Research AppraisalSystematic Review

Immunogenicity and safety of Sabin-strain inactivated poliovirus vaccine in infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis

VaccineHussain, Muhammad, Hassan, Muhammad, Athar, Maryam et al.11 June 2026DOI

Clinical Snapshot

95CEBM
Evidence: StrongSystematic Review

PICO Framework

P — PopulationHealthy infants completing primary IPV vaccination series
I — InterventionSabin-strain inactivated poliovirus vaccine (sIPV)
C — ComparatorConventional Salk-strain inactivated poliovirus vaccine (cIPV)
O — OutcomesSeroconversion rates, seroprotection rates, geometric mean titers (GMTs), and adverse events

Bottom Line

This well-conducted systematic review demonstrates that Sabin-strain inactivated poliovirus vaccine (sIPV) provides equivalent immunogenicity to conventional Salk-strain IPV in healthy infants, with 100% seroconversion rates across all three poliovirus serotypes. Safety profiles are comparable, though sIPV showed slightly higher rates of fever and allergic reactions. The key advantage of sIPV lies in its reduced biosafety requirements for manufacturing and handling, making it particularly valuable for global polio eradication efforts in resource-limited settings. For Australian practice, sIPV represents a viable alternative that could enhance vaccine security and reduce production costs, though regulatory approval and economic evaluation would be necessary before implementation in the National Immunisation Program.

Evidence: Strong

Key Findings

  • P Value: Not explicitly reported

  • Effect Size: Non-inferiority demonstrated: PV1 RR 1.00, PV2 RR 1.02, PV3 RR 1.00

  • Primary Outcome: Seroconversion rates for poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3

  • Nnt Or Sensitivity: 100% seroconversion achieved for both vaccines across all serotypes

  • Confidence Interval: 95% CI ranges from 0.98-1.07 across poliovirus types

Clinical Application

High feasibility due to lower biosafety requirements for sIPV production and storage Relevant to Australian National Immunisation Program; TGA approval would be required for sIPV introduction; cost-effectiveness analysis needed for PBS consideration Healthy infants receiving primary IPV vaccination series in routine immunization programs

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Poliomyelitis remains a threat to children under five despite global vaccination efforts. The Sabin-strain inactivated poliovirus vaccine (sIPV) has emerged as a safer alternative to conventional Salk-strain IPV (cIPV) due to lower biosafety requirements. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the immunogenicity and safety of sIPV compared with cIPV in healthy infants completing the primary IPV series. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library were searched for RCTs. Outcomes included seroconversion rates, seroprotection rates, geometric mean titers (GMTs), and adverse events. Data were pooled using random-effects models, and evidence certainty was assessed using RoB 2.0 and GRADE. RESULTS: Seven RCTs with 4646 infants were included. Seroconversion rates were comparable: PV1 100% (RR 1.00, 95% CI 1.00-1.01), PV2 102% (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.98-1.07), PV3 100% (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.99-1.01). GMTs were higher for sIPV after PV1 (MD 1.50, 95% CI 0.98-2.02) and PV2 (MD 0.52, 95% CI 0.06-0.98). Local adverse events were similar (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.95-1.71), while systemic adverse events were higher with cIPV (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.15-1.60). Fever (OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.20-1.87) and allergic reactions (OR 2.19, 95% CI 1.02-4.69) were slightly more frequent with sIPV. CONCLUSIONS: sIPV provides immunogenicity comparable to cIPV with an acceptable safety profile in infants. Its lower biosafety requirements support its use in global polio eradication programs.

References

  1. 1.Hussain, M., Hassan, M., Athar, M., Khan, S., Azam, M. T., Rathi, D., & Nawaz, J. (2026). Immunogenicity and safety of Sabin-strain inactivated poliovirus vaccine in infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Vaccine, 128643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2026.128643
Share:XLinkedIn

This content is for educational purposes for healthcare professionals only and does not constitute clinical advice. Clinical decisions should be based on individual patient assessment, current guidelines, and appropriate specialist consultation. Editorial Standards · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service