ライフサイエンスコーパス: oral poliovirus vaccine

1 schedule of ages 6 and 10 weeks, along with oral poliovirus vaccine.

2 tbreaks were controlled within 6 months with oral poliovirus vaccine.

3 , 10.9 to 13.2), when her child received the oral poliovirus vaccine.

4 tion (WHO) recommends the discontinuation of oral poliovirus vaccine after eradication of wild poliov

5 type 1 oral poliovirus vaccine and trivalent oral poliovirus vaccine against type 1 paralytic poliomy

6 the estimated efficacy per dose of trivalent oral poliovirus vaccine against type 3 paralytic poliomy

7 on assay for detecting response to trivalent oral poliovirus vaccine among 224 infants.

8 ed the field efficacies of monovalent type 1 oral poliovirus vaccine and trivalent oral poliovirus va

9 ted efficacies per dose of monovalent type 1 oral poliovirus vaccine and trivalent oral poliovirus va

10 he introduction of newly licensed monovalent oral poliovirus vaccines and new techniques of vaccine d

11 accine (four times as effective as trivalent oral poliovirus vaccine) and the moderate gains in cover

12 those who received azithromycin or placebo, oral poliovirus vaccine, and provided a blood sample acc

13 his is critical for the phased withdrawal of oral poliovirus vaccine, beginning with the type 2 compo

14 s vaccine (tOPV) with bivalent types 1 and 3 oral poliovirus vaccine (bOPV) and global introduction o

15 3 and the impact of bivalent (types 1 and 3) oral poliovirus vaccine (bOPV) use in immunization campa

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

17 Bivalent oral poliovirus vaccine (bOPV; types 1 and 3) is expecte

18 eduction (0.66; .44-1.00) when censoring for oral poliovirus vaccine campaigns.

19 specified an analysis censoring follow-up at oral poliovirus vaccine campaigns.

20 Oral poliovirus vaccine can mutate to regain neurovirule

21 text of making decisions about the timing of oral poliovirus vaccine cessation following global eradi

22 omycin did not improve the immunogenicity of oral poliovirus vaccine despite reducing biomarkers of e

23 years earlier) the patient received his last oral poliovirus vaccine dose, approximately 2 years befo

24 existing dynamic poliovirus transmission and oral poliovirus vaccine evolution model.

25 The higher efficacy of monovalent type 1 oral poliovirus vaccine (four times as effective as triv

26 the immunogenicity of serotype-3 monovalent oral poliovirus vaccine given to healthy infants living

27 hat has recently demonstrated activity in an oral poliovirus vaccine human challenge model.

28 ycin or placebo during a randomised trial of oral poliovirus vaccine immunogenicity (CTRI/2014/05/004

29 to assess whether antibiotics would improve oral poliovirus vaccine immunogenicity.

30 Oral poliovirus vaccine is less immunogenic and effectiv

31 itions where the efficacy of live-attenuated oral poliovirus vaccines is compromised by a high preval

32 l, particularly in assays of live attenuated oral poliovirus vaccine lots.

33 vision of several doses of monovalent type 1 oral poliovirus vaccine (mOPV1) and bivalent OPV1 and 3

34 ssed the immunogenicity of monovalent type-1 oral poliovirus vaccine (mOPV1) given at shorter than us

35 nogenic polio vaccines, including monovalent oral poliovirus vaccines (mOPVs), are needed for supplem

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

37 e number of newborns given the first dose of oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) according to the RI schedu

38 lio Eradication Initiative plans to stop all oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) after wild poliovirus erad

39 cting immunogenicity of the first 2 doses of oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) among unimmunized Mayan in

40 Interference between oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) and monovalent (RRV-S1) an

41 ity profile after routine doses of trivalent oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) and numerous supplemental

42 era, epitope-specific monoclonal murine anti-oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) antibodies, and sera from

43 and the live attenuated Sabin strains in the oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) are being removed sequenti

44 ins of poliovirus used in the manufacture of oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) are prone to genetic varia

45 ths after vaccination with monovalent type 1 oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) at 6 months and trivalent

46 ng model expectations with the experience of oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) containing serotype 2 (OPV

47 e children whose caregivers refuse to accept oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) contributes to the spread

48 The effect of diarrhea on oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) failure was evaluated usin

49 on on immunisation activities with different oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) formulations, and serotype

50 The attenuated oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) has many properties favori

51 Oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) has not been used in the U

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

53 will entail eventual cessation of the use of oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) in all countries to preven

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

55 The impaired immunogenicity of oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) in low-income countries ha

56 Withdrawal of type 2 oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) in OPV-using countries req

57 Replication of Sabin strains used in oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) in the intestines of vacci

58 ut the degree of mucosal immunity induced by oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) in tropical countries.

59 that all 124 countries currently using only oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) introduce at least 1 dose

60 Mucosal immunity induced by oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) is imperfect and potential

61 Intestinal immunity induced by oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) is imperfect and wanes wit

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

63 Each lot of oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) is tested for neurovirulen

64 en 23 of 34 SIAs used monovalent or bivalent oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) lacking Sabin 2.

65 o before, throughout, and after the May 2010 oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) mass immunization campaign

66 mune deficiency disorders (PIDD) who receive oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) may transmit immunodeficie

67 tion is achieved, the use of live-attenuated oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) must be discontinued becau

68 oliovirus vaccine in all 126 countries using oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) only as of 2012, (2) full

69 ramuscularly, among adults with a history of oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) receipt.

70 Oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) results in an ongoing burd

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

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

73 VDPV isolates differed from the Sabin type 1 oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) strain at 1.84% to 3.15% o

74 efore and after a September 2007 switch from oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) to IPV, using standard cov

75 hip existed between the failure of trivalent oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) to prevent poliomyelitis a

76 int mutation at nucleotide (nt) 472 of Sabin oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) type 3 is found in conjunc

77 shedding lend to the growing consensus that oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) use should be discontinued

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

79 d in human diploid cells and live attenuated oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) was evaluated by randomiza

80 Oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) was not available in Samar

81 ion, and carrying-out mopping-up activities, oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) was selected as the vaccin

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

83 other orally administered vaccines, such as oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV), may also be associated wi

84 The immunogenicity of oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV), particularly the type 3 c

85 ity of routine versus mass campaign doses of oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV), serum neutralizing antibo

86 The live, attenuated oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV), used for more than four d

87 munity in children previously immunized with oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV).

88 h very low (7 to 40%) rates of coverage with oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV).

89 ed to compare the safety profiles of IPV and oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV).

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

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

92 liminate circulating live polioviruses using oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV).

93 es on intestinal mucosal immunity induced by oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV).

94 ce significantly lower mucosal immunity than oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV).

95 alculate clinical efficacy estimates for the oral poliovirus vaccines (OPV) currently in use.

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

97 atients had received at least three doses of oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV3).

98 Supplementary immunisation activities with oral poliovirus vaccines (OPVs) are usually separated by

99 es to estimate the clinical effectiveness of oral poliovirus vaccines (OPVs) in Afghanistan and Pakis

100 of seropositivity was the number of doses of oral poliovirus vaccine received (P < .01), with levels

101 d may be predicted by the number of doses of oral poliovirus vaccine received.

102 % received the third dose of pentavalent and oral poliovirus vaccine, respectively, but only 65% rece

103 Repeated administration of oral poliovirus vaccine resulted in progressively shorte

104 d by this manufacturer to inactivate SV40 in oral poliovirus vaccine seed stocks based on heat inacti

105 r determinants of attenuation of the Sabin 2 oral poliovirus vaccine strain (A481 in the 5'-untransla

106 e (nt 3271 to 3637) derived from the Sabin 1 oral poliovirus vaccine strain spanning the 3'-terminal

107 within the capsid region of the Sabin type 2 oral poliovirus vaccine strain with corresponding nonpre

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

109 to eradicate poliomyelitis by administering oral poliovirus vaccine through routine immunization and

110 , where immunization coverage with trivalent oral poliovirus vaccine (tOPV) has been low.

111 been hampered by low responses to trivalent oral poliovirus vaccine (tOPV) in some developing countr

112 the proposed worldwide switch from trivalent oral poliovirus vaccine (tOPV) to bivalent types 1 and 3

113 Replacement of the trivalent oral poliovirus vaccine (tOPV) with bivalent types 1 and

114 pes 1 and 3, compared with that of trivalent oral poliovirus vaccine (tOPV), in South Africa.

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

116 Twelve monovalent lots of live, attenuated oral poliovirus vaccine types 1, 2, and 3, which were re

117 coordinated cessation of type 2-containting oral poliovirus vaccine use.

118 type 1 oral poliovirus vaccine and trivalent oral poliovirus vaccine, using the reported number of do

119 ts aged 9-10 months who had already received oral poliovirus vaccine were randomly assigned to receiv

120 opped after multiple vaccination rounds with oral poliovirus vaccine, which targeted the entire popul

121 reviously, we demonstrated the monitoring of oral poliovirus vaccine with the use of mutant analysis

122 ization, the allegations of contamination of oral poliovirus vaccines with human immunodeficiency vir