Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31350192›Full record

SynthesisThe Lancet. Infectious diseases2019

Vaccine schedules and the effect on humoral and intestinal immunity against poliovirus: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Grace R Macklin, Nicholas C Grassly, Roland W Sutter, Ondrej Mach, Ananda S Bandyopadhyay, W John Edmunds, Kathleen M O'Reilly

Abstract readComparative StudySystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Lancet. Infectious diseases, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Mucosal immunity to poliovirus.Mucosal immunology · 2022
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Grace R MacklinDepartment of Disease Control, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK; Centre for Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Disease, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK; Polio Eradication Department, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. Electronic address: grace-ruth.macklin@lshtm.ac.uk.
Nicholas C GrasslyDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, St Mary's Campus, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Roland W SutterPolio Eradication Department, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Ondrej MachPolio Eradication Department, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Ananda S BandyopadhyayBill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, WA, USA.
W John EdmundsCentre for Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Disease, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK; Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Kathleen M O'ReillyDepartment of Disease Control, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK; Centre for Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Disease, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
World Health Organization · CHLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBBill & Melinda Gates Foundation · USImperial College London · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/R015600/1World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe eradication of wild and vaccine-derived poliovirus requires the global withdrawal of oral poliovirus vaccines (OPVs) and replacement with inactivated poliovirus vaccines (IPVs). The first phase of this effort was the withdrawal of the serotype 2 vaccine in April 2016, with a switch from trivalent OPVs to bivalent OPVs. The aim of our study was to produce comparative estimates of humoral and intestinal mucosal immunity associated with different routine immunisation schedules.

methodsWe did a random-effect meta-analysis with single proportions and a network meta-analysis in a Bayesian framework to synthesise direct and indirect data. We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomised controlled trials published from Jan 1, 1980, to Nov 1, 2018, comparing poliovirus immunisation schedules in a primary series. Only trials done outside western Europe or North America and without variation in age schedules (ie, age at administration of the vaccine) between study groups were included in the analyses, because trials in high-income settings differ in vaccine immunogenicity and schedules from other settings and to ensure consistency within the network of trials. Data were extracted directly from the published reports. We assessed seroconversion against poliovirus serotypes 1, 2, and 3, and intestinal immunity against serotype 2, measured by absence of shedding poliovirus after a challenge OPV dose.

findingsWe identified 437 unique studies; of them, 17 studies with a maximum of 8279 evaluable infants were eligible for assessment of humoral immunity, and eight studies with 4254 infants were eligible for intestinal immunity. For serotype 2, there was low between-trial heterogeneity in the data (τ=0·05, 95% credible interval [CrI] 0·009-0·15) and the risk ratio (RR) of seroconversion after three doses of bivalent OPVs was 0·14 (95% CrI 0·11-0·17) compared with three doses of trivalent OPVs. The addition of one or two full doses of an IPV after a bivalent OPV schedule increased the RR to 0·85 (0·75-1·0) and 1·1 (0·98-1·4). However, the addition of an IPV to bivalent OPV schedules did not significantly increase intestinal immunity (0·33, 0·18-0·61), compared with trivalent OPVs alone. For serotypes 1 and 3, there was susbstantial inconsistency and between-trial heterogeneity between direct and indirect effects, so we only present pooled estmates on seroconversion, which were at least 80% for serotype 1 and at least 88% for serotype 3 for all vaccine schedules.

interpretationFor WHO's polio eradication programme, the addition of one IPV dose for all birth cohorts should be prioritised to protect against paralysis caused by type 2 poliovirus; however, this inclusion will not prevent transmission or circulation in areas with faecal-oral transmission.

fundingUK Medical Research Council.

Indexed as

Immunization ScheduleVaccinationAntibodies, ViralDisease EradicationFecesHumansImmunity, HumoralImmunity, MucosalImmunogenicity, VaccineInfantInfant, NewbornIntestinal MucosaPoliomyelitisPoliovirusPoliovirus Vaccine, InactivatedPoliovirus Vaccine, OralAntibodies, ViralPoliovirus Vaccine, InactivatedPoliovirus Vaccine, Oral

Identifiers

PMID31350192
OpenAlexW2963766951

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.