Key result
An inactivated polio vaccine schedule had little negative impact on coverage, slightly increasing the likelihood of being up to date at 24 months at one HMO (RR 1.12; 95% CI 1.05-1.19).
Why the study?
Does the adoption of an inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) schedule reduce immunization coverage rates in children compared to an oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) schedule?
Cohort
Yes
Does the adoption of an inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) schedule reduce immunization coverage rates in children compared to an oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) schedule?
Relative Risk: 1.12 (95% CI 1.05–1.19)
The transition from an all-OPV to an IPV-containing schedule did not negatively impact overall childhood vaccine coverage rates.
Authors
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
IPV schedule was associated with preserved coverage at one HMO; leaves open generalizability to other settings and populations.
Davis et al. (2001) conducted a cohort in Polio immunization coverage. Inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) schedule vs. Oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) schedule was evaluated on Up-to-date immunization status at 24 months of age (RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.05, 1.19). An inactivated polio vaccine schedule had little negative impact on coverage, slightly increasing the likelihood of being up to date at 24 months at one HMO (RR 1.12; 95% CI 1.05-1.19).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: