ArticleThe Lancet regional health. Western Pacific2021
Immunogenicity of two-dose and three-dose vaccination schedules with Sabin inactivated poliovirus vaccine in China: An open-label, randomized, controlled trial.
Article in The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Immuno-persistence of the different primary polio vaccine schedules and immunogenicity of the booster dose by sabin inactivated or bivalent oral poliovirus vaccine in children aged 4 years: an open-label, randomised, controlled phase 4 trial in China.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2023Article
- Safeguarding vaccine production and supply strategies for polio eradication endgame.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe assessed immunogenicity of three-dose and two-dose immunization schedules with a Sabin-strain inactivated poliovirus vaccine (sIPV) produced by one Chinese vaccine manufacturer.
methodsThis was an open label, randomized, controlled trial conducted in 16 vaccination clinics in Shandong province. Infants were allocated randomly to either a 3-dose study arm (sIPV administered at 2, 3, and 4 months of age) or a 2-dose arm (sIPV administered at 4 and 8-11 months of age). Poliovirus neutralizing antibodies were measured in sera collected prior to the first sIPV dose and one month after the last dose.
findingsWe enrolled 560 infants; 536 (95.7%) completed the study. Final seropositivity rates were >98% for all three serotypes in both study arms. There were no statistically significant differences in seropositivity between the 2-dose and the 3-dose schedule. Final median reciprocal titres of polio antibodies were high overall (>1:768 for all serotypes) and statistically significantly higher in 2-dose recipients compared with 3-dose recipients (
interpretationThis study offers evidence that two doses of sIPV administered at 4 and 8-11 months of age and three doses of sIPV administered at 2, 3, and 4 months of age both provide serological protection against poliomyelitis. Median reciprocal titres of polio antibodies were high overall, and were more related to the interval between doses than the number of doses, with the longer interval of the 2-dose schedule producing higher reciprocal titres than the shorter-interval 3-dose schedule. The protection provided by the 3-dose schedule is achieved earlier in life than the protection with the 2-dose schedule. Countries planning to use an IPV-only schedule in the post-eradication era can consider this 2-dose sIPV option as an immunogenic and dose-sparing strategy.
fundingWorld Health Organization (from a grant from International PolioPlus Committee, Rotary International, Evanston, IL, USA).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.