POST 00923E : THINKING THE UNTHINKABLE
Follow-up on Post 00917E
11 May 2006
________________________________________________________________
This posting contains two contributions in response to that of Anthony
Battersby. The first is from Mogens Munck (mailto:
[email protected])
from Spain, and the second from Bob Davis (mailto:
[email protected]) from
UNICEF/ESARO in Nairobi.
NOTE : I wish to draw your attention to an article published in the
Archives of Virology last year, "Virus perpetuation in populations :
biological variables that determine persistence or eradication" by N.
Nathanson, from the University of Pennsylvania. Interesting ideas, and you
will also find at pages 7 to 10 a bit of the historical and
epidemiological background to the polio eradication initiative. Thanks to
Bob Davis and Evelyn Chege for having it circulated earlier through Tech
Updates.
You can download this article directly from :
http://www.technet21.org/pdf_file/PerpetuationVirus.pdf
However, I disagree with one of Nathanson’s statement on page 2 : "In the
instance of an acute infection, the host acquires lifelong immunity to the
infecting virus and is – from an epidemiological perspective – no longer
capable of acting as a link in the chain of infection."
To my knowledge, there is no disease agent which produces immunity that is
instantaneous on any further agression, killing the agent (bacteria or
virus) on sight. There is a response delay, varying from disease to
disease and host to host, during which a host can possibly act as a link
in the chain of transmission.
I believe this is precisely the problem with polio. The virus does not
cause the disease in an immunized host but it does replicate in the bowels
for a length of time depending a number of factors before its effective
elimination. This host may not be as effective a transmitter as an acutely
infected one, but it does play a role. The virus was carried from Nigeria
to Saudi Arabia and then further, not by people with acute disease but
likely immunized, whether naturally or vaccinated.
This is also a basic principle behind the eradication strategy that calls
for vaccinating in a few days, often already immunized children, in order
to flood the environment with vaccine viruses.
I wish to hear from the real experts on this and also from some members
who may know better.
Sorry for that longish introduction!
_________________________________________________________________
Dear Technet 21,
I thank Anthony for his message: "Thinking the unthinkable"!
I am not a public health expert, much less an epidemiologist, but a
profesional with experience in cold chain and logistics in general, and
not least with a lot of interest in immunization. I have always taken care
not to speak out on themes outside my expertise, but I would very much
appreciate that the issues raised by Anthony be discussed openly.
After having done consultancies in Afghanistan and Nigeria I find as a
layman that the polio eradication drive with numerous NIDs (often one
every second month) does not seem to make sense. The results are hard to
see, and worse routine immunization is neglected so heavily that coverage
figures for many antigens in many districts are below 50%.
Could epidemiologists not explain the polio eradication strategy in a way
that would make sense to us laymen? Or admit that the strategy has been a
failure?
Best regards,
Mogens Munck
------------------------------
As in the past, Anthony Battersby's contributions to the Technet are
intellectually stimulating. In the following discussion, which reflects
only my own views, let me explain why, without disputing Anthony's facts,
I draw different conclusions from them.
EITHER-OR
First, I don't see a zero sum game between eradication initiatives on the
one hand and routine EPI on the other. Quite the contrary, the success of
polio eradication in clearing most of the planet from a virus which
paralyzed >250,000 victims yearly before the '88 WHA resolution, has been
a strong advocacy point for EPI as a whole. After a decade of underfunding
in the 1990s, it may have influenced new funders, notably the Bill and
Melinda Gates Foundation, to lay out new funding, more than $1 billion,
for new vaccines and routine EPI.
The entire budget envelope for EPI, both routine and eradication, is
expanding, aided now by the International Finance Facility for
Immunization (IFFIm). IFFIm funds are going both to support of routine EPI
and to the strategic stockpile of mOPV needed for the post-eradication
period. So the apparent tug-of-war between support for eradication and
support for routine is a chimera which dissipates on close examination.
Eradication initiatives have, going all the way back to smallpox, lent
credibility to vaccination as a whole. Without SEP, there would have been
no EPI. Routine vaccination, where properly done (Botswana, Eritrea)
prevents reintroduction of diseases targeted for eradication. I see
synergies where others see only competition for resources.
COST OVERRUNS
While the agencies were, in '88, way off in costing the polio eradication
initiative, it is still bang for the buck. If we end up spending, by 2010,
$4 billion since '88 to prevent about 4 million cases of paralytic polio,
then we are paying on the order of $1000 per case of polio prevented, not
counting the additional cases prevented in the post-eradication era. Is
that too much to pay for prevention of paralysis? This figure of $1000 is
less than wealthy persons pay for a face lift in some countries. Polio
eradication remains, for all its overruns, one of the most successful and
cost-effective public health programmes in history.
The point of my much quoted bell curve presentation was that history
repeats itself. With both smallpox and polio, funding levels rose during
the middle years of the initiative, then declined towards the end, with
budget shortfalls as a result. It is a fact of economics that the unit
costs of preventing the last few cases of a disease are much higher than
those incurred in preventing the first few hundred thousand cases. This is
no argument for slowing down as one approaches the finish line; quite the
contrary, one should accelerate the pace and finish the job quickly. This
prudent course is what my colleague proposes that we not do.
Battersby is spot on in saying that polio would not have spread from
Nigeria to Indonesia and the Yemen if the latter countries had achieved
good routine coverage. The Botswana and Eritrea importations support his
analysis: where routine OPV3 coverage exceeds 80 percent, secondary spread
from the first importation is rare. However, this is a weak argument
against eradication initiatives. Should we wait until all 192 member
states have 80 percent coverage before embarking on global eradication
initiatives? Had we done so with smallpox, that virus would still be with us.
CONTINUING VACCINE PRODUCTION/INTENTIONAL RELEASE OF VIRUSES
Yes, there is continuing production of smallpox vaccine for the military,
but this comes from defense budgets, not health budgets. So it does not
represent a diversion of resources within the health sector.
Only Dr Strangelove would consider a biological warfare agent which
produces no symptoms in over 99 percent of all infections. Nonetheless,
many industrialized countries will, in an abundance of caution, consider
continuing use of IPV after eradication to eliminate that remote risk. If
developing countries feel themselves vulnerable to intentional release of
polio, then stockpiles of vaccine, rather than posteradication
vaccination, are likely to be the most logical answer. The argument
against eradication based on possible biological warfare is a weak one.
BELL CURVES
The bell curves of international funding which I presented in an earlier
posting were based on the funding data available at that time. I should be
delighted to see measles becoming the exception to the bell curve. When
the fresh IFFIm measles SIA funding through GAVI begins to flow next year,
we shall see a second hump on the curve for measles funding (the first was
last year's tsunami funding). What will happen to the Measles Partnership
after 2009? A good question. Either the global community will close down
the MP -- a disastrous scenario, in my opinion -- or it will move towards
eradication with more speed and unity than we have seen in previous
initiatives. This would be in line with the measles elimination
initiatives launched by the regional governing bodies of WHO member states
in four out of six regions. Have 135 member states that already voted for
measles elimination failed to do their homework? I don't think so. I hope
they will soon be joined by the member states of AFR and SEAR, so that 135
countries are not left in the position of the little Dutch boy holding his
thumb in the dike.
GIVS
The Global Immunization Vision and Strategy, which forms the basis for
W.H.O./UNICEF collaboration over the next 10 years, rightly places the
main emphasis on routine EPI, new vaccine introduction, and child
mortality reduction. None of these things would have been likely, nor
would IFFIm funding for EPI have been possible, if the international
community had flinched in its commitments to polio eradication, which it
has not. To say, at this late stage, that we should slow down before
reaching the finish line, would be to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Best regards,
Bob Davis
EPI Regional Adviser,
UNICEF/ESARO
Nairobi, Kenya
______________________________________________________________________________
Visit the TECHNET21 Website at
http://www.technet21.org
You will find instructions to subscribe, a direct access to archives, links to reference documents and other features.
______________________________________________________________________________
To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message to : mailto:
[email protected]
Leave the subject area BLANK
In the message body, write unsubscribe TECHNET21E
______________________________________________________________________________
The World Health Organization and UNICEF support TechNet21. The TechNet21 e-Forum is a communication/information tool for generation of ideas on how to improve immunization services. It is moderated by Claude Letarte and is hosted in cooperation with the Centre de coopération internationale en santé et développement, Québec, Canada (
http://www.ccisd.org)
______________________________________________________________________________