BACKGROUND: Intradermal administration of fractional inactivated poliovirus vaccine (fIPV) is a dose-sparing alternative to the intramuscular full dose. We aimed to compare the immunogenicity of two fIPV doses versus one IPV dose for routine immunisation, and also assessed the immunogenicity of an fIPV booster dose for an outbreak response. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised, controlled, inequality, non-inferiority trial in two clinics in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Healthy infants were randomly assigned at 6 weeks to one of four groups: group A received IPV at age 14 weeks and IPV booster at age 22 weeks; group B received IPV at age 14 weeks and fIPV booster at age 22 weeks; group C received IPV at age 6 weeks and fIPV booster at age 22 weeks; and group D received fIPV at 6 weeks and 14 weeks and fIPV booster at age 22 weeks. IPV was administered by needle-syringe as an intramuscular full dose (0·5 mL), and fIPV was administered intradermally (0·1 mL of the IPV formulation was administered using the 0·1 mL HelmJect auto-disable syringe with a Helms intradermal adapter). Both IPV and fIPV were administered on the outer, upper right thigh of infants. The primary outcome was vaccine response to poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3 at age 22 weeks (routine immunisation) and age 26 weeks (outbreak response). Vaccine response was defined as seroconversion from seronegative (<1:8) at baseline to seropositive (≥1:8) or four-fold increase in reciprocal antibody titres adjusted for maternal antibody decay and was assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population (infants who received polio vaccines per group assignment and polio antibody titre results to serotypes 1, 2, and 3 at 6, 22, 23, and 26 weeks of age). The non-inferiority margin was 12·5%. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02847026. FINDINGS:Between Sept 1, 2016 and May 2, 2017, 1076 participants were randomly assigned and included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis: 271 in Group A, 267 in group B, 268 in group C, and 270 in group D. Vaccine response at 22 weeks to two doses of fIPV (group D) was significantly higher (p<0·0001) than to one dose of IPV (groups A and B) for all three poliovirus serotypes: the type 1 response comprised 212 (79% [95% CI 73-83]) versus 305 (57% [53-61]) participants, the type 2 response comprised 173 (64% [58-70]) versus 249 (46% [42-51]) participants, and the type 3 response comprised 196 (73% [67-78]) versus 196 (36% [33-41]) participants. At 26 weeks, the fIPV booster was non-inferior to IPV (group B vs group A) for serotype 1 (-1·12% [90% CI -2·18 to -0·06]), serotype 2 (0·40%, [-2·22 to 1·42]), and serotype 3 (1·51% [-3·23 to -0·21]). Of 129 adverse events, 21 were classified as serious including one death; none were attributed to IPV or fIPV. INTERPRETATION:fIPV appears to be an effective dose-sparing strategy for routine immunisation and outbreak responses. FUNDING: US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Intradermal administration of fractional inactivated poliovirus vaccine (fIPV) is a dose-sparing alternative to the intramuscular full dose. We aimed to compare the immunogenicity of two fIPV doses versus one IPV dose for routine immunisation, and also assessed the immunogenicity of an fIPV booster dose for an outbreak response. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised, controlled, inequality, non-inferiority trial in two clinics in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Healthy infants were randomly assigned at 6 weeks to one of four groups: group A received IPV at age 14 weeks and IPV booster at age 22 weeks; group B received IPV at age 14 weeks and fIPV booster at age 22 weeks; group C received IPV at age 6 weeks and fIPV booster at age 22 weeks; and group D received fIPV at 6 weeks and 14 weeks and fIPV booster at age 22 weeks. IPV was administered by needle-syringe as an intramuscular full dose (0·5 mL), and fIPV was administered intradermally (0·1 mL of the IPV formulation was administered using the 0·1 mL HelmJect auto-disable syringe with a Helms intradermal adapter). Both IPV and fIPV were administered on the outer, upper right thigh of infants. The primary outcome was vaccine response to poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3 at age 22 weeks (routine immunisation) and age 26 weeks (outbreak response). Vaccine response was defined as seroconversion from seronegative (<1:8) at baseline to seropositive (≥1:8) or four-fold increase in reciprocal antibody titres adjusted for maternal antibody decay and was assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population (infants who received polio vaccines per group assignment and polio antibody titre results to serotypes 1, 2, and 3 at 6, 22, 23, and 26 weeks of age). The non-inferiority margin was 12·5%. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02847026. FINDINGS: Between Sept 1, 2016 and May 2, 2017, 1076 participants were randomly assigned and included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis: 271 in Group A, 267 in group B, 268 in group C, and 270 in group D. Vaccine response at 22 weeks to two doses of fIPV (group D) was significantly higher (p<0·0001) than to one dose of IPV (groups A and B) for all three poliovirus serotypes: the type 1 response comprised 212 (79% [95% CI 73-83]) versus 305 (57% [53-61]) participants, the type 2 response comprised 173 (64% [58-70]) versus 249 (46% [42-51]) participants, and the type 3 response comprised 196 (73% [67-78]) versus 196 (36% [33-41]) participants. At 26 weeks, the fIPV booster was non-inferior to IPV (group B vs group A) for serotype 1 (-1·12% [90% CI -2·18 to -0·06]), serotype 2 (0·40%, [-2·22 to 1·42]), and serotype 3 (1·51% [-3·23 to -0·21]). Of 129 adverse events, 21 were classified as serious including one death; none were attributed to IPV or fIPV. INTERPRETATION:fIPV appears to be an effective dose-sparing strategy for routine immunisation and outbreak responses. FUNDING: US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Authors: Concepción F Estívariz; Hamid Jafari; Roland W Sutter; T Jacob John; Vibhor Jain; Ashutosh Agarwal; Harish Verma; Mark A Pallansch; Ajit P Singh; Sherine Guirguis; Jitendra Awale; Anthony Burton; Sunil Bahl; Arani Chatterjee; R Bruce Aylward Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2011-11-07 Impact factor: 25.071
Authors: Sonia Resik; Alina Tejeda; Pedro Mas Lago; Manuel Diaz; Ania Carmenates; Luis Sarmiento; Nilda Alemañi; Belkis Galindo; Anthony Burton; Martin Friede; Mauricio Landaverde; Roland W Sutter Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2010-05-01 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Abhijeet Anand; K Zaman; Concepción F Estívariz; Mohammad Yunus; Howard E Gary; William C Weldon; Tajul I Bari; M Steven Oberste; Steven G Wassilak; Stephen P Luby; James D Heffelfinger; Mark A Pallansch Journal: Vaccine Date: 2015-10-23 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Ali Jafer Mohammed; Salah AlAwaidy; Shyam Bawikar; Padmamohan J Kurup; Emadaldin Elamir; Mahmoud M A Shaban; Sharif M Sharif; Harrie G A M van der Avoort; Mark A Pallansch; Pradeep Malankar; Anthony Burton; Meghana Sreevatsava; Roland W Sutter Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-06-24 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Edwin J Asturias; Ananda S Bandyopadhyay; Steve Self; Luis Rivera; Xavier Saez-Llorens; Eduardo Lopez; Mario Melgar; James T Gaensbauer; William C Weldon; M Steven Oberste; Bhavesh R Borate; Chris Gast; Ralf Clemens; Walter Orenstein; Miguel O'Ryan G; José Jimeno; Sue Ann Costa Clemens; Joel Ward; Ricardo Rüttimann Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-05-19 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Roland W Sutter; Sunil Bahl; Jagadish M Deshpande; Harish Verma; Mohammad Ahmad; P Venugopal; J Venkateswara Rao; Sharad Agarkhedkar; Sanjay K Lalwani; Abhishek Kunwar; Raman Sethi; Marina Takane; Lalitendu Mohanty; Arani Chatterjee; T Jacob John; Hamid Jafari; R Bruce Aylward Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-09-18 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Khalequ Zaman; Stephanie D Kovacs; Kristin Vanderende; Asma Aziz; Mohammed Yunus; Sara Khan; Cynthia J Snider; Qian An; Concepcion F Estivariz; M Steven Oberste; Mark A Pallansch; Abhijeet Anand Journal: Vaccine Date: 2021-09-02 Impact factor: 4.169
Authors: Asma B Aziz; Harish Verma; Visalakshi Jeyaseelan; Mohammad Yunus; Samarea Nowrin; Deborah D Moore; Bernardo A Mainou; Ondrej Mach; Roland W Sutter; Khalequ Zaman Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2022-10-17 Impact factor: 7.759
Authors: Gabriel Trueba; Vishali Jeyaseelan; Lazaro Lopez; Bernardo A Mainou; Yiting Zhang; Alvaro Whittembury; Alfredo Jose Olmedo Valarezo; Gonzalo Baquero; Rosa Romero de Aguinaga; Lucia Jeannete Zurita Salinas; Maria Gabriela Santacruz Mancheno; Diana Elizabeth Medina Chacho; Emmanuelle Quentin; Ana Elena Chevez; Gloria Rey-Benito; Ondrej Mach Journal: Lancet Reg Health Am Date: 2022-07
Authors: Umar Farooq Bullo; Jaishri Mehraj; Syed Musa Raza; Shumaila Rasool; Noreen Naz Ansari; Ahmed Ali Shaikh; Zamir Ali Phul; Sohail Ahmed Memon; Rehan Iqbal Baloch; Zahoor Ahmed Baloch; Shoukat Ali Chandio Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2021-01-06 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Jenny L Schnyder; Cornelis A De Pijper; Hannah M Garcia Garrido; Joost G Daams; Abraham Goorhuis; Cornelis Stijnis; Frieder Schaumburg; Martin P Grobusch Journal: Travel Med Infect Dis Date: 2020-09-06 Impact factor: 6.211
Authors: Adedapo O Bashorun; Mariama Badjie Hydara; Ikechukwu Adigweme; Ama Umesi; Baba Danso; Njilan Johnson; Ngally Aboubacarr Sambou; Sidat Fofana; Francis J Kanu; Visalakshi Jeyaseelan; Harish Verma; William C Weldon; M Steven Oberste; Roland W Sutter; David Jeffries; Miriam Wathuo; Ondrej Mach; Ed Clarke Journal: Lancet Glob Health Date: 2021-12-21 Impact factor: 26.763