ライフサイエンスコーパス: poliovirus vaccine

1 ks were controlled within 6 months with oral poliovirus vaccine.

2 9 to 13.2), when her child received the oral poliovirus vaccine.

3 ular pertussis-hepatitis B virus-inactivated poliovirus vaccine.

4 dule of ages 6 and 10 weeks, along with oral poliovirus vaccine.

5 tate polio eradication using the inactivated poliovirus vaccine.

6 tively modest potential role for inactivated poliovirus vaccine.

7 attenuated substrates for the production of poliovirus vaccines.

8 liomyelitis in recipients of live attenuated poliovirus vaccines.

9 synthesize stable VLPs as future genome-free poliovirus vaccines.

10 (WHO) recommends the discontinuation of oral poliovirus vaccine after eradication of wild poliovirus.

11 1 oral poliovirus vaccine and trivalent oral poliovirus vaccine against type 1 paralytic poliomyeliti

12 stimated efficacy per dose of trivalent oral poliovirus vaccine against type 3 paralytic poliomyeliti

13 say for detecting response to trivalent oral poliovirus vaccine among 224 infants.

14 d regulatory approval for use of inactivated poliovirus vaccine and bivalent OPV in routine immunizat

15 ces in approach observed between inactivated poliovirus vaccine and bivalent OPV.

16 the withdrawal of Sabin type 2 from the oral poliovirus vaccine and introduction of one or more dose

17 e field efficacies of monovalent type 1 oral poliovirus vaccine and trivalent oral poliovirus vaccine

18 fficacies per dose of monovalent type 1 oral poliovirus vaccine and trivalent oral poliovirus vaccine

19 Due to global shortage of inactivated poliovirus vaccine and withdrawal of oral vaccine contai

20 troduction of newly licensed monovalent oral poliovirus vaccines and new techniques of vaccine delive

21 e (four times as effective as trivalent oral poliovirus vaccine) and the moderate gains in coverage d

22 nonuclear cells (PBMCs) were stimulated with poliovirus vaccine, and memory T cell activation was ana

23 e who received azithromycin or placebo, oral poliovirus vaccine, and provided a blood sample accordin

24 a included receipt of rotavirus or any other poliovirus vaccine, any infection or illness at the time

25 re likely to have received SV40-contaminated poliovirus vaccine as infants, born 1956 through 1962 (6

26 of using primary monkey cells for preparing poliovirus vaccines, because of the possible contaminati

27 s critical for the phased withdrawal of oral poliovirus vaccine, beginning with the type 2 component,

28 cine (tOPV) with bivalent types 1 and 3 oral poliovirus vaccine (bOPV) and global introduction of ina

29 the impact of bivalent (types 1 and 3) oral poliovirus vaccine (bOPV) use in immunization campaigns

30 icipants received IPV, bivalent 1 and 3 oral poliovirus vaccine (bOPV), or no vaccine.

31 valent oral poliovirus vaccine + inactivated poliovirus vaccine (bOPV+IPV) immunization schedule and

32 Bivalent oral poliovirus vaccine (bOPV; types 1 and 3) is expected to

33 ion (0.66; .44-1.00) when censoring for oral poliovirus vaccine campaigns.

34 fied an analysis censoring follow-up at oral poliovirus vaccine campaigns.

35 Oral poliovirus vaccine can mutate to regain neurovirulence.

36 of making decisions about the timing of oral poliovirus vaccine cessation following global eradicatio

37 Poliovirus vaccine contaminated with live simian virus 4

38 for all countries to maintain high levels of poliovirus vaccine coverage and sensitive surveillance t

39 r increased with 1 exception (13% third dose poliovirus vaccine decrease).

40 (1/40th of a full dose) is unprecedented for poliovirus vaccine delivery.

41 n did not improve the immunogenicity of oral poliovirus vaccine despite reducing biomarkers of enviro

42 earlier) the patient received his last oral poliovirus vaccine dose, approximately 2 years before th

43 children whose mothers had received pre-1963 poliovirus vaccine during pregnancy (22.5% of the childr

44 the United States that use only inactivated poliovirus vaccine, even with high average immunization

45 established poliovirus transmission and oral poliovirus vaccine evolution model to characterize dynam

46 ing dynamic poliovirus transmission and oral poliovirus vaccine evolution model.

47 A fractional dose of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (fIPV) administered by the intraderma

48 ractional-dose administration of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (fIPV) could increase IPV affordabili

49 mal administration of fractional inactivated poliovirus vaccine (fIPV) is a dose-sparing alternative

50 Intradermal (id) fractional inactivated poliovirus vaccine ([fIPV] one fifth of normal IPV dose)

51 type 2, and the introduction of inactivated poliovirus vaccine, for risk mitigation purposes.

52 the response to a supplemental dose of four poliovirus vaccine formulations.

53 he higher efficacy of monovalent type 1 oral poliovirus vaccine (four times as effective as trivalent

54 immunogenicity of serotype-3 monovalent oral poliovirus vaccine given to healthy infants living in 14

55 as recently demonstrated activity in an oral poliovirus vaccine human challenge model.

56 0.1 mL) intradermal doses of the inactivated poliovirus vaccine (ID fIPV) is positively correlated wi

57 or placebo during a randomised trial of oral poliovirus vaccine immunogenicity (CTRI/2014/05/004588).

58 nding is probably affected by the lower oral poliovirus vaccine immunogenicity previously demonstrate

59 ssess whether antibiotics would improve oral poliovirus vaccine immunogenicity.

60 arned during the introduction of inactivated poliovirus vaccine in 3 countries that would make future

61 (1) introduction of >/=1 dose of inactivated poliovirus vaccine in all 126 countries using oral polio

62 ss the dynamics of genetic reversion of live poliovirus vaccine in humans, we studied molecular evolu

63 sis-containing vaccine (Boostrix-inactivated poliovirus vaccine) in one of three gestational age grou

64 the immunogenicity of the new bivalent oral poliovirus vaccine + inactivated poliovirus vaccine (bOP

65 ek-old infants vaccinated with bivalent oral poliovirus vaccine/inactivated poliovirus vaccine receiv

66 t OPV and to introduce 1 dose of inactivated poliovirus vaccine into routine immunization schedules,

67 aptations and infants' uptake of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) after its introduction into the

68 eptor (PVR) were vaccinated with inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) and evaluated for induced immun

69 es with experience in the use of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) are important for the global po

70 bOPV) and global introduction of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) are major steps in the polio en

71 troduction of at least 1 dose of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) at >/=14 weeks of age through t

72 PV) introduce at least 1 dose of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) before the global withdrawal of

73 In 2014, 2 studies showed that inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) boosts intestinal immunity in c

74 e ability of fractional doses of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) delivered intradermally to indu

75 Inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) does not induce an intestinal m

76 ons for a sequential schedule of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) followed by OPV.

77 tbreaks, and the need to reserve inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) for routine immunisation, has i

78 Studies assessing inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) immunogenicity in tropical coun

79 The immunogenicity of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) in developing countries is not

80 ization in children who received inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) in Karachi, Pakistan.

81 oduction of at least one dose of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) in routine immunisation program

82 a vaccine (IIV3) or a control of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) in the beginning of the study;

83 phase 4 study and either OPV or inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) in the novel OPV2 phase 2 study

84 roduction of one or more dose of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) into routine immunisation sched

85 ation, countries are introducing inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) into routine vaccination progra

86 Inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) is believed to induce significa

87 Inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) is efficacious against paralyti

88 Inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) is likely to play a large part

89 Inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) is rarely used in tropical deve

90 annual vaccination with IIV3 or inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) of age-eligible residents (6 mo

91 ) coadministered with monovalent inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) of all 3 serotypes significantl

92 y for developing more-affordable inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) options for low-income countrie

93 by sequential administration of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) produced in human diploid cells

94 The introduction of the inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) represents a crucial step in th

95 ted that prior immunization with inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) resulted in faster accumulation

96 h vaccination coverage with only inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) since 2005.

97 nue to discuss the role of using inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) to manage the risks of circulat

98 ypes 1 and 3 OPV (bOPV) in 2016, inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) will be the only source of prot

99 replaced 1 intramuscular dose of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) with 2 doses of intradermal fra

100 ere randomly assigned to receive inactivated-poliovirus vaccine (IPV), administered subcutaneously; t

101 at birth and 3 doses of OPV and inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV), and group 3 placebo at birth a

102 s, including the introduction of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV).

103 nses after the administration of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV).

104 ulation partially immunized with inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV).

105 PV1, intradermal fractional-dose inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV, GlaxoSmithKline), or intramuscu

106 tective properties of serotype 2 inactivated poliovirus vaccines (IPV).

107 ntually need to be replaced with inactivated poliovirus vaccines (IPV).

108 tion of protective properties of inactivated poliovirus vaccines (IPVs) in transgenic (Tg) mice susce

109 ines (OPVs) and replacement with inactivated poliovirus vaccines (IPVs).

110 Oral poliovirus vaccine is less immunogenic and effective in

111 lanned universal introduction of inactivated poliovirus vaccine is likely to substantially decrease t

112 s where the efficacy of live-attenuated oral poliovirus vaccines is compromised by a high prevalence

113 Beginning in 1955, the creation of poliovirus vaccines led to a stepwise reduction in polio

114 IV/SIV were not detected in these monovalent poliovirus vaccine lots with the reverse transcriptase a

115 rticularly in assays of live attenuated oral poliovirus vaccine lots.

116 n of several doses of monovalent type 1 oral poliovirus vaccine (mOPV1) and bivalent OPV1 and 3 (bOPV

117 the immunogenicity of monovalent type-1 oral poliovirus vaccine (mOPV1) given at shorter than usual i

118 A high-potency monovalent oral type 1 poliovirus vaccine (mOPV1) was developed in 2005 to tack

119 ctivities (SIAs) with monovalent type 2 oral poliovirus vaccine (mOPV2) and novel type 2 oral poliovi

120 Monovalent type 2 oral poliovirus vaccine (mOPV2) stockpile is low.

121 The monovalent type 2 oral poliovirus vaccine (mOPV2) stockpile is low.

122 ic polio vaccines, including monovalent oral poliovirus vaccines (mOPVs), are needed for supplemental

123 d two doses of nOPV2, given 4 weeks apart in poliovirus vaccine-naive newborn infants and the primary

124 We aimed to assess these aspects of nOPV2 in poliovirus vaccine-naive newborn infants.

125 ovirus vaccine (mOPV2) and novel type 2 oral poliovirus vaccine (nOPV2) targeted an estimated 356 and

126 who had not been vaccinated or had received poliovirus vaccine of inadequate potency.

127 days, followed by serotype-3 monovalent oral poliovirus vaccine on day 14.

128 The live-attenuated oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV or Sabin vaccine) replicates in

129 ber of newborns given the first dose of oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) according to the RI schedule an

130 radication Initiative plans to stop all oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) after wild poliovirus eradicati

131 immunogenicity of the first 2 doses of oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) among unimmunized Mayan infants

132 Interference between oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) and monovalent (RRV-S1) and tet

133 rofile after routine doses of trivalent oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) and numerous supplemental doses

134 improve the genetic stability of Sabin oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) and reduce the emergence of cir

135 epitope-specific monoclonal murine anti-oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) antibodies, and sera from IPV-i

136 he live attenuated Sabin strains in the oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) are being removed sequentially,

137 f poliovirus used in the manufacture of oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) are prone to genetic variations

138 fter vaccination with monovalent type 1 oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) at 6 months and trivalent OPV a

139 d children (0-15 years of age) received oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) challenge dose.

140 del expectations with the experience of oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) containing serotype 2 (OPV2) ce

141 ldren whose caregivers refuse to accept oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) contributes to the spread of po

142 The effect of diarrhea on oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) failure was evaluated using dat

143 immunisation activities with different oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) formulations, and serotype-spec

144 Since the global withdrawal of Sabin 2 oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) from routine immunization, the

145 The attenuated oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) has many properties favoring it

146 Oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) has not been used in the United

147 due to past exposure to WPV and use of oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) in addition to IPV.

148 entail eventual cessation of the use of oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) in all countries to prevent the

149 allenged by notions against the role of oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) in eradicating contemporary wil

150 the immune response to IPV with that to oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) in Guatemalan infants.

151 The impaired immunogenicity of oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) in low-income countries has bee

152 ts/caregivers if the child received any oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) in Myanmar and, for younger chi

153 Withdrawal of type 2 oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) in OPV-using countries required

154 Replication of Sabin strains used in oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) in the intestines of vaccine re

155 e degree of mucosal immunity induced by oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) in tropical countries.

156 all 124 countries currently using only oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) introduce at least 1 dose of in

157 Mucosal immunity induced by oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) is imperfect and potentially al

158 Intestinal immunity induced by oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) is imperfect and wanes with tim

159 Trivalent oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) is known to interfere with mono

160 Oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) is less immunogenic in low- or

161 Each lot of oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) is tested for neurovirulence in

162 me in affecting immune responses to the oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) is unknown.

163 of 34 SIAs used monovalent or bivalent oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) lacking Sabin 2.

164 ore, throughout, and after the May 2010 oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) mass immunization campaign.

165 deficiency disorders (PIDD) who receive oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) may transmit immunodeficiency-a

166 is achieved, the use of live-attenuated oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) must be discontinued because of

167 irus vaccine in all 126 countries using oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) only as of 2012, (2) full withd

168 cularly, among adults with a history of oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) receipt.

169 Oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) results in an ongoing burden of

170 current national 4-dose live attenuated oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) schedule with a 4-dose IPV sche

171 sequence identity) to the Sabin type 2 oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) strain and unrelated (<82% nucl

172 isolates differed from the Sabin type 1 oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) strain at 1.84% to 3.15% of tot

173 and after a September 2007 switch from oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) to IPV, using standard coverage

174 xisted between the failure of trivalent oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) to prevent poliomyelitis and th

175 Novel oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) type 2 (nOPV2) has been made av

176 utation at nucleotide (nt) 472 of Sabin oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) type 3 is found in conjunction

177 ding lend to the growing consensus that oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) use should be discontinued as s

178 d in 1979; however, as a consequence of oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) use that began in 1961, an aver

179 human diploid cells and live attenuated oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) was evaluated by randomization

180 Oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) was not available in Samarkand,

181 and carrying-out mopping-up activities, oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) was selected as the vaccine-of-

182 a polio-free world, the live attenuated oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) will eventually need to be repl

183 r orally administered vaccines, such as oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV), may also be associated with in

184 fferent interventions were assessed for oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV), oral rotavirus vaccine (RVV),

185 The immunogenicity of oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV), particularly the type 3 compon

186 f routine versus mass campaign doses of oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV), serum neutralizing antibodies

187 The live, attenuated oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV), used for more than four decade

188 Early trials suggested that oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV), when administered concomitantl

189 ate circulating live polioviruses using oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV).

190 intestinal mucosal immunity induced by oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV).

191 gnificantly lower mucosal immunity than oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV).

192 y low (7 to 40%) rates of coverage with oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV).

193 y in children previously immunized with oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV).

194 compare the safety profiles of IPV and oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV).

195 is a rare adverse event associated with oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV).

196 enteric viruses, potentially including oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV).

197 poliovirus or those emanating from the oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV).

198 Sabin strains used in oral poliovirus vaccines (OPV) can revert to virulence and, i

199 OCV and oral poliovirus vaccines (OPV) could be administered concomit

200 ate clinical efficacy estimates for the oral poliovirus vaccines (OPV) currently in use.

201 Serotype 2 oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV2) can revert to regain wild-type

202 Two novel type 2 oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV2) candidates, novel OPV2-c1 and

203 Global withdrawal of serotype-2 oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV2) took place in April 2016.

204 thdrawal of the serotype 2 component of oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV2) was implemented in April 2016

205 ts had received at least three doses of oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV3).

206 virus requires the global withdrawal of oral poliovirus vaccines (OPVs) and replacement with inactiva

207 erived polioviruses (cVDPV2) from Sabin oral poliovirus vaccines (OPVs) are the leading cause of poli

208 plementary immunisation activities with oral poliovirus vaccines (OPVs) are usually separated by 4 we

209 ated paralytic poliomyelitis from Sabin oral poliovirus vaccines (OPVs) has stimulated development of

210 estimate the clinical effectiveness of oral poliovirus vaccines (OPVs) in Afghanistan and Pakistan b

211 rotection from immunization with inactivated poliovirus vaccine or exposure to OPV virus from routine

212 Before 1963, poliovirus vaccine produced in the United States was con

213 ropositivity was the number of doses of oral poliovirus vaccine received (P < .01), with levels appro

214 bivalent oral poliovirus vaccine/inactivated poliovirus vaccine received 1 or 2 study vaccinations 28

215 be predicted by the number of doses of oral poliovirus vaccine received.

216 eived the third dose of pentavalent and oral poliovirus vaccine, respectively, but only 65% received

217 Repeated administration of oral poliovirus vaccine resulted in progressively shorter per

218 this manufacturer to inactivate SV40 in oral poliovirus vaccine seed stocks based on heat inactivatio

219 th the discovery of SV40 as a contaminant in poliovirus vaccine stocks that were used to inoculate ap

220 erminants of attenuation of the Sabin 2 oral poliovirus vaccine strain (A481 in the 5'-untranslated r

221 3271 to 3637) derived from the Sabin 1 oral poliovirus vaccine strain spanning the 3'-terminal seque

222 n the capsid region of the Sabin type 2 oral poliovirus vaccine strain with corresponding nonpreferre

223 at base 472 in the IRES of the Sabin type 3 poliovirus vaccine strain, known to attenuate neurovirul

224 eceived IPV only, 5 (2.6%) were positive for poliovirus vaccine strains.

225 ype 2 component, introduction of inactivated poliovirus vaccine, strengthening of routine immunizatio

226 Mass vaccination campaigns with the oral poliovirus vaccine targeting children aged <5 years are

227 global immunisation programmes with improved poliovirus vaccines that create comprehensive immunity w

228 countries have replaced OPV with inactivated poliovirus vaccine, the VAPP burden is concentrated in l

229 radicate poliomyelitis by administering oral poliovirus vaccine through routine immunization and annu

230 re immunization coverage with trivalent oral poliovirus vaccine (tOPV) has been low.

231 hampered by low responses to trivalent oral poliovirus vaccine (tOPV) in some developing countries.

232 roposed worldwide switch from trivalent oral poliovirus vaccine (tOPV) to bivalent types 1 and 3 OPV

233 Replacement of the trivalent oral poliovirus vaccine (tOPV) with bivalent types 1 and 3 or

234 and 3, compared with that of trivalent oral poliovirus vaccine (tOPV), in South Africa.

235 Novel oral poliovirus vaccine type 2 (nOPV2) has been engineered to

236 Novel oral poliovirus vaccine type 2 (nOPV2) was administered in Li

237 Novel oral poliovirus vaccine type 2 (nOPV2) was used to control an

238 mutation at nucleotide position 472 of oral poliovirus vaccine type 3 (OPV3) contributes to the deve

239 lve monovalent lots of live, attenuated oral poliovirus vaccine types 1, 2, and 3, which were release

240 dinated cessation of type 2-containting oral poliovirus vaccine use.

241 ich was first discovered as a contaminant of poliovirus vaccines used between 1955 and 1963, remains

242 1 oral poliovirus vaccine and trivalent oral poliovirus vaccine, using the reported number of doses r

243 iously the efficacy of replication-competent poliovirus vaccine vectors.

244 of follow-up, exposure to SV40-contaminated poliovirus vaccine was not associated with significantly

245 CPP children whose mothers received pre-1963 poliovirus vaccine was unlikely to have been due to SV40

246 l polio vaccine) and 5 rounds of inactivated poliovirus vaccine were conducted between September 2019

247 ed 9-10 months who had already received oral poliovirus vaccine were randomly assigned to receive the

248 (types 1 and 3) and one dose of inactivated poliovirus vaccine, were administered one or two doses o

249 The effectiveness of attenuated poliovirus vaccines when given orally to induce both sys

250 after multiple vaccination rounds with oral poliovirus vaccine, which targeted the entire population

251 were previously vaccinated with inactivated poliovirus vaccine, who had preexisting antibodies to th

252 usly, we demonstrated the monitoring of oral poliovirus vaccine with the use of mutant analysis by PC

253 on, the allegations of contamination of oral poliovirus vaccines with human immunodeficiency virus (H