In recent years, the Global Polio Eradication Initiative has gradually implemented a global shift in polio immunization programs. Few studies cover polio immunization program impacts on the efficacy of other vaccines. This study investigated whether polio immunization programs affected hepatitis A (HepA) and hepatitis B (HepB) vaccination efficacy. Serum samples were collected from 968 infants before the first dose of polio vaccine, 28 days after completing primary polio immunization, and at 24 months old. Infants were classified into six polio immunization program groups: 1sIPV+2bOPV, 2sIPV+1bOPV, 2sIPV+1tOPV, 1cIPV+2bOPV, 2cIPV+1bOPV, and 2cIPV+1tOPV (sIPV: Sabin inactivated poliovirus vaccine; cIPV: Salk inactivated poliovirus vaccine; b, bivalent; t, trivalent; OPV, oral polio vaccine). No significant differences existed in antibody titers against HepA virus (anti-HAV) among the polio immunization program groups at any of the three time points (pre-first dose [p = 0.412], 28 days after primary immunization [p = 0.676], 24 months old [p = 0.556]). Before the first dose (p = 0.178) and at age 24 months (p = 0.987), no significant differences existed in HepB surface antibody (HBsAb) titers between the six polio immunization program groups). Twenty-eight days after primary immunization, no significant difference existed in HBsAb titers between groups after Bonferroni correction. Following HepA and HepB immunization, anti-HAV and HBsAb positivity reached > 98% in all groups, reflecting effective immunization. Our data suggest that different polio immunization programs did not affect HepA and HepB vaccine efficacy; HepA and HepB vaccines maintained high effectiveness irrespective of polio immunization program. This trial was registered on Clinical Trials.gov: NCT03614702.

One dose of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) was introduced into the Chinese Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI) in 2016. IPV made from Sabin strains (sIPV) was newly licensed in China and its safety has been concerned. This study aimed to evaluate the safety of sIPV and provide a comparison with conventional IPV made from wild strains (wIPV). We collected all IPV-related AEFI reports in Jiangsu from the Chinese National Adverse Events Following Immunization Information System (CNAEFIS) for 2016-2019. We obtained the administered doses of IPV from the Jiangsu provincial Electronic Immunization Registries System (JSEIRS). The AEFI reporting rates per 100,000 doses of vaccine administered were compared for sIPV and wIPV. A total of 699 sIPV and 908 wIPV AEFI cases were collected by CNAEFIS in Jiangsu during 2016-2019. The overall AEFI reporting rates were 53.02 per 100,000 doses and 41.25 per 100,000 doses for sIPV and wIPV, respectively (P < .001). For both sIPV and wIPV, the AEFIs were mainly classified as common adverse reactions. The reporting rate of common adverse reactions was higher for sIPV than for wIPV (P < .001). The most frequently reported symptoms/signs were fever, persistent crying, injection site erythema/swelling, rash, and injection site induration. Only 1.14% of sIPV-associated and 2.31% of wIPV-associated AEFI cases were diagnosed as serious. No difference in reporting rate was observed for serious AEFIs (P = .272). sIPV has a favorable safety profile, although it exhibits a slightly higher reporting rate of common adverse reactions than wIPV.

The emergence of vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis has become an ongoing burden of poliomyelitis. During this special period from OPV to IPV-only immunization schedule, we did a meta-analysis to compare the immunogenicity of sequential IPV and OPV versus IPV alone in healthy infants.
This systematic review and meta-analysis was registered at international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO), and the number was CRD42017054889. We performed it as described.
Finally, 6 articles were qualified for our review. The results showed that seroconversion rates against all 3 serotype polioviruses were non-inferior and Geometric mean antibody titers (GMTs) were superior in sequential schedules compared with IPV-only schedule. Thus, the sequential vaccination schedules could induce a stronger immunogenicity.
To decrease vaccine-associated and vaccine-derived poliomyelitis, it is a reasonable option to select sequential schedules during this special transition from OPV to IPV-only immunization schedule, which coincides with the current WHO recommendations.