Key result
Co-administering sIPV with routine vaccines achieves ~90% PV I seroconversion, comparable to staggered administration.
Why the study?
Oral poliovirus vaccine causes vaccine-derived poliovirus and paralytic poliomyelitis while conventional IPV supply is limited, necessitating evaluation of Sabin-strain IPV safety and immunogenicity given concurrently or staggered with routine infant vaccines.
Does co-administration of sIPV with routine infant vaccines provide non-inferior immunogenicity and similar safety compared to staggered administration in healthy infants?
RCT (n=1,442)
Open-label
randomized
Yes
Does co-administration of sIPV with routine infant vaccines provide non-inferior immunogenicity and similar safety compared to staggered administration in healthy infants?
Absolute Event Rate: 90.3% vs 87%
Co-administration of sIPV with routine infant vaccines demonstrates favorable safety and immunogenicity, supporting its use in a 3-dose primary immunization schedule.
Supports co-administration of sIPV with routine infant vaccines; extends randomized evidence for flexible polio schedules in endemic regions.
BACKGROUND: Oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) has been reported to cause vaccine-derived poliovirus and vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis, and the limited global supply of conventional IPV has led many countries to rely on fractional-dose IPV regimens alongside OPV. The current study aims to assess the sIPV safety and immunogenicity when given concurrently with or in a staggered manner with routine immunization. METHODS: A multi-country, multi-center, open-label, randomized controlled, extended phase III non-inferiority clinical trial was conducted with 1442 healthy infants aged 6-8 weeks from Bangladesh and Pakistan enrolled and randomized into four groups, i.e., co-administration group 1 (group C1), co-administration group 2 (group C2), staggered administration group 1 (group S1) and staggered administration group 2 (group S2). Antibody levels were determined using the collected sera for immunogenicity evaluation. The difference in seroconversion rates between the coadministration group and the staggered administration group is compared using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel χ FINDINGS: The post-vaccination seroconversion rates for PV I were 90.3% (306/339) in group C1 and 87.0% (261/300) in group S1, for PV II, 91.7% (311/339) in group C1 and 91.3% (274/300) in group S1 and for PV III, 86.4% (293/339) in group C1 and 92.3% (277/300) in group S1. Among adverse reactions (ARs) reported within 7 days of vaccination, the incidence was similarly high in both the co-administration and staggered vaccination groups (92.8% vs. 95.5%). INTERPRETATION: Our results demonstrated favorable safety and immunogenicity of co-administration of sIPV with other routine infant vaccines according to a 3-dose primary immunization schedule.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Islam et al. (2026) conducted an RCT in Healthy infants (n=1,442). sIPV co-administered with routine infant vaccines vs. sIPV administered in a staggered manner with routine infant vaccines was evaluated on Post-vaccination seroconversion rate for PV I. Co-administration of sIPV with routine infant vaccines demonstrated favorable immunogenicity, with PV I seroconversion of 90.3% vs 87.0% for staggered administration.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: