PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Poliovirus Vaccine, Inactivated”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

Efficacy and safety of oral poliovirus vaccine and inactivated poliovirus vaccine.

Inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) is the vaccine of choice for protection against paralytic poliomyelitis provided that it is used within the context of a program to increase and sustain the level of uptake to as close to 100% as possible. This means targeting the disadvantaged in society as well as those who have their own pediatrician. The reasons are that enhanced-potency killed polio vaccine is safe, whereas oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) is associated with a low, but definite, risk of paralysis, especially after the first dose. The immunity, as measured by antibody concentrations, is at least as good as and, in some circumstances, such as in the tropics or for booster doses, better than that provided by OPV. IPV reduces the replication of living poliovirus and produces herd immunity, as exemplified by experience in Sweden and Holland. The immunity, whether induced by OPV or IPV, involves memory cells and is long lasting, as seen by the rapid secondary response to a booster dose. IPV also can be mixed with other vaccine components to provide immunity against an increasing range of childhood infections.

Humans↗

Current issues in evaluating the efficacy of oral poliovirus vaccine and inactivated poliovirus vaccine immunization.

Although epidemic poliomyelitis in the United States has been eliminated, there are a number of current issues that concern the use of oral attenuated poliovirus vaccine in comparison with the new enhanced-potency inactivated vaccine. Although wild-type poliovirus is almost eradicated in developed nations, vaccine-induced polio exists, at a low but persistent rate. This article reviews the current issues and suggests a return to the Institute of Medicine's 1988 recommendations concerning combined immunization with inactivated poliovirus vaccine and oral poliovirus vaccine.

Humans↗

Cost-effectiveness analysis of changing from live oral poliovirus vaccine to inactivated poliovirus vaccine in Australia.

OBJECTIVE: Estimate the economic impact of introducing inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) into the Australian childhood immunisation schedule to eliminate vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP). METHODS: Cost-effectiveness of two different four-dose IPV schedules (monovalent vaccine and IPV-containing combination vaccine) compared with the current four-dose oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) schedule for Australian children through age six years. Model used estimates of VAPP incidence, costs, and vaccine utilisation and price obtained from published and unpublished sources. Main outcome measures were total costs, outcomes prevented, and incremental cost-effectiveness, expressed as net cost per case of VAPP prevented. RESULTS: Changing to an IPV-based schedule would prevent 0.395 VAPP cases annually. At $20 per dose for monovalent vaccine and $14 per dose for the IPV component in a combination vaccine, the change would incur incremental, annual costs of $19.5 million ($49.3 million per VAPP case prevented) and $6.7 million ($17.0 million per VAPP case prevented), respectively. Threshold analysis identified break-even prices per dose of $1 for monovalent and $7 for combination vaccines. CONCLUSIONS: Introducing IPV into the Australian childhood immunisation schedule is not likely to be cost-effective unless it comes in a combined vaccine with the IPV-component price below $10. IMPLICATIONS: More precise estimates of VAPP incidence in Australia and IPV price are needed. However, poor cost-effectiveness will make the decision about switching from OPV to IPV in the childhood schedule difficult.

Australia↗

Vaccination with inactivated poliovirus vaccine and oral poliovirus vaccine in Denmark.

In Denmark a polio vaccination program including both inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) and oral poliovirus vaccine ( OPV ) has been in use since 1968. Three injections of IPV are given when the children are five, six, and 15 months of age. Subsequently, three vaccinations with trivalent OPV are administered at the age of three, four, and five years. The acceptance rate is high-93%-98%-and greater than 95% of the population has antibodies to poliovirus. The geometric mean titer of serum antibodies is much greater than 10 IU for all three types. The epidemiology of poliomyelitis and the background for the development of the present vaccination schedule are reviewed.

Antibodies, Viral↗

Poliovirus-specific immunoglobulin A in persons vaccinated with inactivated poliovirus vaccine in The Netherlands.

In The Netherlands the inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) is used for protection against poliomyelitis. It is not clear if parenteral vaccination with IPV can lead to priming of the mucosal immune system. We developed and evaluated enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for the detection of poliovirus serotype-specific immunoglobulin A (IgA) and secretory IgA antibodies. Using these assays we examined the kinetics of the IgA response in sequential serum samples from 15 poliomyelitis patients after natural infection with serotype 3 poliovirus. In 36% of the patients IgA remained present for up to 5 months postinfection. Furthermore, we examined, in an IPV-vaccinated population, the presence of IgA antibodies in sera from young children (4 to 12 years of age; n = 177), sera from older children (between 13 and 15 years of age; n = 123), sera from healthy blood donors (n = 66), and sera from naturally immune elderly persons (n = 54). The seroprevalence of IgA to all three serotypes was low in young vaccinated children (5 to 7%), and the seroprevalence of IgA types 2 and 3 was low in older vaccinated children (2 to 3%). The seroprevalence of antibodies to type 1 was significantly higher (18%) in older children than in younger children. This higher seroprevalence is most likely explained by the persistence of IgA following infection with the serotype 1 wild-type poliovirus strain during the 1978 epidemic. In healthy adults, the seroprevalence of type 1- and type 2-specific IgA was significantly higher than that in young children. These results suggest that at least part of the IgA found in the older population is induced by infections unrelated to the IPV vaccination schedule. Finally, we found that parenteral vaccination with IPV was able to boost secretory IgA responses in 74 to 87% of a naturally exposed elderly population (n = 54). While the presence of secretory IgA in IPV-vaccinated persons has been documented previously, our findings suggest that mucosal priming with live virus is necessary to obtain an IgA response after IPV booster vaccination.

Adolescent↗

Mucosal immunity following oral poliovirus vaccine and enhanced potency inactivated poliovirus vaccine immunization.

Mucosal immunity is considered to be an important barrier for inhibiting person-to-person transmission of naturally occurring (wild type) poliovirus infection. This review briefly summarizes the results of a previously published study in which 79 oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) vaccinated children and 93 enhanced-potency inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) children were challenged with one of two doses of type 1 OPV virus to test the oropharyngeal and gastrointestinal mucosal immunity conferred by each type of poliovirus vaccine. Although both OPV and IPV produced excellent oropharyngeal immunity, OPV was clearly superior in decreasing fecal shedding of the challenge virus.

Child, Preschool↗

Comparative reactogenicity and immunogenicity of booster doses of diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis-inactivated poliovirus vaccine and diphtheria-tetanus-inactivated poliovirus vaccine in preadolescents.

BACKGROUND: The changing epidemiology of pertussis in France has emphasized the need for booster vaccinations in adolescents. Although not previously recommended because of the high reactogenicity of whole cell pertussis in children older than 2 years old, the development of less reactogenic acellular pertussis vaccines means that this recommendation may be reconsidered. OBJECTIVES: Assessment of the reactogenicity and immunogenicity of a diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis-inactivated poliovirus (DTPa-IPV=Group 1) vaccine administered as the fifth dose in preadolescents in comparison with a commercial diphtheria-tetanus-inactivated poliovirus (DT-IPV) (Group 2) vaccine currently recommended for this age group. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An open, randomized study involving 115 healthy subjects ages 10 to 13 years previously vaccinated with 4 doses of diphtheria-tetanus-whole cell pertussis-IPV vaccines. Reactogenicity was assessed for 4 days postvaccination using diary cards. Immunogenicity based on antibody assays in sera taken before and 1 month postvaccination was evaluated for all vaccine antigen components. RESULTS: Both vaccines showed good tolerability, local and general reactogenicity being similar. For local reactions Group 1=88.1% and Group 2=86.8%, and for general reactions Group 1=40.7% and Group 2=47.2%. Headache was the most frequent general symptom with 27.1% for DTPa-IPV and 39.6% for DT-IPV. The incidence of fever was 5.1% with DTPa-IPV and 9.4% for DT-IPV. Good immune responses were obtained against all vaccine components. CONCLUSIONS: The inclusion of acellular pertussis did not significantly increase the reactogenicity of DTPa-IPV in comparison with the currently recommended DT-IPV vaccine when given as a fifth dose in preadolescents. To prevent recent resurgence of pertussis in France, this vaccine should be preferred as the booster dose of DTPa-IPV at 11 to 13 years of age as recently approved by the National Council of Hygiene of France.

Adolescent↗

Randomized comparison of early and late vaccination with inactivated poliovirus vaccine after allogeneic BMT.

Forty-five adult HLA-matched sibling BMT recipients were randomized to receive inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) at 6, 8 and 14 months (early group, n = 23) or at 18, 20 and 26 months after BMT (late group, n = 22). Ninety-five percent of the early group patients had protective antibody titres of > or = 4 to poliovirus type 1 (PV1), poliovirus type 2 (PV2) and poliovirus type 3 (PV3) by a microneutralization assay prior to the first vaccination, at 6 months after BMT. The corresponding proportion for the late group patients was only 67% at 18 months. The antibody responses 1 month after each of the three IPV doses were similar in the two vaccination groups, except that four-fold responses occurred more frequently after the first dose to PV2 and PV3 in the late group. All patients had a protective antibody titre to all poliovirus serotypes 1 and 22 months after the third vaccine dose, except one patient in the early group who lacked antibodies to PV3 at 22 months. Acute GVHD accelerated the decrease of poliovirus antibody titres prior to vaccination but had no influence on vaccination response. Chronic GVHD neither influenced the patient's ability to retain poliovirus antibodies prior to vaccination nor impaired responses to vaccinations. A vaccination schedule consisting of three IPV doses was equally immunogenic when started at 6 or 18 months after allogeneic BMT.

Adult↗

Diminution of the anti-polyribosylribitol phosphate response to a combined diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis/Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine by concurrent inactivated poliovirus vaccination.

BACKGROUND: Prelicensure studies of Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccines (Hib) and diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis vaccines (DTaP) were evaluated with concurrent oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV). However, inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) is now recommended. A trial was conducted in which infants received a DTaP and Hib vaccine, separately (+) or combined (/), with either all OPV, all IPV or sequential IPV-OPV for the primary series of vaccinations. METHODS: In this protocol 567 infants were equally randomized to receive one of the following: Reference Arm A, DTaP + Hib + OPV; Treatment Arm B, DTaP/Hib + OPV; Treatment Arm C, DTaP/Hib + IPV at 2 and 4 months and OPV at 6 months; or Treatment Arm D, DTaP/Hib + IPV. antibodies against all administered antigens were measured at 7 months of age. Children with an antibody response to Hib (anti-polyribosylribitol phosphate (anti-PRP) <0.15 microg/ml had an antibody titer repeated after the toddler booster immunization. RESULTS: A significant diminution in the anti-PRP response was observed at 7 months of age in children given two or three doses of IPV concurrently with DTaP/Hib, compared with the groups given OPV. The geometric mean concentration of anti-PRP, percentage of children with > or = 0.15 microg/ml and percentage of children with > or = 1.0 microg/ ml, respectively, were: A, 4.4, 98%, 81%; B, 3.2, 94%, 78%; C, 1.3, 86%, 58% and D, 1.2, 84%, 53%. CONCLUSION: In this trial concurrent IPV appeared to interfere with the anti-PRP response to DTaP/Hib vaccine, suggesting that introduction of new vaccines may require evaluation of immune responses to all concurrently administered vaccines.

Adhesins, Bacterial↗

Antibody response of infants to two doses of inactivated poliovirus vaccine of enhanced potency.

The conventional formulation of injectable poliovirus vaccine (inactivated) contains 20, 2, and 4 D-antigen units of types 1, 2, and 3 polioviruses. Primary immunization requires three doses given at intervals of at least four weeks. A new formulation with 40, 8, and 32 D-antigen units of the three poliovirus types has been prepared to reduce primary immunization to two doses. We evaluated the immunogenic efficacy of this new formulation supplied to us as a liquid vaccine containing diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus vaccines and inactivated poliovirus vaccine. Two doses were administered four weeks apart to 100 infants and eight weeks apart to 114 infants. Antibody titers were determined against the three types of polioviruses before and after immunization. The effects of age, presence of maternal antibody, and interval between doses of the frequency and titers of antibody response were assessed. Irrespective of age or interval between doses, the seroconversion rates to types 1 and 3 antigens were 90% to 100%. To type 2 antigen the rate was below 84% in the 6- to 7-week-old infants, 88% to 95% in 8- to 12-week-old infants, and 90% to 100% in 13- to 45-week-old infants. The seroconversion rates and geometric mean titers of antibody were lower in those infants with maternal antibody than in those without maternal antibody at the time of receiving the first dose. The best results were in infants 8 weeks of age or older, in whom the two doses were given eight weeks apart. We recommend this schedule.

Antibodies, Viral↗

Surveillance for poliovirus vaccine adverse events, 1991 to 1998: impact of a sequential vaccination schedule of inactivated poliovirus vaccine followed by oral poliovirus vaccine.

BACKGROUND: The elimination of wild-virus-associated poliomyelitis in the Western Hemisphere in 1991 and rapid progress in global polio eradication efforts changed the risk-benefit ratio associated with the exclusive use of oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) for routine immunization. These changes, plus the November 1987 development of an enhanced-potency inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV), which poses no risk of vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP), resulted in a change in polio immunization policy in the United States. In September 1996, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended that IPV replace OPV for the first 2 doses in a sequential poliovirus vaccine schedule. The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a passive surveillance system for adverse events after receipt of any US-licensed vaccine, is used to monitor postlicensure vaccine safety. Postlicensure surveillance of vaccines is important to identify new, rare, or delayed-onset adverse reactions not detected in prelicensure clinical trials or when new vaccine schedules are adopted. Through continual monitoring of adverse events and identification of potential vaccine risks, VAERS can serve as an important resource to ensure continued public acceptance of vaccines. We compared VAERS reports after the receipt of IPV to reports after OPV in infants from 1991 through 1998. Comparisons included reports listing IPV and OPV coadministered with other vaccines. METHODS: Annual reporting rates per 100 000 doses distributed within 3 severity categories (fatal, nonfatal serious, less serious) were examined. Distributions of severity categories by vaccine type, age, and time period (pre- and postrecommendation) were constructed. Safety profiles (distribution of 21 symptom groupings) for IPV and OPV reports were compared. Analysis was restricted to reports for infants 1 to 3 months old and 4 to 6 months old, corresponding generally to first- and second-dose recipients. Any notable increase in a severity or safety category for IPV compared with OPV was followed up by examining the frequency of specific symptoms, reporting source, and date of vaccination. An important limitation of VAERS is that reports do not necessarily represent adverse events caused by vaccines. In many cases, the events are temporal associations only. RESULTS: The annual rates of VAERS reports per 100 000 vaccine doses distributed by severity category, 1991 to 1998, were in general similar for reports after IPV compared with those after OPV. The reporting rates for poliovirus vaccine did not increase materially with the shift to IPV usage. The relative frequencies of symptoms in the fatal and nonfatal serious categories for 1998 vaccine administrations were similar to 1997 reports. Severity profiles for IPV and OPV reports in infants 1 to 3 months old and 4 to 6 months old, corresponding to first- and second-dose recipients, were remarkably similar. The frequency of symptoms listed on IPV reports categorized as fatal or serious was examined by age, vaccine combinations, and time period, and the distribution of symptoms was similar for ages 1 to 3 months and 4 to 6 months. In the postrecommendation period, the 10 most frequent symptoms reported with IPV were also reported with OPV in either similar or lower relative frequency. During the postrecommendation period, safety profiles for infants 4 to 6 months old showed a 2.5% higher proportion in the allergic reaction category for IPV than for OPV, but none of the allergic reaction reports indicated anaphylaxis. In general, the distribution of symptom groupings was not markedly different for IPV compared with OPV. No cases of VAPP were reported after the administration of IPV, whereas 5 VAPP cases were reported after the administration of OPV. CONCLUSIONS: Although VAERS is subject to the limitations of most passive surveillance systems, the large number of reports and national coverage provide a unique database for monitoring vaccine safety. There was a marked increase of IPV reports in VAERS after 1996, consistent with implementation of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendation for the sequential IPV/OPV poliovirus vaccination schedule. Given the increased use of IPV, a review of potential adverse events in VAERS compared IPV with OPV reports both before and after the introduction of the sequential vaccination schedule. Vaccine safety surveillance indicated no adverse events patterns of potential concern following the use of IPV in infants after the introduction of the sequential vaccination schedule. Ongoing surveillance is documenting a decrease in VAPP. These findings provide useful information to support the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendation, made in 1999, to shift to an all-IPV schedule.

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems↗

Inactivated poliovirus vaccine alone or sequential inactivated and oral poliovirus vaccine in two-, four- and six-month-old infants with combination Haemophilus influenzae type b/hepatitis B vaccine.

BACKGROUND: Advisory committees have recommended the increased use of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) for children. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess the safety and immunogenicity of three schedules using IPV administered with diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and whole cell pertussis vaccines in a dual-chambered syringe. Children also received a combination of Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) and hepatitis B vaccines (COMVAX). METHODS: All infants (n = 295) received IPV and COMVAX at 2 and 4 months of age and IPV, oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) or both vaccines at 6 months and OPV at 15 months of age. RESULTS: After two doses of IPV 96 to 100% of infants had antibodies to poliomyelitis viruses types 1, 2 and 3, and after a third dose of vaccine (IPV or OPV) all but one child had antibodies to all three poliovirus types. After two doses of COMVAX 89 and 96% of children had protective levels of antibody to Hib and hepatitis B, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: IPV is highly immunogenic in a two-dose schedule. Administration of a third dose of IPV or a dose of OPV at 6 months of age is highly effective. Simultaneous administration of a combination H. influenzae type b/hepatitis B vaccine did not interfere with the response to IPV.

Bacterial Capsules↗

Poliomyelitis prevention in the United States: introduction of a sequential vaccination schedule of inactivated poliovirus vaccine followed by oral poliovirus vaccine. Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)

These revised recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) replace recommendations on poliomyelitis issued in 1982 and 1987, and present a new ACIP poliovirus vaccination policy that increases reliance on inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV). This change in policy is the most substantive since the introduction of oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) in 1961. ACIP has determined that the risk-benefit ratio associated with the exclusive use of OPV for routine immunization has changed because of rapid progress in global polio eradication efforts. In particular, the relative benefits of OPV to the U.S. population have diminished because of the elimination of wild-virus-associated poliomyelitis in the Western Hemisphere and the reduced threat of poliovirus importation into the United States. The risk for vaccine-associated poliomyelitis caused by OPV is now judged less acceptable because of the diminished risk for wild-virus-associated disease (indigenous or imported). Consequently, ACIP recommends a transition policy that will increase use of IPV and decrease use of OPV during the next 3-5 years. The revised recommendations include three options for poliovirus vaccination, all of which meet acceptable standards of care: sequential vaccination with IPV followed by OPV, OPV alone, or IPV alone. For overall public health benefit, ACIP recommends a sequential vaccination schedule of two doses of IPV followed by two doses of OPV for routine childhood vaccination. Vaccination schedules that include OPV alone or IPV alone are also acceptable and are preferred in some situations (e.g., IPV alone is recommended for children who are immunosuppressed; OPV alone is preferred for children who begin the primary vaccination schedule after 6 months of age). Implementation of these recommendations should reduce the risk for vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis and facilitate a transition to exclusive use of IPV following further progress in global polio eradication.

Adult↗