Serological response and poliovirus excretion following different combined oral and inactivated poliovirus vaccines immunization schedules

Châtelet, Isabelle Parent du; Merchant, Anwar T.; Fisher‐Hoch, Susan P.; Luby, Stephen P.; Plotkin, Stanley А.; Moatter, Tariq; Agboatwalla, Mubina; Cormick, Joseph B Mc

doi:10.1016/s0264-410x(02)00523-6

Cited by 45 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Overall, levels of excretion of vaccine virus during the first week after challenge with tOPV in this highly immunized population (figure 1) are comparable to those in published studies from other settings, which have typically found excretion 7 days after challenge in 10%-20% of children who had previously received 2-5 doses of tOPV [7,8,10,11,13,[24][25][26]. Although mOPV is more effective than tOPV at preventing infection with poliovirus, the imperfect nature of mucosal immunity limits the ability of OPV to induce protection against challenge virus in all immunized children.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

“…Data on mucosal immunity to poliovirus in tropical countries after immunization with OPV are limited [10][11][12][13]. Furthermore, levels of mucosal immunity have not been investigated in polio-endemic countries that have a high prevalence of vaccine-induced immunity and in which the extent of participation of immunized children in the continued circulation of wild poliovirus is unclear.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Mucosal Immunity after Vaccination with Monovalent and Trivalent Oral Poliovirus Vaccine in India

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Mucosal Immunity after Vaccination with Monovalent and Trivalent Oral Poliovirus Vaccine in India

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The schedule indicates the number and type of OPV doses received by both groups and the number of doses of IPV that were added in the intervention group. In two studies, IPV was administered simultaneously with OPV at 6, 10, and 14 weeks (Modlin et al 1997 [47] and du Chatelet et al 2003 [48]), and in one study IPV was administered before and at the same time as OPV (schedule was IPV, IPV/OPV, OPV, OPV at 2, 4, 6, 15 months; WHO Collaborative Study Group on Oral and Inactivated Poliovirus Vaccines 1997 [49]). The χ 2 test for heterogeneity among studies for serotypes 1 and 3 was not significant for each serotype ( p -values 0.13 and 0.08) or for the serotypes combined ( p -value 0.14).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic Review of Mucosal Immunity Induced by Oral and Inactivated Poliovirus Vaccines against Virus Shedding following Oral Poliovirus Challenge

Hird¹,

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) may be used in mass vaccination campaigns during the final stages of polio eradication. It is also likely to be adopted by many countries following the coordinated global cessation of vaccination with oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) after eradication. The success of IPV in the control of poliomyelitis outbreaks will depend on the degree of nasopharyngeal and intestinal mucosal immunity induced against poliovirus infection. We performed a systematic review of studies published through May 2011 that recorded the prevalence of poliovirus shedding in stool samples or nasopharyngeal secretions collected 5–30 days after a “challenge” dose of OPV. Studies were combined in a meta-analysis of the odds of shedding among children vaccinated according to IPV, OPV, and combination schedules. We identified 31 studies of shedding in stool and four in nasopharyngeal samples that met the inclusion criteria. Individuals vaccinated with OPV were protected against infection and shedding of poliovirus in stool samples collected after challenge compared with unvaccinated individuals (summary odds ratio [OR] for shedding 0.13 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.08–0.24)). In contrast, IPV provided no protection against shedding compared with unvaccinated individuals (summary OR 0.81 [95% CI 0.59–1.11]) or when given in addition to OPV, compared with individuals given OPV alone (summary OR 1.14 [95% CI 0.82–1.58]). There were insufficient studies of nasopharyngeal shedding to draw a conclusion. IPV does not induce sufficient intestinal mucosal immunity to reduce the prevalence of fecal poliovirus shedding after challenge, although there was some evidence that it can reduce the quantity of virus shed. The impact of IPV on poliovirus transmission in countries where fecal-oral spread is common is unknown but is likely to be limited compared with OPV.

show abstract

“…ples obtained 7 days after challenge [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. However, the duration and titer of viral excretion among these children is reduced, compared with that among unvaccinated children [3,10].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Asymptomatic Wild‐Type Poliovirus Infection in India among Children with Previous Oral Poliovirus Vaccination

Grassly¹,

Jafari²,

Bahl³

et al. 2010

J INFECT DIS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Serological response and poliovirus excretion following different combined oral and inactivated poliovirus vaccines immunization schedules

Cited by 45 publications

References 21 publications

Mucosal Immunity after Vaccination with Monovalent and Trivalent Oral Poliovirus Vaccine in India

Mucosal Immunity after Vaccination with Monovalent and Trivalent Oral Poliovirus Vaccine in India

Systematic Review of Mucosal Immunity Induced by Oral and Inactivated Poliovirus Vaccines against Virus Shedding following Oral Poliovirus Challenge

Asymptomatic Wild‐Type Poliovirus Infection in India among Children with Previous Oral Poliovirus Vaccination

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About