Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “POLIOVIRUS VACCINE”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the 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

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↗

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↗

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↗

Comparison of inactivated poliovirus vaccine and oral poliovirus vaccine programs in Israel.

In spite of high vaccination coverage, paralytic poliomyelitis still occurs in Israel, either in sporadic form in the urban area or in small outbreaks in the rural, non-Jewish segment. At high risk are mainly very young infants, not yet protected by poliovirus vaccine and children who have failed to seroconvert after a full course of oral poliovirus vaccine ( OPV ). In these circumstances, a new program for vaccination of young infants early in life with a quadruple vaccine containing inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) and diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis vaccines (DTP) has been tested. Administration of two doses of IPV up to the age of three and one-half months followed by a booster at the age of 10 months has produced a very satisfactory antibody response (100% seroconversion and high geometric mean titers of antibody to the three antigens), which has occurred early in life and persisted up to two years after booster. This response was similar to that observed after four doses of trivalent OPV ( TOPV ) reinforced with one dose of monovalent type 1 OPV . Two doses of the quadruple vaccine have also induced an antibody response to pertussis antigen in greater than 90% of the infants. After booster, a greater than 99% conversion rate has been recorded, which has remained unchanged at one year of follow-up. The above data have led to the modification of the poliovirus vaccination schedule in the areas at risk.

Antibodies, Viral↗

Analysis of antigenic profiles of inactivated poliovirus vaccine and vaccine-derived polioviruses by block-ELISA method.

A new block-ELISA test for quantitative evaluation of relative reactivity of antigenic sites was developed and used to reveal the detailed epitope structure of inactivated poliovirus vaccines (IPV) and live poliovirus strains. Poliovirus was captured on ELISA plates coated with rabbit anti-poliovirus IgG and blocked by monoclonal antibodies (Mabs) specific to individual epitopes before the remaining reactive antigenic sites were quantified by polyclonal anti-poliovirus IgG conjugate. The decrease of conjugate binding by the pre-treatment with a Mab reflects its contribution to the overall reactivity of poliovirus antigen. The level of block activity of Mabs for a given antigen can be expressed as a percent of reduction of antigenic reactivity as determined by ELISA test. It can be normalized by expressing this value as a ratio to the block activity of a reference sample. The data on the blocking-activity of a panel of monoclonal antibodies specific to different antigenic sites represents the epitope composition (antigenic profile) of a sample. Quantitative differences in epitope composition were determined for nine samples of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) and compared with the International Reference Reagent. This method could be used for monitoring consistency of IPV production, comparison of vaccines made by different manufacturers, and for the analysis of antigenically modified strains of attenuated poliovirus. Antigenic structures of two isolates of type 1 vaccine-derived poliovirus (VDPV) were compared with the structures of parental Sabin 1 and wild-type Mahoney strains using 17 monoclonal antibodies and revealed significant differences, suggesting that the method can be used for screening of field isolates and rapid identification of antigenically divergent VDPV strains.

Animals↗

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↗

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↗

Defining surrogate serologic tests with respect to predicting protective vaccine efficacy: poliovirus vaccination.

Inactivated and trivalent oral poliovirus vaccines contain either formalin-inactivated or live, attenuated poliovirus, respectively, of the three serotypes. Interference among the three attenuated poliovirus serotypes was minimized with a "balanced-formulation" vaccine, and serologic responses after IPV were optimized by adjusting the antigenic content of each inactivated poliovirus serotype. Seroconversion is dependent on both the relative content as well as the absolute quantity of virus in the vaccine. The "gold standard" method to assess humoral antibody responses following vaccination is the neutralization assay. Any detectable titer of neutralizing antibody against poliovirus is considered protective against clinical paralytic diseases. Recently, standard procedures were adopted for conducting neutralization assays. Efforts are being undertaken now to develop a combined diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and pertussis vaccine and IPV vaccine in the United States using a dual-chambered syringe that mixes the content of both vaccines at the time of injection; this approach is necessary to overcome the potential detrimental effect of thimerosal on IPV (the preservative in DTP). Other vaccines that combine DTP and/or Haemophilus influenzae type b and/or hepatitis B with IPV appear feasible but require further investigation. New combination vaccines should induce similar or superior levels of neutralizing antibody in serum for individual protection against paralytic disease and mucosal immunity that effectively decreases viral replication in the intestine and pharynx for population protection against transmission of poliovirus.

Antibodies, Viral↗

Sequential use of inactivated poliovirus vaccine followed by oral poliovirus vaccine in Oman.

Seroprevalence and geometric mean titers (GMTs) were compared at 6 and 10 months after vaccination with monovalent type 1 oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) at 6 months and trivalent OPV at 7 and 9 months. Group 1 had received 4 doses of OPV, group 2 OPV at birth and 3 doses of OPV and inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV), and group 3 placebo at birth and 3 doses of IPV. A total of 547 infants completed the study. At 10 months, seroprevalence to poliovirus type 1 was 98%, 99%, and 98% in groups 1, 2, and 3; 100%, 100%, and 98% to poliovirus type 2; and 80%, 96%, and 91% to poliovirus type 3. Differences in seroprevalence among the groups were significant for poliovirus type 3 (P < .001). Between 6 and 10 months, significant increases in seroprevalence and GMTs occurred for poliovirus type 1 but not for types 2 and 3. Two OPV doses following 3 IPV doses did not significantly increase seroprevalence or raise GMTs for poliovirus types 2 and 3; however, significant increases were found for poliovirus type 1, which may have benefitted from monovalent type 1 administration.

Antibodies, Viral↗

Rationale for the sequential use of inactivated poliovirus vaccine and live attenuated poliovirus vaccine for routine poliomyelitis immunization in the United States.

Despite the concerns mentioned in the last section, there are many reasons to believe that a polio immunization schedule that incorporates sequential doses of inactivated poliovirus vaccine and live attenuated poliovirus vaccine would provide both humoral and intestinal immunity to the fully immunized person that is at least as good, if not better, than the immunity achieved by the use of IPV or OPV alone. A substantial degree of protection should also extend to partially immunized and unimmunized preschool aged children in the community. Furthermore most of the cases of OPV-associated paralytic poliomyelitis could be prevented. Because the reasons for these beliefs are based on data from small studies and on inferences from related research, specific recommendations for a change from current polio immunization policy must depend on additional clinical research. Well-designed trials comparing several different options for sequencing both inactivated and live vaccines are needed, and these studies should focus carefully on both humoral and intestinal immunity conferred by the various vaccine schedules.

Drug Administration Schedule↗

The humoral immune response to type 1 oral poliovirus vaccine in children previously immunized with enhanced potency inactivated poliovirus vaccine or live oral poliovirus vaccine.

Sixty-one children who had previously received three doses of enhanced potency inactivated poliovirus vaccine (epIPV) at 2, 4, and 18 months of age and 56 children who had previously received oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) according to the same schedule were challenged with a single dose of monovalent, type 1 oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV1) between 19 and 52 months of age. Before the OPV1 challenge, the previously epIPV-immunized recipients had a geometric mean poliovirus type 1 microneutralization antibody titer (geometric mean titer [GMT]) of 11.1 IU, which was significantly higher than the prechallenge GMT of 2.2 IU among the children who had previously received OPV. Three weeks after the OPV1 challenge, the GMTs for the epIPV-immunized recipients and the OPV-immunized recipients were 35.3 IU and 5.1 IU, respectively. For the epIPV-immunized recipients, both the prechallenge GMT and the postchallenge GMT were dependent on the D antigen content of the vaccine that they had previously received. A fourfold or greater rise in poliovirus type 1 antibody occurred after the OPV1 challenge in 50.9% of the epIPV-immunized children and in 28.6% of the OPV-immunized children; this difference was statistically significant. For both groups, antibody boosts were inversely correlated with the pre-challenge serum antibody titer. However, the epIPV-immunized children consistently were more likely to boost than the OPV-immunized children at equivalent levels of prechallenge antibody. This experience indicated that OPV1 administration effectively raises the level of serum antibody in children previously immunized with three doses of epIPV, especially in children with lower levels of preexisting antibody. This booster response was superior to the booster response of children who received three doses of OPV.

Antibodies, Viral↗

Childhood immunizations: position on the enhanced inactivated poliovirus vaccine and live attenuated oral poliovirus vaccine dilemma.

Recent review of the polio vaccines (live attenuated oral poliovirus vaccine [OPV] and enhanced inactivated poliovirus vaccine [eIPV]) for children has generated much debate between infectious disease experts and public health officials. Poliomyelitis was a common medical condition in the 1940s and 1950s, and the success of OPV in eradicating poliomyelitis from the United States and even the Western hemisphere cannot be disputed. However, the adverse condition of vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP) has been reported in eight to nine cases per year as a result of exclusively using OPV in the United States. The dilemma has been how to continue the elimination of wild-type poliovirus paralytic poliomyelitis in the United States and worldwide while minimizing the occurrence of VAPP. Clinical trials have supported that eIPV and OPV provide similar protection for humoral immunity. However, OPV provides superior gastrointestinal immunity, which is a public health benefit for vulnerable populations. Recommendations among experts have concluded that the sequential eIPV/OPV is the preferred schedule, with eIPV only or OPV only as alternative equally acceptable schedules. Therefore, factors such as cost, compliance, and access to health care must be considered by parents and providers when selecting a polio vaccine regimen, especially among underserved populations.

Age Factors↗

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↗

Comparison of enhanced potency inactivated poliovirus vaccine (EIPV) versus standard oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) in Thai infants.

Enhanced potency inactivated poliovirus vaccine (EIPV), combined with diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP) vaccine, was compared with oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) regarding immunogenicity in Thai infants, vaccinated at 2, 4 and 6 months of age. EIPV induced significantly higher seroconversion rates than OPV to all 3 poliovirus types after the second and third immunization. After 3 doses of each vaccine, at 7 months of age, all infants receiving EIPV proved seropositive for poliovirus type 1, type 2 and type 3 neutralizing antibodies, whereas of those receiving OPV, 9% remained seronegative (titre < 1:4) for type 1 (p = 0.0042) and 11% for type 3 (p = 0.0013). All participating children were given an additional dose of OPV at the age of 9 months and tested again at 12 months of age. At that point, virtually all infants had poliovirus neutralizing antibodies, but the geometric mean titres to each poliovirus type were significantly higher in the vaccinees who had received EIPV. It is concluded that the greater immunogenicity of EIPV vis-à-vis 3 doses of OPV may be biologically significant for protection against poliovirus types 1 and 3 in countries where cases of poliomyelitis occur in young children. These findings warrant considering EIPV, alone or in combination with OPV, for an immunization programme in Thailand and similar countries in the future.

Antibodies, Viral↗

Introduction of inactivated poliovirus vaccine into oral poliovirus vaccine-using countries.

Given the progress already made towards the goal of global eradication of poliomyelitis LE (polio), the risk of paralytic poliomyelitis is changing in many geographical areas. Vaccination against polio will need to continue because of the threat of wild poliovirus importation. However, an increasing number of polio-free countries are determining that the risk of paralytic poliomyelitis associated with continued routine immunization using oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) is greater than the risk of importation or laboratory handling of wild poliovirus. Some of these countries have introduced inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV)--a safe and effective alternative for routine immunization--using one of two approaches: replacement of OPV by IPV and introduction of a sequential IPV/OPV schedule. Countries considering such changes should conduct a thorough evaluation of the epidemiological, financial and operational implications before finalizing a change in policy. Tropical developing countries pose a special challenge for policy formulation on IPV. In these countries, given the unresolved issues related to the immunogenicity of IPV when administered in the WHO/Expanded Programme on Immunization (EPI) vaccination schedule, the continued focal circulation of wild poliovirus on two continents, the relatively high cost of IPV and the operational complexities of introducing this vaccine, WHO does not--as of July 2003--recommend the adoption of IPV alone or in a sequential schedule. It is expected that this position will be reviewed late 2004 and, if appropriate, revised according to the additional information that has become available on IPV effectiveness, logistic implications, and on further progress towards polio eradication. WHO is encouraging operational studies and introduction projects to evaluate these issues.

Developing Countries↗