Environmental Surveillance for Poliovirus and Other Enteroviruses: Long-Term Experience in Moscow, Russian Federation, 2004–2017

Polio and enterovirus surveillance may include a number of approaches, including incidence-based observation, a sentinel physician system, environmental monitoring and acute flaccid paralysis (AFP) surveillance. The relative value of these methods is widely debated. Here we summarized the results of 14 years of environmental surveillance at four sewage treatment plants of various capacities in Moscow, Russia. A total of 5450 samples were screened, yielding 1089 (20.0%) positive samples. There were 1168 viruses isolated including types 1−3 polioviruses (43%) and 29 different types of non-polio enteroviruses (51%). Despite using the same methodology, a significant variation in detection rates was observed between the treatment plants and within the same facility over time. The number of poliovirus isolates obtained from sewage was roughly 60 times higher than from AFP surveillance over the same time frame. All except one poliovirus isolate were Sabin-like polioviruses. The one isolate was vaccine-derived poliovirus type 2 with 17.6% difference from the corresponding Sabin strain, suggesting long-term circulation outside the scope of the surveillance. For some non-polio enterovirus types (e.g., Echovirus 6) there was a good correlation between detection in sewage and incidence of clinical cases in a given year, while other types (e.g., Echovirus 30) could cause large outbreaks and be almost absent in sewage samples. Therefore, sewage monitoring can be an important part of enterovirus surveillance, but cannot substitute other approaches

Vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis in the Russian Federation in 1998–2014

Objectives: Different polio vaccination schemes have been used in Russia: oral polio vaccine (OPV) was used in 1998–2007 and inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) followed by OPV in 2008–2014. This article presents the characteristics of vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP) cases in Russia during this period. Methods: VAPP cases were identified through the acute flaccid paralysis surveillance system, classified by the National Expert Classification Committee. Criteria for a ‘recipient VAPP’ (rVAPP) case were poliomyelitis symptoms 6–30 days after OPV administration, isolation of the vaccine virus, and residual paralysis 60 days after disease onset. Unvaccinated cases with a similar picture 6–60 days after contact with an OPV recipient were classified as ‘contact VAPP’ (cVAPP) cases. Results: During 1998–2014, 127 VAPP cases were registered: 82 rVAPP and 45 cVAPP. During the period in which only OPV was used, rVAPP cases prevailed (73.8%); cases of rVAPP were reduced during the sequential scheme period (15%). Poliovirus type 3 (39.5%) and type 2 (23.7%) were isolated more often. Vaccine-derived poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3 were isolated from three cases of cVAPP. The incidence of VAPP cases was higher during the period of OPV use (1 case/1.59 million OPV doses) than during the sequential scheme period (1 case/4.18 million doses). Conclusion: The risk of VAPP exists if OPV remains in the vaccination schedule. Keywords: Poliomyelitis, VAPP, Poliovirus vaccine, IPV, OP