• Lancet · Nov 2010

    Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study Comparative Study

    Immunogenicity of bivalent types 1 and 3 oral poliovirus vaccine: a randomised, double-blind, controlled trial.

    • Roland W Sutter, T Jacob John, Hemant Jain, Sharad Agarkhedkar, Padmasani Venkat Ramanan, Harish Verma, Jagadish Deshpande, Ajit Pal Singh, Meghana Sreevatsava, Pradeep Malankar, Anthony Burton, Arani Chatterjee, Hamid Jafari, and R Bruce Aylward.
    • World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. sutterr@who.int
    • Lancet. 2010 Nov 13; 376 (9753): 1682-8.

    BackgroundPoliovirus types 1 and 3 co-circulate in poliomyelitis-endemic countries. We aimed to assess the immunogenicity of a novel bivalent types 1 and 3 oral poliovirus vaccine (bOPV).MethodsWe did a randomised, double-blind, controlled trial to assess the superiority of monovalent type 2 OPV (mOPV2), mOPV3, or bOPV over trivalent OPV (tOPV), and the non-inferiority of bivalent vaccine compared with mOPV1 and mOPV3. The study was done at three centres in India between Aug 6, 2008, and Dec 26, 2008. Random allocation was done by permuted blocks of ten. The primary outcome was seroconversion after one monovalent or bivalent vaccine dose compared with a dose of trivalent vaccine at birth. The secondary endpoints were seroconversion after two vaccine doses compared with after two trivalent vaccine doses and cumulative two-dose seroconversion. Parents or guardians and study investigators were masked to treatment allocation. Because of multiple comparisons, we defined p≤0·01 as statistically significant. This trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials, ISRCTN 64725429.Results900 newborn babies were randomly assigned to one of five vaccine groups (about 180 patients per group); of these 70 (8%) discontinued, leaving 830 (92%) for analysis. After the first dose, seroconversion to poliovirus type 1 was 20% for both mOPV1 (33 of 168) and bOPV (32 of 159) compared with 15% for tOPV (25 of 168; p>0·01), to poliovirus type 2 was 21% (35 of 170) for mOPV2 compared with 25% (42 of 168) for tOPV (p>0·01), and to poliovirus type 3 was 12% (20 of 165) for mOPV3 and 7% (11 of 159) for bOPV compared with 4% (7 of 168) for tOPV (mOPV3 vs tOPV p=0·01; bOPV vs tOPV; p>0·01). Cumulative two-dose seroconversion to poliovirus type 1 was 90% (151 of 168) for mOPV1 and 86% (136 of 159) for bOPV compared with 63% (106 of 168) for tOPV (p<0·0001), to poliovirus type 2 was 90% (153 of 170) for mOPV2 compared with 91% (153 of 168) for tOPV (p>0·01), and to poliovirus type 3 was 84% (138 of 165) for mOPV3 and 74% (117 of 159) for bOPV compared with 52% (87 of 168) for tOPV (p<0·0001). The vaccines were well tolerated. 19 serious adverse events occurred, including one death; however, these events were not attributed to the trial interventions.InterpretationThe findings show the superiority of bOPV compared with tOPV, and the non-inferiority of bOPV compared with mOPV1 and mOPV3.FundingGAVI Alliance, World Health Organization, and Panacea Biotec.Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…