INTRODUCTION: The World Health Organization recommends that as part of the polio end-game strategy a dose of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) be introduced by the end of 2015 in all countries currently using only oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV). Administration of fractional dose (1/5 of full dose) IPV (fIPV) by intradermal (ID) injection may reduce costs, but its conventional administration is with Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) needle and syringe (NS), which is time consuming and technically challenging. We compared injection quality achieved with BCG NS and three needle-free jet injectors and assessed ergonomic features of the injectors. METHODS: Children between 12 and 20 months of age who had previously received OPV were enrolled in the Camaguey, Cuba study. Subjects received a single fIPV dose administered intradermally with BCG NS or one of three needle-free injector devices: Bioject Biojector 2000® (B2000), Bioject ID Pen® (ID Pen), or PharmaJet Tropis® (Tropis). We measured bleb diameter and vaccine loss as indicators of ID injection quality, with desirable injection quality defined as bleb diameter ≥5mm and vaccine loss <10%. We surveyed vaccinators to evaluate ergonomic features of the injectors. We further assessed the injection quality indicators as predictors of immune response, measured by increase in poliovirus neutralizing antibodies in blood between day 0 (pre-IPV) and 21 (post-vaccination). RESULTS: Delivery by BCG NS and Tropis resulted in the highest proportion of subjects with desirable injection quality; health workers ranked Biojector2000 and Tropis highest for ergonomic features. We observed that vaccine loss and desirable injection quality were associated with an immune response for poliovirus type 2 (P=0.02, P=0.01, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated the feasibility of fIPV delivery using needle-free injector devices with high acceptability among health workers. We did not observe the indicators of injection quality to be uniformly associated with immune response.
INTRODUCTION: The World Health Organization recommends that as part of the polio end-game strategy a dose of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) be introduced by the end of 2015 in all countries currently using only oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV). Administration of fractional dose (1/5 of full dose) IPV (fIPV) by intradermal (ID) injection may reduce costs, but its conventional administration is with Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) needle and syringe (NS), which is time consuming and technically challenging. We compared injection quality achieved with BCG NS and three needle-free jet injectors and assessed ergonomic features of the injectors. METHODS: Children between 12 and 20 months of age who had previously received OPV were enrolled in the Camaguey, Cuba study. Subjects received a single fIPV dose administered intradermally with BCG NS or one of three needle-free injector devices: Bioject Biojector 2000® (B2000), Bioject ID Pen® (ID Pen), or PharmaJet Tropis® (Tropis). We measured bleb diameter and vaccine loss as indicators of ID injection quality, with desirable injection quality defined as bleb diameter ≥5mm and vaccine loss <10%. We surveyed vaccinators to evaluate ergonomic features of the injectors. We further assessed the injection quality indicators as predictors of immune response, measured by increase in poliovirus neutralizing antibodies in blood between day 0 (pre-IPV) and 21 (post-vaccination). RESULTS: Delivery by BCG NS and Tropis resulted in the highest proportion of subjects with desirable injection quality; health workers ranked Biojector2000 and Tropis highest for ergonomic features. We observed that vaccine loss and desirable injection quality were associated with an immune response for poliovirus type 2 (P=0.02, P=0.01, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated the feasibility of fIPV delivery using needle-free injector devices with high acceptability among health workers. We did not observe the indicators of injection quality to be uniformly associated with immune response.
Authors: Eric M Mucker; Joseph W Golden; Christopher D Hammerbeck; Jennifer M Kishimori; Michael Royals; Mathew D Joselyn; John Ballantyne; Aysegul Nalca; Jay W Hooper Journal: J Virol Date: 2021-12-01 Impact factor: 6.549
Authors: David A Muller; Frances E Pearson; Germain J P Fernando; Christiana Agyei-Yeboah; Nick S Owens; Simon R Corrie; Michael L Crichton; Jonathan C J Wei; William C Weldon; M Steven Oberste; Paul R Young; Mark A F Kendall Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2016-02-25 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Jack Bibby; Yauba Saidu; Ama Umesi; Ngozi Moneke-Anyanwoke; Adedapo O Bashorun; Mariama Badjie Hydara; Ikechukwu Adigweme; Jane U Adetifa; Michael Okoye; Elishia Roberts; Ralf Clemens; Ananda S Bandyopadhyay; Abdul K Muhammad; Sarah Mulwa; Michael Royals; Courtney Jarrahian; David Jeffries; Beate Kampmann; Ed Clarke Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Ali Faisal Saleem; Ondrej Mach; Mohammad T Yousafzai; Asia Khan; William C Weldon; M Steven Oberste; Roland W Sutter; Anita K M Zaidi Journal: Vaccine Date: 2017-05-04 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Luis Rivera; Rasmus S Pedersen; Lourdes Peña; Klaus J Olsen; Lars V Andreasen; Ingrid Kromann; Pernille I Nielsen; Charlotte Sørensen; Jes Dietrich; Ananda S Bandyopadhyay; Birgit Thierry-Carstensen Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2017-04-25 Impact factor: 25.071
Authors: David A Muller; Germain J P Fernando; Nick S Owens; Christiana Agyei-Yeboah; Jonathan C J Wei; Alexandra C I Depelsenaire; Angus Forster; Paul Fahey; William C Weldon; M Steven Oberste; Paul R Young; Mark A F Kendall Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2017-10-03 Impact factor: 4.379