4.7 Article

Immunogenicity of Catch-Up Immunization with Conventional Inactivated Polio Vaccine among Japanese Adults

期刊

VACCINES
卷 10, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/vaccines10122160

关键词

conventional inactivated polio vaccine; trivalent oral polio vaccine; catch-up immunization; immunogenicity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study assessed the catch-up immunization of healthy Japanese adults with standalone conventional inactivated polio vaccine (cIPV). The results showed that catch-up immunization with cIPV induced robust immune responses and was well tolerated in Japanese adults.
Most Japanese adults are vaccinated twice with the Sabin trivalent oral polio vaccine. Booster vaccination is recommended for Japanese travelers to polio-endemic/high-risk countries. We assessed the catch-up immunization of healthy Japanese adults aged >= 20 years with two doses of standalone conventional inactivated polio vaccine (cIPV). Immunogenicity was evaluated by serum neutralization titers (pre-booster vaccination, 4-6 weeks after each vaccination) against type 1, 2, and 3 poliovirus strains. The participants were 61 healthy Japanese adults (26 men/35 women; mean age +/- standard deviation age 35.8 +/- 8.0 years). Seropositivity rates (percentage of participants with anti-poliovirus antibody titers >= 1:8) pre-vaccination were 88.5%, 95.1%, and 52.5% for Sabin strains (type 1, 2, and 3); 72.1%, 93.4%, and 31.1% for virulent poliovirus strains (type 1: Mahoney; type 2: MEF-1; and type 3: Saukett); and 93.4%, 93.4%, 93.4%, and 88.5% for type 2 vaccine-derived poliovirus strains (SV3128, SV3130, 11,196, and 11,198). After one cIPV dose, all seropositivity rates increased to 98.4-100.0%. After two cIPV doses, the seropositivity rates reached 100% for all strains. cIPV was well tolerated, with no safety concerns. Catch-up immunization with standalone cIPV induced robust immune responses in Japanese adults, indicating that one booster dose boosted serum-neutralizing antibodies to many strains.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据