Cost-effectiveness analysis of changing from live oral poliovirus vaccine to inactivated poliovirus vaccine in Australia

OBJECTIVE: Estimate the economic impact of introducing inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) into the Australian childhood immunisation schedule to eliminate vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP). METHODS: Cost-effectiveness of two different four-dose IPV schedules (monovalent vaccine and IPV-containing combination vaccine) compared with the current four-dose oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) schedule for Australian children through age six years. Model used estimates of VAPP incidence, costs, and vaccine utilisation and price obtained from published and unpublished sources. Main outcome measures were total costs, outcomes prevented, and incremental cost-effectiveness, expressed as net cost per case of VAPP prevented. RESULTS: Changing to an IPV-based schedule would prevent 0.395 VAPP cases annually. At $20 per dose for monovalent vaccine and $14 per dose for the IPV component in a combination vaccine, the change would incur incremental, annual costs of $19.5 million ($49.3 million per VAPP case prevented) and $6.7 million ($17.0 million per VAPP case prevented), respectively. Threshold analysis identified break-even prices per dose of $1 for monovalent and $7 for combination vaccines. CONCLUSIONS: Introducing IPV into the Australian childhood immunisation schedule is not likely to be cost-effective unless it comes in a combined vaccine with the IPV-component price below $10. IMPLICATIONS: More precise estimates of VAPP incidence in Australia and IPV price are needed. However, poor cost-effectiveness will make the decision about switching from OPV to IPV in the childhood schedule difficult.     

The cost-effectiveness of alternative polio immunization policies in South Africa

AIMS: To assess the cost-effectiveness of switching from oral polio vaccine (OPV) to inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV), or to cease polio vaccination in routine immunization services in South Africa at the time of OPV cessation globally following polio eradication. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness of nine different polio immunization alternatives were evaluated. The costs of introducing IPV in a separate vial as well as in different combination vaccines were estimated, and IPV schedules with 2, 3 and 4 doses were compared with the current 6-dose OPV schedule. Assumptions about IPV prices were based on indications from vaccine manufacturers. The health impact of OPV cessation was measured in terms of vaccine associated paralytic paralysis (VAPP) cases and disability adjusted life years (DALYs) averted. CONCLUSIONS: The use of OPV in routine immunization services is predicted to result in 2.96 VAPP cases in the 2005 cohort. The cost-effectiveness of the different IPV alternatives varies between US$ 740,000 and US$ 7.2 million per VAPP case averted. The costs per discounted DALY averted amount to between US$ 61,000 and US$ 594,000. Among the IPV strategies evaluated, the 2-dose schedule in a 10-dose vial is the most cost-effective option. At the assumed vaccine prices, all IPV options do not appear to be cost-effective in the South African situation. OPV cessation without IPV replacement would result in cost savings of US$ 1.6 million per year compared to the current situation. This is approximately a 9% decrease in the budget for vaccine delivery in South Africa. However, with this option there is a risk (albeit small) of vaccine-derived poliovirus circulating in a progressively susceptible population. For IPV in a single dose vial, the break-even price, at which the costs of IPV delivery equal the current OPV delivery costs, is US$ 0.39.     

Cost analysis of post-polio certification immunization policies

OBJECTIVE: An analysis was conducted to estimate the costs of different potential post-polio certification immunization policies currently under consideration, with the objective of providing this information to policy-makers. METHODS: We analyzed three global policy options: continued use of oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV); OPV cessation with optional inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV); and OPV cessation with universal IPV. Assumptions were made on future immunization policy decisions taken by low-, middle-, and high-income countries. We estimated the financial costs of each immunization policy, the number of vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP) cases, and the global costs of maintaining an outbreak response capacity. The financial costs of each immunization policy were based on estimates of the cost of polio vaccine, its administration, and coverage projections. The costs of maintaining outbreak response capacity include those associated with developing and maintaining a vaccine stockpile in addition to laboratory and epidemiological surveillance. We used the period 2005-20 as the time frame for the analysis. FINDINGS: OPV cessation with optional IPV, at an estimated cost of US$ 20,412 million, was the least costly option. The global cost of outbreak response capacity was estimated to be US$ 1320 million during 2005-20. The policy option continued use of OPV resulted in the highest number of VAPP cases. OPV cessation with universal IPV had the highest financial costs, but it also had the least number of VAPP cases. Sensitivity analyses showed that global costs were sensitive to assumptions on the cost of the vaccine. Analysis also showed that if the price per dose of IPV was reduced to US$ 0.50 for low-income countries, the cost of OPV cessation with universal IPV would be the same as the costs of continued use of OPV. CONCLUSION: Projections on the vaccine price per dose and future coverage rates were major drivers of the global costs of post-certification polio immunization. The break-even price of switching to IPV compared with continuing with OPV immunizations is US$ 0.50 per dose of IPV. However, this doses not account for the cost of vaccine-derived poliovirus cases resulting from the continued use of OPV. In addition to financial costs, risk assessments related to the re-emergence of polio will be major determinants of policy decisions.     

不同序贯程序的脊髓灰质炎灭活疫苗和减毒活疫苗的免疫效果研究

目的 评价脊髓灰质炎灭活疫苗（IPV）和减毒活疫苗（OPV）不同序贯免疫程序的免疫效果。方法 选取月龄≥2月的婴儿,分为1剂IPV和2剂OPV序贯组(I - O - O组)、2剂IPV和1剂OPV序贯组(I - I - O组)、IPV全程(I - I - I组)和OPV全程组(O - O - O),分别在2、3、4月龄时各接种1针,检测并比较各组人群血清中脊髓灰质炎中和抗体几何平均滴度（GMT）及抗体阳转率。结果 在完成基础免疫后,I - O - O 组Ⅰ、Ⅱ、Ⅲ型抗体GMT分别为948.78、930.91、955.08;I - I - O组抗体GMT分别为909.43、1 202.34、1 102.83;I - I - I 组GMT分别为333.02、298.56、411.98,O - O - O组抗体GMT分别为814.42、778.27、658.52;差异均有统计学意义;各组3个型别的抗体阳转率均为98％~100％,差异无统计学意义。接种1针IPV后脊髓灰质炎Ⅰ型、Ⅱ型、Ⅲ型中和抗体GMT分别为21.77、30.89、26.46,抗体阳转率分别为84.1％、91.5％、91.5％;接种第2剂IPV后,Ⅰ型、Ⅱ型、Ⅲ型中和抗体GMT分别69.42、133.89、212.58,抗体阳转率分别为100.0％、100.0％、99.9％。结论 IPV与OPV序贯接种后,对象产生的脊髓灰质炎中和抗体GMT比单独接种3剂IPV或3剂OPV高;不同序贯程序中,接种2剂IPV后抗体保护率较高。为了使机体产生更高的抗体水平并且避免疫苗相关麻痹病例发生,可采用IPV与OPV序贯程序,并以2剂IPV和1剂OPV的序贯程序为佳。     

World wide experience with inactivated poliovirus vaccine

As part of the global poliovirus eradication strategy, oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) has successfully contributed to reduce polio incidence rates globally. However, because of the OPV-related risks of vaccine associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP) and vaccine-derived polioviruses (VDPVs) OPV cessation is required in order to achieve complete eradication of polio. Inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) is a viable option for incorporation into existing vaccination schedules so as to avoid these risks. Furthermore, the continuation of vaccination with IPV will protect populations in case of re-emergence of wild-type poliovirus from remote locations, laboratory samples, or through bioterrorism. The ability of IPV to prevent poliovirus outbreaks and provide herd protection has been demonstrated in several circumstances and in various settings. This paper reviews clinical experiences with IPV administration and outcomes in various countries in Europe, the Americas, Africa and Asia.     

Serological response and poliovirus excretion following different combined oral and inactivated poliovirus vaccines immunization schedules

A controlled study was conducted in Karachi, Pakistan to compare humoral and mucosal immune responses against polioviruses in infants who received oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) at birth and at 6, 10, and 14 weeks according to the Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI) with infants who received either three doses of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) at 6, 10, and 14 weeks together with OPV or one additional dose of IPV at 14 weeks together, with the last dose of OPV. A total of 1429 infants were enrolled; 24-week serum specimens were available for 898 infants (63%). They all received a challenge dose of OPV type 3 at 24 weeks of age. The addition of three doses of IPV to three doses of OPV induced a significantly higher percentage of seropositive children at 24 weeks of age for polio 1 (97% versus 89%, P<0.001) and polio 3 (98% versus 92%) compared to the EPI schedule. However, the one supplemental dose of IPV at 14 weeks did not increase the serological response at 24 weeks. Intestinal immunity against the challenge dose was similar in the three groups. Combined schedules of OPV and IPV in the form of diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus-IPV vaccine (DPT-IPV) may be useful to accelerate eradication of polio in developing countries.     

Parental attitudes toward multiple poliovirus injections following a provider recommendation

OBJECTIVES: Changes to the polio vaccination schedule, first to a sequential inactivated poliovirus/oral poliovirus (IPV/OPV) schedule in 1996 and most recently to an all-IPV schedule, require infants to receive additional injections. Some surveys show parental hesitation concerning extra injections, whereas others show that parents prefer multiple simultaneous injections over extra immunization visits. This study describes parental behavior and attitudes about the poliovirus vaccine recommendations and additional injections at the 2- and 4-month immunization visits. METHODS: Beginning July 1, 1996, providers in eight public health clinics in Cobb and Douglas Counties, Georgia, informed parents of polio vaccination options and recommended the IPV/OPV sequential schedule. A cross-sectional clinic exit survey was conducted from July 15, 1996, to January 31, 1997, with parents whose infants (younger than 6 months) were eligible for a first poliovirus vaccination. RESULTS: Of approximately 405 eligible infants, parents of 293 infants were approached for an interview, and 227 agreed to participate. Of those 227 participants, 210 (92%) parents chose IPV for their infant and 17 (8%) chose OPV. Of greatest concern to most parents was vaccine-associated paralytic polio (VAPP) (155, or 68.3%); the next greatest concern was an extra injection (22, or 9.7%). These parental concerns were unrelated to the number of injections the infant actually received. CONCLUSIONS: After receiving information on polio vaccination options and a provider recommendation, parents overwhelmingly chose IPV over OPV. Concern about VAPP was more common than objection to an extra injection. The additional injection that results from using IPV for an infant's first poliovirus vaccination appears to be acceptable to most parents.     

CpG oligodeoxynucleotides are a potent adjuvant for an inactivated polio vaccine produced from Sabin strains of poliovirus

Poliovirus transmission is controlled globally through world-wide use of a live attenuated oral polio vaccine (OPV). However, the imminence of global poliovirus eradication calls for a switch to the inactivated polio vaccine (IPV). Given the limited manufacturing capacity and high cost of IPV, this switch is unlikely in most developing and undeveloped countries. Adjuvantation is an effective strategy for antigen sparing. In this study, we evaluated the adjuvanticity of CpG oligodeoxynucleotides (CpG-ODN) for an experimental IPV produced from Sabin strains of poliovirus. Our results showed that CpG-ODN, alone or in combination with alum, can significantly enhance both the humoral and cellular immune responses to IPV in mice, and, consequently, the antigen dose could be reduced substantially. Therefore, our study suggests that the global use of IPV could be facilitated by using CpG-ODN or other feasible adjuvants.     

Imported vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis--United States, 2005

Paralytic poliomyelitis is rare in the United States because of the success of universal childhood immunization and the Global Polio Eradication Initiative. Poliovirus vaccine was introduced in the 1950s. Since then, the United States has eliminated indigenous wild poliovirus transmission, controlled imported wild poliovirus cases, and, through a vaccine policy change (i.e., from live, attenuated oral polio vaccine [OPV] to inactivated polio vaccine [IPV]), eliminated vaccine-associated paralytic polio (VAPP) cases. The most recent VAPP case occurred in 1999. The primary risk for paralytic polio for U.S. residents is through travel to countries where polio remains endemic or where polio outbreaks are occurring. This report describes the first known occurrence of imported VAPP in an unvaccinated U.S. adult who traveled abroad, where she likely was exposed through contact with an infant recently vaccinated with OPV. This case highlights the previously unrecognized risk for paralytic polio among unvaccinated persons exposed to OPV during travel abroad.     

Poliomyelitis prevention in the United States. Updated recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

These recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) for poliomyelitis prevention replace those issued in 1997. As of January 1, 2000, ACIP recommends exclusive use of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) for routine childhood polio vaccination in the United States. All children should receive four doses of IPV at ages 2, 4, and 6-18 months and 4-6 years. Oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) should be used only in certain circumstances, which are detailed in these recommendations. Since 1979, the only indigenous cases of polio reported in the United States have been associated with the use of the live OPV. Until recently, the benefits of OPV use (i.e., intestinal immunity, secondary spread) outweighed the risk for vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP) (i.e., one case among 2.4 million vaccine doses distributed). In 1997, to decrease the risk for VAPP but maintain the benefits of OPV, ACIP recommended replacing the all-OPV schedule with a sequential schedule of IPV followed by OPV. Since 1997, the global polio eradication initiative has progressed rapidly, and the likelihood of poliovirus importation into the United States has decreased substantially. In addition, the sequential schedule has been well accepted. No declines in childhood immunization coverage were observed, despite the need for additional injections. On the basis of these data, ACIP recommended on June 17, 1999, an all-IPV schedule for routine childhood polio vaccination in the United States to eliminate the risk for VAPP. ACIP reaffirms its support for the global polio eradication initiative and the use of OPV as the only vaccine recommended to eradicate polio from the remaining countries where polio is endemic.     

Polio eradication in India: some observations

In 1988, the World Health Assembly passed resolution WHA 41.28, which committed the World Health Organization (WHO) to the global eradication of poliomyelitis by the year 2000. In spite of the combined efforts by UNICEF, National Polio Surveillance Project (NPSP), Indian Academy of Pediatrics (IAP) and Rotary International, Polio Free India is still a distant dream.Though oral polio vaccine has succeeded in polio eradication from many countries but there is high incidence of vaccine failure in India.Oral polio vaccine (OPV) has failed to provide full protection to many children who have developed paralytic polio even after taking 10 or more doses of OPV. In some children, OPV has caused paralysis-vaccine associated paralytic polio (VAPP). Number of children developing polio due to vaccine is high and on increase. Reasons for this could be that even immunocompromised children are being administered OPVbecause IPV is not available. Vaccine failure has exaggerated the problem of VAPP. No efforts have been made to find the causes for high incidence of vaccine failure and VAPP.     

End phase challenges of poliomyelitis eradication programme realization

The progress of poliomyelitis eradication programme realization, the implementation schedule and strategies for the future, are summarised based on publications of the World Health Organisation. During the following two years wild poliovirus strains should be globally eradicated. This means that potentially in 2010 the global eradication of wild polioviruses will be certified. To eradicate poliomyelitis, cessation of the oral polio vaccine (OPV) is necessary, since the vaccine strains produce cases of vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP) and cases of poliomyelitis caused by circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus (cVDPV). However, the WHO plan to stop immunization with OPV and the immunization with inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) shortly after, is alarming in the present situation. The article describes the measures undertaken to prevent or minimise the risk of reintroduction of wild poliovirus strains, which is potentially associated with WHO plan of action.     

Polio vaccination coverage and seroprevalence of poliovirus antibodies after the introduction of inactivated poliovirus vaccines for routine immunization in Japan

In Japan, the oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) was changed to 2 types of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV), the standalone conventional IPV (cIPV) and the Sabin-derived IPV combined with diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis vaccine (DTaP-sIPV), for routine immunization in 2012. We evaluated polio vaccination coverage and the seroprevalence of poliovirus antibodies using data from the National Epidemiological Surveillance of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases (NESVPD) from 2011 to 2015. Several years before the introduction of IPV in 2012, OPV administration for children was refused by some parents because of concerns about the risk of vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis. Consequently, in children aged <1?years who were surveyed in 2011–2012, polio vaccination coverage (45.0–48.8%) and seropositivity rates for poliovirus (type 1: 51.7–65.9%, type 2: 48.3–53.7%, and type 3: 15.0–29.3%) were decreased compared to those surveyed in 2009. However, after IPV introduction, the vaccination coverage (95.5–100%) and seropositivity rates (type 1: 93.2–96.6%, type 2: 93.1–100%, and type 3: 88.6–93.9%) increased among children aged <1?years in 2013–2015. In particular, seropositivity rates and geometric mean titers (GMTs) for poliovirus type 3 in <5-year-old children who received 4 doses of IPV (98.5% and 247.4, respectively) were significantly higher than in those who received 2 doses of OPV (72.5% and 22.9, respectively). Furthermore, in <5-year-old children who received 4 doses of either DTaP-sIPV or cIPV, the seropositivity rates and the GMTs for all 3 types of poliovirus were similarly high (96.5–100% and 170.3–368.8, respectively). Our findings from the NESVPD demonstrate that both the vaccination coverage and seropositivity rates for polio remained high in children after IPV introduction.     

A developing country perspective on vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis

When the Expanded Programme on Immunization was established and oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) was introduced for developing countries to use exclusively, national leaders of public health had no opportunity to make an informed choice between OPV and the inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV). Today, as progress is made towards the goal of global eradication of poliomyelitis attributable to wild polioviruses, all developing countries where OPV is used face the risk of vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP). Until recently, awareness of VAPP has been poor and quantitative risk analysis scanty but it is now well known that the continued use of OPV perpetuates the risk of VAPP. Discontinuation or declining immunization coverage of OPV will increase the risk of emergence of circulating vaccine-derived polioviruses (cVDPV) that re-acquire wild virus-like properties and may cause outbreaks of polio. To eliminate the risk of cVDPV, either very high immunization coverage must be maintained as long as OPV is in use, or IPV should replace OPV. Stopping OPV without first achieving high immunization coverage with IPV is unwise on account of the possibility of emergence of cVDPV. Increasing numbers of developed nations prefer IPV, and manufacturing capacities have not been scaled up, so its price remains prohibitively high and unaffordable by developing countries, where, in addition, large-scale field experience with IPV is lacking. Under these circumstances, a policy shift to increase the use of IPV in national immunization programmes in developing countries is a necessary first step; once IPV coverage reaches high levels (over 85%), the withdrawal of OPV may begin.     

Vaccine-derived poliovirus (VDPV): Impact on poliomyelitis eradication

The live attenuated strains used in the oral poliovirus (OPV) have been the main tool in the WHO polio eradication programme. However, these strains replicate in the human gut and are excreted for several weeks after immunisation. During this period, the attenuating mutations in the vaccine strains can rapidly revert. This may, in rare cases, cause vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP) in vaccinees or result in transmissible and neurovirulent circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus (cVDPV) strains. Outbreaks of poliomyelitis caused by VDPV have recently occurred in communities with long-term incomplete immunisation coverage.     

Inactivated poliovirus vaccine and the final stages of poliovirus eradication

The use of the inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) will increase before and probably also after the global eradication of the wild type poliovirus. Before eradication, the switch from the use of oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) to IPV has been due to the better safety record of IPV. Introduction of IPV in the regular immunisation schedules is made easier by the development of several combination vaccines, including IPV. Maternal antibodies and young age, often considered problematic for early initiation of IPV schedules, did not compromise optimal maintenance of seropositivity during infancy or long-term persisting antibody levels in our studies. OPV-derived, potentially pathogenic and transmissible poliovirus strains, excreted by some individuals for years, may present a problem for a blunt stopping of all polio immunisations after eradication. Our recent results suggest that locally excreted IgA might have a role in the elimination of poliovirus infection in the intestinal tissues.     

A mucosal adjuvant for the inactivated poliovirus vaccine

The eradication of poliovirus from the majority of the world has been achieved through the use of two vaccines: the inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) and the live-attenuated oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV). Both vaccines are effective at preventing paralytic poliomyelitis, however, they also have significant differences. Most importantly for this work is the risk of revertant virus from OPV, the greater cost of IPV, and the low mucosal immunity induced by IPV. We and others have previously described the use of an alphavirus-based adjuvant that can induce a mucosal immune response to a co-administered antigen even when delivered at a non-mucosal site. In this report, we describe the use of an alphavirus-based adjuvant (GVI3000) with IPV. The IPV-GVI3000 vaccine significantly increased systemic IgG, mucosal IgG and mucosal IgA antibody responses to all three poliovirus serotypes in mice even when administered intramuscularly. Furthermore, GVI3000 significantly increased the potency of IPV in rat potency tests as measured by poliovirus neutralizing antibodies in serum. Thus, an IPV-GVI3000 vaccine would reduce the dose of IPV needed and provide significantly improved mucosal immunity. This vaccine could be an effective tool to use in the poliovirus eradication campaign without risking the re-introduction of revertant poliovirus derived from OPV.     

Immunogenicity of four doses of oral poliovirus vaccine when co-administered with the human neonatal rotavirus vaccine (RV3-BB)

BackgroundThe RV3-BB human neonatal rotavirus vaccine was developed to provide protection from severe rotavirus disease from birth. The aim of this study was to investigate the potential for mutual interference in the immunogenicity of oral polio vaccine (OPV) and RV3-BB.MethodsA randomized, placebo-controlled trial involving 1649 participants was conducted from January 2013 to July 2016 in Central Java and Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Participants received three doses of oral RV3-BB, with the first dose given at 0–5 days (neonatal schedule) or ~8 weeks (infant schedule), or placebo. Two sub-studies assessed the immunogenicity of RV3-BB when co-administered with either trivalent OPV (OPV group, n = 282) or inactivated polio vaccine (IPV group, n = 333). Serum samples were tested for antibodies to poliovirus strains 1, 2 and 3 by neutralization assays following doses 1 and 4 of OPV.ResultsSero-protective rates to poliovirus type 1, 2 or 3 were similar (range 0.96–1.00) after four doses of OPV co-administered with RV3-BB compared with placebo. Serum IgA responses to RV3-BB were similar when co-administered with either OPV or IPV (difference in proportions OPV vs IPV: sIgA responses; neonatal schedule 0.01, 95% CI −0.12 to 0.14; p = 0.847; infant schedule −0.10, 95% CI −0.21 to −0.001; p = 0.046: sIgA GMT ratio: neonatal schedule 1.23, 95% CI 0.71–2.14, p = 0.463 or infant schedule 1.20, 95% CI 0.74–1.96, p = 0.448).ConclusionsThe co-administration of OPV with RV3-BB rotavirus vaccine in a birth dose strategy did not reduce the immunogenicity of either vaccine. These findings support the use of a neonatal RV3-BB vaccine where either OPV or IPV is used in the routine vaccination schedule.     

Immune responses after fractional doses of inactivated poliovirus vaccine using newly developed intradermal jet injectors: A randomized controlled trial in Cuba

IntroductionThe World Health Organization recommends that, as part of the new polio endgame, a dose of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) be introduced by the end of 2015 in all countries using only oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV). Administration of fractional dose (1/5th of full dose) IPV (fIPV) intradermally may reduce costs, but its administration is cumbersome with BCG needle and syringe. We evaluated performance of two newly developed intradermal-only jet injectors and compared the immune response induced by fIPV with that induced by full-dose IPV.MethodsChildren between 12 and 20 months of age, who had previously received two doses of OPV, were enrolled in Camaguey, Cuba. Subjects received a single dose of IPV (either full-dose IPV intramuscularly with needle and syringe or fIPV intradermally administered with one of two new injectors or with BCG needle or a conventional needle-free injector). Serum was tested for presence of poliovirus neutralizing antibodies on day 0 (pre-IPV) and on days 3, 7 and 21 (post-vaccination).ResultsComplete data were available from 74.2% (728/981) subjects. Baseline median antibody titers were 713, 284, and 113 for poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Seroprevalence at study end were similar across the intervention groups (≥94.8%). The immune response induced with one new injector was similar to BCG needle and to the conventional injector; and superior to the other new injector. fIPV induced significantly lower boosting response compared to full-dose IPV. No safety concerns were identified.InterpretationOne of the two new injectors demonstrated its ability to streamline intradermal fIPV administration, however, further investigations are needed to assess the potential contribution of fIPV in the polio endgame plan.