Dominika A Kalkowska1, Mark A Pallansch2, Stephen L Cochi3, Kimberly M Thompson1. 1. Kid Risk, Inc., Orlando, Florida, USA. 2. National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. 3. Global Immunization Division, Center for Global Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) Strategic Plan for 2019-2023 includes commitments to monitor the quality of immunization campaigns using lot quality assurance sampling surveys (LQAS) and to support poliovirus surveillance in Pakistan and Afghanistan. METHODS: We analyzed LQAS and poliovirus surveillance data between 2016 and 2020, which included both acute flaccid paralysis (AFP) case-based detection and the continued expansion of environmental surveillance (ES). Using updated estimates for unit costs, we explore the costs of different options for future poliovirus monitoring and surveillance for Pakistan and Afghanistan. RESULTS: The relative value of the information provided by campaign quality monitoring and surveillance remains uncertain and depends on the design, implementation, and performance of the systems. Prospective immunization campaign quality monitoring (through LQAS) and poliovirus surveillance will require tens of millions of dollars each year for the foreseeable future for Pakistan and Afghanistan. CONCLUSIONS: LQAS campaign monitoring as currently implemented in Pakistan and Afghanistan provides limited and potentially misleading information about immunization quality. AFP surveillance in Pakistan and Afghanistan provides the most reliable evidence of transmission, whereas ES provides valuable supplementary information about the extent of transmission in the catchment areas represented at the time of sample collection. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America 2021.
BACKGROUND: The Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) Strategic Plan for 2019-2023 includes commitments to monitor the quality of immunization campaigns using lot quality assurance sampling surveys (LQAS) and to support poliovirus surveillance in Pakistan and Afghanistan. METHODS: We analyzed LQAS and poliovirus surveillance data between 2016 and 2020, which included both acute flaccid paralysis (AFP) case-based detection and the continued expansion of environmental surveillance (ES). Using updated estimates for unit costs, we explore the costs of different options for future poliovirus monitoring and surveillance for Pakistan and Afghanistan. RESULTS: The relative value of the information provided by campaign quality monitoring and surveillance remains uncertain and depends on the design, implementation, and performance of the systems. Prospective immunization campaign quality monitoring (through LQAS) and poliovirus surveillance will require tens of millions of dollars each year for the foreseeable future for Pakistan and Afghanistan. CONCLUSIONS: LQAS campaign monitoring as currently implemented in Pakistan and Afghanistan provides limited and potentially misleading information about immunization quality. AFP surveillance in Pakistan and Afghanistan provides the most reliable evidence of transmission, whereas ES provides valuable supplementary information about the extent of transmission in the catchment areas represented at the time of sample collection. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America 2021.
Authors: Dominika A Kalkowska; Arend Voorman; Mark A Pallansch; Steven G F Wassilak; Stephen L Cochi; Kamran Badizadegan; Kimberly M Thompson Journal: Vaccine Date: 2021-04-27 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Hiromasa Okayasu; Alexandra E Brown; Michael M Nzioki; Alex N Gasasira; Marina Takane; Pascal Mkanda; Steven G F Wassilak; Roland W Sutter Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2014-11-01 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Tori L Cowger; Cara C Burns; Salmaan Sharif; Howard E Gary; Jane Iber; Elizabeth Henderson; Farzana Malik; Syed Sohail Zahoor Zaidi; Shahzad Shaukat; Lubna Rehman; Mark A Pallansch; Walter A Orenstein Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-07-25 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Natalie A Molodecky; Isobel M Blake; Kathleen M O'Reilly; Mufti Zubair Wadood; Rana M Safdar; Amy Wesolowski; Caroline O Buckee; Ananda S Bandyopadhyay; Hiromasa Okayasu; Nicholas C Grassly Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2017-06-12 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Radboud J Duintjer Tebbens; Mark A Pallansch; Stephen L Cochi; Steven G F Wassilak; Kimberly M Thompson Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2015-09-24 Impact factor: 3.090
Authors: Radboud J Duintjer Tebbens; Ousmane M Diop; Mark A Pallansch; M Steven Oberste; Kimberly M Thompson Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-01-21 Impact factor: 2.692