Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33284114›Full record

Trial reportThe Lancet. Infectious diseases2021

Safety and immunogenicity of inactivated poliovirus vaccine schedules for the post-eradication era: a randomised open-label, multicentre, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.

Ananda S Bandyopadhyay, Chris Gast, Luis Rivera, Xavier Sáez-Llorens, M Steven Oberste, William C Weldon, John Modlin, Ralf Clemens, Sue Ann Costa Clemens, Jose Jimeno and 1 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIEquivalence TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in The Lancet. Infectious diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03239496 (A Phase 3, Open-label, Multicenter Randomized Trial to Evaluate Humoral Immunogenicity of Various Schedules of Intramuscular Full-Dose and Intradermal Fractional Dose of Inactivated Polio Vaccine in Latin American Infants), which is not on this map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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.

NCT03239496 phase3completednot on this map

A Phase 3, Open-label, Multicenter Randomized Trial to Evaluate Humoral Immunogenicity of Various Schedules of Intramuscular Full-Dose and Intradermal Fractional Dose of Inactivated Polio Vaccine in Latin American Infants

TypeinterventionalSponsorFidec CorporationRan2017 to 2018Enrolled773ConditionsPoliomyelitisArmsIPV, f-IPV
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Maintaining the Region of the Americas free of polio: best practices for incident management support teams.Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Inactivated Poliovirus Vaccine Closing the Type 2 Immunity Gap in Vietnam.Journal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Vaccines: Underlying Principles of Design and Testing.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2021
    Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Ananda S BandyopadhyayPolio, Global Development, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, USA. Electronic address: ananda.bandyopadhyay@gatesfoundation.org.
Chris GastBiostatistics Consultant, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Luis RiveraHospital Maternidad Nuestra Señora de la Altagracia, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.
Xavier Sáez-LlorensDepartment of Infectious Disease, Hospital del Niño Dr José Renán Esquivel, Panama City, Panama.
M Steven ObersteDivision of Viral Diseases, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, CDC, Atlanta, GA, USA.
William C WeldonDivision of Viral Diseases, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, CDC, Atlanta, GA, USA.
John ModlinPolio, Global Development, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, USA.
Ralf ClemensGlobal Research in Infectious Diseases, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Sue Ann Costa ClemensGlobal Research in Infectious Diseases, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Jose JimenoDepartment of Infectious Disease, Hospital del Niño Dr José Renán Esquivel, Panama City, Panama.
Ricardo RüttimannFighting Infectious Diseases in Emerging Countries, Miami, FL, USA.
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation · USHospital del Niño · PANational Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases · USCancer Research And Biostatistics · USFighting Infectious Diseases in Emerging Countries · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFollowing the global eradication of wild poliovirus, countries using live attenuated oral poliovirus vaccines will transition to exclusive use of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) or fractional doses of IPV (f-IPV; a f-IPV dose is one-fifth of a normal IPV dose), but IPV supply and cost constraints will necessitate dose-sparing strategies. We compared immunisation schedules of f-IPV and IPV to inform the choice of optimal post-eradication schedule.

methodsThis randomised open-label, multicentre, phase 3, non-inferiority trial was done at two centres in Panama and one in the Dominican Republic. Eligible participants were healthy 6-week-old infants with no signs of febrile illness or known allergy to vaccine components. Infants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1, 1:1:1:2, 2:1:1:1), using computer-generated blocks of four or five until the groups were full, to one of four groups and received: two doses of intradermal f-IPV (administered at 14 and 36 weeks; two f-IPV group); or three doses of intradermal f-IPV (administered at 10, 14, and 36 weeks; three f-IPV group); or two doses of intramuscular IPV (administered at 14 and 36 weeks; two IPV group); or three doses of intramuscular IPV (administered at 10, 14, and 36 weeks; three IPV group). The primary outcome was seroconversion rates based on neutralising antibodies for poliovirus type 1 and type 2 at baseline and at 40 weeks (4 weeks after the second or third vaccinations) in the per-protocol population to allow non-inferiority and eventually superiority comparisons between vaccines and regimens. Three co-primary outcomes concerning poliovirus types 1 and 2 were to determine if seroconversion rates at 40 weeks of age after a two-dose regimen (administered at weeks 14 and 36) of intradermally administered f-IPV were non-inferior to a corresponding two-dose regimen of intramuscular IPV; if seroconversion rates at 40 weeks of age after a two-dose IPV regimen (weeks 14 and 36) were non-inferior to those after a three-dose IPV regimen (weeks 10, 14, and 36); and if seroconversion rates after a two-dose f-IPV regimen (weeks 14 and 36) were non-inferior to those after a three-dose f-IPV regimen (weeks 10, 14, and 36). The non-inferiority boundary was set at -10% for the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the seroconversion rate difference.. Safety was assessed as serious adverse events and important medical events. This study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03239496.

findingsFrom Oct 23, 2017, to Nov 13, 2018, we enrolled 773 infants (372 [48%] girls) in Panama and the Dominican Republic (two f-IPV group n=217, three f-IPV group n=178, two IPV group n=178, and three IPV group n=200). 686 infants received all scheduled vaccine doses and were included in the per-protocol analysis. We observed non-inferiority for poliovirus type 1 seroconversion rate at 40 weeks for the two f-IPV dose schedule (95·9% [95% CI 92·0-98·2]) versus the two IPV dose schedule (98·7% [95·4-99·8]), and for the three f-IPV dose schedule (98·8% [95·6-99·8]) versus the three IPV dose schedule (100% [97·9-100]). Similarly, poliovirus type 2 seroconversion rate at 40 weeks for the two f-IPV dose schedule (97·9% [94·8-99·4]) versus the two IPV dose schedule (99·4% [96·4-100]), and for the three f-IPV dose schedule (100% [97·7-100]) versus the three IPV dose schedule (100% [97·9-100]) were non-inferior. Seroconversion rate for the two f-IPV regimen was statistically superior 4 weeks after the last vaccine dose in the 14 and 36 week schedule (95·9% [92·0-98·2]) compared with the 10 and 14 week schedule (83·2% [76·5-88·6]; p=0·0062) for poliovirus type 1. Statistical superiority of the 14 and 36 week schedule was also found for poliovirus type 2 (14 and 36 week schedule 97·9% [94·8-99·4] vs 10 and 14 week schedule 83·9% [77·2-89·2]; p=0·0062), and poliovirus type 3 (14 and 36 week schedule 84·5% [78·7-89·3] vs 10 and 14 week schedule 73·3% [65·8-79·9]; p=0·0062). For IPV, a two dose regimen administered at 14 and 36 weeks (99·4% [96·4-100]) was superior a 10 and 14 week schedule (88·9% [83·4-93·1]; p<0·0001) for poliovirus type 2, but not for type 1 (14 and 36 week schedule 98·7% [95·4-99·8] vs 10 and 14 week schedule 95·6% [91·4-98·1]), or type 3 (14 and 36 week schedule 97·4% [93·5-99·3] vs 10 and 14 week schedule 93·9% [89·3-96·9]). There were no related serious adverse events or important medical events reported in any group showing safety was unaffected by administration route or schedule.

interpretationOur observations suggest that adequate immunity against poliovirus type 1 and type 2 is provided by two doses of either IPV or f-IPV at 14 and 36 weeks of age, and broad immunity is provided with three doses of f-IPV, enabling substantial savings in cost and supply. These novel clinical data will inform global polio immunisation policy for the post-eradication era.

fundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Indexed as

Immunization ScheduleImmunogenicity, VaccineAntibodies, ViralDominican RepublicFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMalePanamaPoliomyelitisPoliovirusPoliovirus Vaccine, InactivatedPoliovirus Vaccine, OralSeroconversionAntibodies, ViralPoliovirus Vaccine, InactivatedPoliovirus Vaccine, Oral

Identifiers

PMID33284114
PMCPMC7992032
OpenAlexW3094319191

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.