| Literature DB >> 35394898 |
Shuyu Gao1, Mingwei Wei2, Kai Chu2, Jingxin Li2,3, Fengcai Zhu1,2,3.
Abstract
The presence of maternal poliovirus antibodies may interfere with the immune response to inactivated polio vaccine (IPV), and its influence on the safety of vaccination is not yet understood. A total of 1146 eligible infants were randomly assigned (1:1) to the IPV and Sabin IPV (SIPV) groups to compare and analyze the efficacy of the two vaccines in preventing poliovirus infection. We pooled the SIPV and IPV groups and reclassified them into the maternal poliovirus antibody-positive group (MAPG; ≥1: 8) and the maternal poliovirus antibody-negative group (MANG; <1: 8). We evaluated the impact of maternal poliovirus antibodies by comparing the geometric mean titer (GMT), seroconversion rate, and geometric mean increase (GMI) of types I-III poliovirus neutralizing antibodies post-vaccination, and incidence rates of adverse reactions following vaccination between the MAPG and MANG. Respective seroconversion rates in the MAPG and MANG were 94% and 100%, 79.27% and 100%, and 93.26% and 100% (all serotypes, P < .01) for types I-III poliovirus, respectively. The GMT of all types of poliovirus antibodies in the MAPG (1319.13, 219.91, 764.11, respectively) were significantly lower than those in the MANG (1584.92, 286.73, 899.59, respectively) (P < .05). The GMI in the MAPG was significantly lower than that in the MANG (P < .05). No statistically significant difference in the incidence of local and systemic adverse reactions was observed between the MAPG and MANG. Thus, the presence of maternal poliovirus antibodies does not affect the safety of IPV but can negatively impact the immune responses in infants after IPV vaccination.Entities:
Keywords: Inactivated polio vaccine; immunogenicity; maternal antibody; safety
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35394898 PMCID: PMC9196670 DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2022.2050106
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Hum Vaccin Immunother ISSN: 2164-5515 Impact factor: 4.526
Figure 1.Flowchart of the studies.
Baseline characteristics of participants
| Types | I | II | III | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | P | P | P | ||||
| Male | Positive (%) | 404 (63.82%) | 0.914 | 318 (50.24%) | 0.829 | 156 (24.64%) | 0.974 |
| Negative (%) | 229 (36.28%) | 315 (49.76%) | 477 (75.36%) | ||||
| Female | Positive (%) | 329 (64.13%) | 261 (50.88%) | 126 (24.56%) | |||
| Negative (%) | 184 (35.87%) | 252 (49.12%) | 387 (75.44%) | ||||
| Age-Days | |||||||
| Positive | 73.34 ± 8.24 | 0.002 | 73.15 ± 8.24 | 0.002 | 72.46 ± 8.04 | 0.001 | |
| Negative | 74.96 ± 8.56 | 74.72 ± 8.47 | 74.40 ± 8.45 | ||||
| Vaccine | |||||||
| SIPV | Positive (%) | 356 (62.90%) | 0.459 | 286 (50.53%) | 0.997 | 138 (24.38%) | 0.861 |
| Negative (%) | 210 (37.10%) | 280 (49.47%) | 428 (75.62%) | ||||
| IPV | Positive (%) | 377 (65.00%) | 293 (50.52%) | 144 (24.83%) | |||
| Negative (%) | 203 (35.00%) | 287 (49.48%) | 436 (75.17%) | ||||
| Seropositive, no. (%) | 733 (63.96) | 579 (50.52) | 282 (24.61) | ||||
| GMT (95%CI) | 27.95 (26.01,30.03) | 21.92 (20.33,23.63) | 21.18 (18.85,23.81) | ||||
CI: Confidence interval; SD: Standard Deviation.
Comparison of GMT, GMIs and seroconversion rate of three type-specific neutralizing antibodies between two groups after three dosesa
| Type | GMT (95%CI) | GMI (95%CI) | Seroconversion rate, % (95%CI) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MAPG | MANG | MAPG | MANG | MAPG | MANG | ||||
| I | 1319.13 | 1584.92 | <.05 | 47.20 | 396.27 | <.01 | 94.00 | 100.0 | <.01 |
| II | 219.91 | 286.73 | <.01 | 10.03 | 71.68 | <.01 | 79.27 | 100.0 | <.01 |
| III | 764.11 | 899.59 | <.05 | 36.07 | 224.90 | <.01 | 93.26 | 100.0 | <.01 |
GMT:geometric mean titer; GMI: geometric mean increases; CI: confidence interval.
aAdjusted for infant age(days).
Figure 2.The incidence rate of adverse reaction between two groups.