ArticleVaccine: X2022
Safety and immunogenicity of a hexavalent DTwP-IPV-HB-PRP∼T vaccine versus separate DTwP-HB-PRP∼T and IPV vaccines in healthy infants in India.
Article in Vaccine: X, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- A phase I, open label, clinical study to assess the safety and immunogenicity of indigenously developed liquid (DTwP-HepB-IPV-Hib) hexavalent combination vaccine in healthy toddlers aged 16-24 months.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2022Trial
- Current and next-generation formulation strategies for inactivated polio vaccines to lower costs, increase coverage, and facilitate polio eradication.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2022Review
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Multivalent vaccines containing whole-cell pertussis (wP) antigens combined with established diphtheria (D), tetanus (T), hepatitis B (HB), Methods: Phase I/II, randomized, active-controlled, open-label study in healthy toddlers (Cohort I) and infants (Cohort II). Toddlers in Cohort I who had completed primary series D, T, P, HB, Hib, and polio vaccination received a booster dose of DTwP-IPV-HB-PRP∼T (N = 30) or DTwP-HB-PRP∼T + IPV (N = 15) vaccines at 15-18 months of age. After satisfactory review of safety data in Cohort I, infants in Cohort II received DTwP-IPV-HB-PRP∼T (N = 100) or DTwP-HB-PRP∼T + IPV (N = 50) at 6-8, 10-12, and 14-16 weeks of age. All infants in Cohort II had received previous oral polio and HB vaccines per country recommendations. Results: Booster and primary series vaccinations were well tolerated with no clinically significant differences between vaccine groups. Most adverse events were mild and resolved spontaneously; there were no vaccine-related serious adverse events and no deaths. In both vaccine groups, anti-D, anti-T, anti-HB, anti-Hib, and anti-polio 1, 2, and 3 seroprotection was 100% post-booster and post-primary series. For the pertussis antigens, booster response rate was > 86% in both groups. For the primary series, vaccine response rate was slightly higher for DTwP-IPV-HB-PRP∼T than DTwP-HB-PRP∼T + IPV for anti-PT (80.2% and 70.8%) and anti-FHA (81.3% and 68.8%), slightly lower for anti-PRN (72.5% and 81.3%), and similar in each group for anti-FIM (95.6% and 97.9%). Conclusions: This study demonstrated a good safety and immunogenicity profile of the hexavalent DTwP-IPV-HB-PRP∼T vaccine for infant primary series vaccination at 6-8, 10-12, and 14-16 weeks of age and booster vaccination at 15-18 months of age and supported progression to the next development phase.
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.