BACKGROUND: After global oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) cessation, the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (SAGE) currently recommends a two-dose schedule of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) beginning ≥14-weeks of age to achieve at least 90% immune response. We aimed to compare the immunogenicity of three different two-dose IPV schedules started before or at 14-weeks of age. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, controlled, open-label, inequality trial at two sites in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Healthy infants at 6-weeks of age were randomized into one of five arms to receive two-dose IPV schedules at different ages with and without OPV. The three IPV-only arms are presented: Arm C received IPV at 14-weeks and 9-months; Arm D received IPV at 6-weeks and 9-months; and Arm E received IPV at 6 and 14-weeks. The primary outcome was immune response defined as seroconversion from seronegative (<1:8) to seropositive (≥1:8) after vaccination, or a four-fold rise in antibody titers and median reciprocal antibody titers to all three poliovirus types measured at 10-months of age. FINDINGS: Of the 987 children randomized to Arms C, D, and E, 936 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. At 10-months, participants in Arm C (IPV at 14-weeks and 9-months) had ≥99% cumulative immune response to all three poliovirus types which was significantly higher than the 77-81% observed in Arm E (IPV at 6 and 14-weeks). Participants in Arm D (IPV at 6-weeks and 9-months) had cumulative immune responses of 98-99% which was significantly higher than that of Arm E (p value < 0.0001) but not different from Arm C. INTERPRETATION: Results support current SAGE recommendations for IPV following OPV cessation and provide evidence that the schedule of two full IPV doses could begin as early as 6-weeks.
BACKGROUND: After global oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) cessation, the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (SAGE) currently recommends a two-dose schedule of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) beginning ≥14-weeks of age to achieve at least 90% immune response. We aimed to compare the immunogenicity of three different two-dose IPV schedules started before or at 14-weeks of age. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, controlled, open-label, inequality trial at two sites in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Healthy infants at 6-weeks of age were randomized into one of five arms to receive two-dose IPV schedules at different ages with and without OPV. The three IPV-only arms are presented: Arm C received IPV at 14-weeks and 9-months; Arm D received IPV at 6-weeks and 9-months; and Arm E received IPV at 6 and 14-weeks. The primary outcome was immune response defined as seroconversion from seronegative (<1:8) to seropositive (≥1:8) after vaccination, or a four-fold rise in antibody titers and median reciprocal antibody titers to all three poliovirus types measured at 10-months of age. FINDINGS: Of the 987 children randomized to Arms C, D, and E, 936 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. At 10-months, participants in Arm C (IPV at 14-weeks and 9-months) had ≥99% cumulative immune response to all three poliovirus types which was significantly higher than the 77-81% observed in Arm E (IPV at 6 and 14-weeks). Participants in Arm D (IPV at 6-weeks and 9-months) had cumulative immune responses of 98-99% which was significantly higher than that of Arm E (p value < 0.0001) but not different from Arm C. INTERPRETATION: Results support current SAGE recommendations for IPV following OPV cessation and provide evidence that the schedule of two full IPV doses could begin as early as 6-weeks.
Authors: Mercedes de Onis; Adelheid W Onyango; Jan Van den Broeck; Wm Cameron Chumlea; Reynaldo Martorell Journal: Food Nutr Bull Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 2.069
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: Olen Kew; Victoria Morris-Glasgow; Mauricio Landaverde; Cara Burns; Jing Shaw; Zacarías Garib; Jean André; Elizabeth Blackman; C Jason Freeman; Jaume Jorba; Roland Sutter; Gina Tambini; Linda Venczel; Cristina Pedreira; Fernando Laender; Hiroyuki Shimizu; Tetsuo Yoneyama; Tatsuo Miyamura; Harrie van Der Avoort; M Steven Oberste; David Kilpatrick; Stephen Cochi; Mark Pallansch; Ciro de Quadros Journal: Science Date: 2002-03-14 Impact factor: 47.728
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