Key result
An IPV boost at week 39 provided equivalent mucosal immunity to a tOPV boost (28% shedding prevalence in both arms) and higher seroconversion for Polio types 2 and 3.
Why the study?
Does an IPV boost compared to a tOPV boost improve mucosal immunity and seroconversion in infants previously immunized with three doses of tOPV?
RCT (n=372)
open-label
block-randomized
No
Does an IPV boost compared to a tOPV boost improve mucosal immunity and seroconversion in infants previously immunized with three doses of tOPV?
An IPV boost at week 39 provides equivalent intestinal immunity and higher seroconversion for Polio types 2 and 3 compared to a tOPV boost in infants previously immunized with tOPV.
IPV boost supports use as tOPV alternative for equivalent mucosal immunity with higher seroconversion; extends RCT data on polio schedules.
BACKGROUND: The final endgame strategy of global polio eradication initiative includes switching from trivalent oral poliovirus vaccines (tOPV) to bivalent oral polio vaccine (bOPV), and introduction of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV). This study compares IPV with tOPV week 39 boost in Indian infants. METHODS: Starting 28 March 2012, we enrolled 372 Indian infant-mother pairs from Kolkata, India in an open-label, block-randomized, controlled trial comparing a 39 week tOPV to an IPV boost among infants immunized with three doses of tOPV. The primary outcome was mucosal immunity to poliovirus as measured by fecal polio virus shedding after OPV challenge. The secondary outcome was humoral response as defined by >1:8 titers for neutralizing antibodies at week 40. Seroconversion was measured by change in level of antibody titers from week 18 to week 40. The analyses were performed by both intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) comparing the occurrences of outcomes between the arms of the study. FINDINGS: Both the study arms provided equivalent mucosal immunity at 52 weeks with a total shedding prevalence of 28%. Vaccination with IPV resulted in significantly higher seroconversion rates for Polio type 2 (p = 0.03) and Polio type 3 (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that an IPV boost at week 39 is equivalent to tOPV in intestinal immunity, and provides higher seroconversion compared to tOPV. The major limitation of the study was the additional OPV doses receive by infants during pulse polio immunization resulted in additional mucosal boosting, diminishing the impact of IPV or tOPV boost at week 39. However, IPV for OPV boost should prove to be a step forward in the global polio eradication initiative to reduce the problem of circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus (cVDPV).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kanungo et al. (2017) conducted an RCT in Polio immunization (n=372). Inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) boost vs. Trivalent oral poliovirus vaccine (tOPV) boost was evaluated on Mucosal immunity to poliovirus as measured by fecal polio virus shedding after OPV challenge. An IPV boost at week 39 provided equivalent mucosal immunity to a tOPV boost (28% shedding prevalence in both arms) and higher seroconversion for Polio types 2 and 3.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: