4.7 Article

Serologic response to inactivated poliovirus vaccine: A randomized clinical trial comparing 2 vaccination schedules in Puerto Rico

Journal

JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Volume 195, Issue 1, Pages 12-20

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1086/508427

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NATIONAL CENTER FOR RESEARCH RESOURCES [G12RR003050] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NCRR NIH HHS [G12 RR003050] Funding Source: Medline
  3. PHS HHS [200-2002-00738] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends the discontinuation of oral poliovirus vaccine after eradication of wild poliovirus. Studies assessing inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) immunogenicity in tropical countries, using the WHO Expanded Programme on Immunization (EPI) schedule, have been limited. Methods. We conducted a randomized clinical trial in Ponce, Puerto Rico. Infants were assigned to 1 of 2 study arms: those in the EPI arm received IPV at 6, 10, and 14 weeks of age, and those in the US arm received IPV at 2, 4, and 6 months of age. Neutralizing antibody titers against poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3 were tested on serum specimens obtained before administration of the first dose of IPV and 28-45 days after administration of the last dose of IPV. Results. Seroconversion rates for the EPI (n = 225) and US (n = 230) arms, respectively, were 85.8% and 99.6% for poliovirus type 1 (P < .001), 86.2% and 100% for poliovirus type 2 (P < .001), and 96.9% and 99.1% for poliovirus type 3 (P = .08). Seroconversion rates were lower among infants in the EPI arm who had high maternal antibody levels for all 3 poliovirus types (P < .001). Conclusions. The EPI schedule resulted in lower seroconversion rates for poliovirus types 1 and 2. These results are relevant for tropical countries planning to use IPV in a posteradication environment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available