrome, nocturnal alveolar hypoventilation and restless legs syndrome seemed higher than in the general population (from 7.3% to 65%, 15% to 20% and 28% to 63%, respectively). This review highlights the lack of randomised studies assessing sleep disorder management in this specific population.
LIMITATIONS
Because of the small number of eligible publications, none was excluded for methodological limitations, and only a qualitative analysis was provided.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
Follow-up of polio survivors should include systematic screening for sleep disorders because they are associated with adverse consequences. Sleep disorder evaluation and management should improve the long-term survival and quality of life of polio survivors. Methodologically robust clinical trials are needed, but the decreasing prevalence and large clinical spectrum of the disease may complicate the creation of comparable groups.
Topics: Aged; Aging; Fatigue; Female; Heart Disease Risk Factors; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Movement Disorders; Poliomyelitis; Poliovirus; Postpoliomyelitis Syndrome; Prevalence; Quality of Life; Restless Legs Syndrome; Sleep Apnea Syndromes; Sleep Wake Disorders; Survivors
PubMed: 31794858
DOI: 10.1016/j.rehab.2019.10.007