View clinical trials related to Poliomyelitis.
Filter by:The aim of the study is to assess the immunogenicity of SP059 (IMOVAX POLIO®: Inactive Poliovirus Vaccine) vaccine against poliovirus and safety after fifth dose. Primary Objective: - To investigate the booster vaccine response rate against poliovirus types 1, 2 and 3 one month following the vaccination dose with SP059 as 2nd booster Secondary Objectives: - To investigate seroprotection rates (percentage of subjects presenting poliovirus neutralizing antibody titers above 1:8 (1/dil.) at pre- and post-booster time points, Geometric mean titers (GMT) at pre- and post-booster time points and geometric mean of individual titer ratio (GMTR). - To investigate the safety after dosing of SP059 as 2nd booster.
The purpose of this study is to investigate if the study vaccine, m-IPV2 HD (vaccine that only contains polio serotype 2 in high dose), is as safe as the standard IPV Imovax (that contains the 3 serotypes of polio). This safety evaluation will be done in young adults. If the study vaccine appears to be safe, it will be tested at a later stage in the target group (infants and children) to evaluate the immunogenicity of the vaccine. After all, the purpose is to use the study vaccine in the future to protect young children against Polio serotype 2. Disease with Polio type 2 indeed recently re-appeared, so vaccination of young children to come to a complete eradication of Polio is needed. The standard use of Imovax to protect against Polio serotype 2 would be too expensive. Therefore, a monovalent Polio vaccine containing only serotype 2 (= the vaccine that will be evaluated in this study), has been developed. The duration of the study will be approximately 6 months. 120 subjects between 18 and 45 years of age will participate in Belgium. During the study there will be 2 groups of subjects. Subjects will be assigned by chance to one of these groups. One group will receive one single injection of the study vaccine m-IPV2 HD (which contains only serotype 2), the other group will receive one single injection of the standard polio vaccine IPV, Imovax (which contains the 3 serotypes). After this vaccination, there will be a follow-up period of 6 months. Subjects will be asked to come to the study centre one more time for the second visit (on Day 8, which is 7 days after the first visit). They will also receive 2 follow-up phone calls for approximately one month and 6 months after vaccination.
This is a follow-up of the primary series vaccination schedule in Study A3L24 (NCT01177722) and booster vaccination in Study A3L27 (NCT01444781). Study Objective: - To describe the long-term antibody persistence at 3.5 and 4.5 years of age following a 3-dose primary series vaccination of either DTaP-IPV-Hep B-PRP-T+Prevenar™ (PCV7) +Rotarix™ or Infanrix hexa™+Prevenar™ (PCV7) +Rotarix™ vaccination at 2, 4, 6 months of age and a booster vaccination of DTaP-IPV-Hep B-PRP-T+Prevenar™ (PCV7) or Infanrix hexa™+Prevenar™ (PCV7) at 12 to 24 months of age. Observational Objectives: - To describe the long-term antibody persistence by group and by stratification on the age at inclusion of the A3L27 booster study. - To describe the effect of one additional oral dose of stand alone poliovirus isotypes 1, 2 and 3 vaccine* on the antibody persistence immune response for poliovirus isotypes (4 vs 5 doses of poliovirus administered).
The purpose of this study is to describe the immunogenicity and safety of a novel DTaP- IPV- Hep B-PRT~T fully liquid combined hexavalent vaccine (Hexaxim™) administered at 6, 10 and 14 weeks of age in infants born to mothers documented to be serum anti-hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) serology negative in India. Primary Objective: - To evaluate the immunogenicity of the study vaccine in terms of seroprotection [diphtheria toxoid, tetanus toxoid, poliovirus types 1, 2 and 3, Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) polysaccharide (PRP), hepatitis B (Hep B)] and vaccine response for pertussis antigens [pertussis toxoid (PT) and filamentous haemagglutinin (FHA)] one month after the third dose. Secondary Objectives: - To further describe the immunogenicity of the study vaccine, before the first dose and one month after the third dose. - To describe the safety after each and any doses of the study vaccine.
The objective of the projects is to Develop and implement a Package of interventions that will comprise of an augmented communication and counseling strategy coupled with private sector involvement and a combined Oral Polio Vaccine and Inject able Polio Vaccine approach during the Polio campaigns followed by the evaluation of this project for acceptability, feasibility and effectiveness of the intervention Package.
Polio is a highly infectious disease caused by a virus. It invades the nervous system, and can cause total paralysis in a matter of hours. The virus enters the body through the mouth and multiplies in the intestine. Initial symptoms are fever, fatigue, headache, vomiting, stiffness in the neck and pain in the limbs. One in 200 infections leads to irreversible paralysis (usually in the legs). Among those paralysed, 5% to 10% die when their breathing muscles become immobilized. There is no cure for polio, it can only be prevented. Polio vaccine, given multiple times, can protect a child for life. Compare in newborns the immunogenicity and safety of the vaccine OPV produced by Birmex compared with the vaccine OPV produced by Sanofi Pasteur, both produced in Vero cells.
The overall goal of this study is to identify interference between intramuscular Inactivated Polio Vaccine (IPV) and other vaccines (Measles Rubella and Yellow Fever) co-administered at nine months of age and to confirm the safety of co-administration. In addition, the study will compare the immunogenicity and safety of IPV when administered via different routes. A total of 1504 healthy infants between the ages of nine to ten months, who have completed their primary immunizations, including at least three doses of trivalent Oral Polio Vaccine (tOPV) will be recruited for this study.
This study is a Phase IV, open, randomized, multi-center, controlled vaccine trial conducted in healthy Latin American infants, utilizing one or two supplemental doses of IPV in children previously vaccinated with 3 doses of bOPV. We will examine the impact of supplemental IPV on stool shedding and humoral immunity, as well as intra-IPV manufacturer comparability, and safety.
This study is an open-label phase III randomized clinical trial that would compare immunogenicity after receiving one of five different combinations of polio vaccines. Infants will be enrolled and randomized at 6 weeks of age to one of five different arms: A) Three doses of trivalent oral poliovirus vaccine (tOPV) at 6, 10 and 14 weeks of age B) Three doses of bivalent OPV (bOPV) at 6, 10 and 14 weeks of age C) Two doses of intramuscular (IM) inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) at 6 and 14 weeks of age D) Two doses of intra-dermal (ID) fractional IPV (f-IPV) at 6 and 14 weeks of age E) Sequential administration of ID f-IPV at 6 and 14 weeks of age with bOPV at 10 weeks of age To assess the immunogenicity of each study vaccine and vaccination schedule, antibody titers against poliovirus types 1, 2 and 3 will be determined in sera extracted from blood collected before (at 6 weeks of age) and after receiving 3 doses of study vaccine (18 weeks of age). Seroconversion will be defined as a titer 4-fold higher than the expected fall in maternally derived antibodies, assuming a half-life of 28 days. The initial antibody titer at 6 weeks of age will be used as the starting point for the expected decline in maternal antibody. This study will compare the immunogenicity of: 1. Sequential dose of intra-dermal f-IPV and bOPV to bOPV alone administered at 6, 10 and 14 weeks of age 2. tOPV to bOPV administered at 6,10 and 14 weeks of age 3. IM IPV to ID f-IPV administered at 6 and 14 weeks of age The answer to these questions will guide the global polio eradication program in designing new routine immunization schedule for children that eliminates the risks of paralysis due to vaccine derived poliovirus (VDPV) from type 2 vaccine poliovirus.
Foot drop deformity is a life limiting condition characterized by loss of ankle dorsiflexion and eversion. Main condition leading to drop foot condition include irrecoverable muscle and nerve injuries, poliomyelitis, drug poisoning, strokes, cerebral palsy, Charcot - Marie - Tooth disease, meningomyelocele, club foot, Friedreich's ataxia and Leprosy (1-4). Anterior transposition of Posterior tibialis tendon (PTT) is the gold standard for surgical restoration of functional dorsiflexion of a permanently paralyzed foot (1, 4-10). Two methods of rerouting the posterior tibialis tendon have been reported, one through the interosseous membrane i.e. Interosseous route (7, 10) and second subcutaneously around the medial side of tibia i.e. Extramembranous or circumtibial route (11-13). Both these techniques have been widely described in literature (4-16) and are being extensively used in surgical management of foot drop. The selection of technique depends on surgeon choice and patient factors. There is a clinical equipoise with regards to these two techniques of Tibialis posterior tendon transfer and through our study we aim to compare the clinical and functional outcomes of these two techniques. There are no studies in literature which compare the clinical and functional outcomes with regards to both these methods. Although there are many studies to demonstrate the functional and clinical effectiveness of the respective procedures, there is a paucity of clinical trials comparing these two surgical techniques with regards to clinical and functional outcomes. Furthermore there are no head to head clinical trials to compare the outcomes with regards to these two methods of Tibialis Posterior tendon transfer (Medline search dated 03/03/ 2012) we propose to compare the clinical and functional outcomes with regards to the two techniques i.e extra membranous and Interosseous technique of Tibialis Posterior tendon transfer performed in patients with foot drop as a result of nerve palsy. Through our prospective randomized trial we aim to answer the research question, whether one method has any superior outcome over the other?