Introduction of inactivated poliovirus vaccine leading into the polio eradication endgame strategic plan; Hangzhou, China, 2010–2014

Cost-effectiveness of various immunization schedules with inactivated Sabin strain polio vaccine in Hangzhou, China

Background

It is necessary to select suitable inactivated poliovirus vaccine(IPV) and live, attenuated oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) sequential immunization programs and configure the corresponding health resources. An economic evaluation was conducted on the sequential procedures of Sabin strain-based IPV (sIPV) and bivalent OPV (bOPV) with different doses to verify whether a cost-effectiveness target can be achieved. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different sIPV immunization schedules, which would provide convincing evidence to further change the poliovirus vaccine (PV) immunization strategies in China.

Methods

Five strategies were included in this analysis. Based on Strategy 0(S₀), the incremental cost (IC), incremental effect (IE), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the four different strategies (S₁/S₂/S₃/S₄) were calculated based on the perspective of the society. Seven cost items were included in this study. Results of field investigations and expert consultations were used to calculate these costs.

Results

The ICs of S₁/S₂/S₃/S₄ was Chinese Yuan (CNY) 30.77, 68.58, 103.82, and 219.82 million, respectively. The IE of vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (IE_VAPP) cases of S₁/S₂/S₃/S₄ were 0.22, 0.22, 0.22, and 0.11, respectively, while the IE of disability-adjusted life-years (IE_DALY) of S₁/S₂/S₃/S₄ were 8.98, 8.98, 8.98, and 4.49, respectively. The ICER_VAPP of S₁/S₂/S₃/S₄ gradually increased to CNY 13.99, 31.17, 47.19, and 199.83 million/VAPP, respectively. The ICER_DALY of S₁/S₂/S₃/S₄ also gradually increased to CNY 0.34, 0.76, 1.16, and 4.90 million/DALY, respectively.

Conclusion

ICER_VAPP and ICER_DALY were substantially higher for S₃ (four-sIPV) and S₄ (replacement of self-funded sIPV based on one-sIPV-three-bOPV). Two-sIPV-two-bOPV had a cost-effectiveness advantage, whereas S2/S3/S4 had no cost-effectiveness advantage.

Immunogenicity and safety of the inactivated poliomyelitis vaccine made from Sabin strains in a phase IV clinical trial for the vaccination of a large population

As a recently launched novel vaccine used as one of the vaccines for the final eradication of polios worldwide, complete data on the consistency and immunogenicity characteristics of the inactivated poliomyelitis vaccine made from the Sabin strain (sIPV) and its safety in large-scale populations are required to support the future use of this vaccine worldwide. A phase IV clinical trial was conducted to perform an immunogenicity evaluation of lot-to-lot consistency of three commercial batches of sIPV in 1200 infants and to investigate the vaccine's safety on a large-scale in 20,019 infants for active monitoring and 29,683 infants for passive monitoring through the Adverse Event Following Immunization (AEFI) reporting system in China. In the immunogenicity evaluation, the average seroconversion rates for type I, type II and type III of the three groups were 99.83%, 98.93% and 99.44%, respectively. No differences in the seroconversion rate and the GMT ratios were noted in the pair-to-pair comparisons. In the large-scale safety evaluation, most adverse reactions occurred 0-30 days after the first doses, and the common local and systemic reactions were similar to those in the phase III clinical trial, with low incidence in both activated and passive monitoring. In conclusion, sIPV exhibits good lot-to-lot consistency and safety in large-scale populations; thus, it is qualified to serve as one of the vaccines for use in eradicating all wild and vaccine-derived polioviruses worldwide in the near future. Clinic Trial Registration. NCT04224519 and NCT04220515.

Whole-Cell Vaccine Preparation: Options and Perspectives

Vaccines are biological preparations to elicit a specific immune response in individuals against the targetted microorganisms. The use of vaccines has caused the near eradication of many critical diseases and has had an everlasting impact on public health at a relatively low cost. Most of the vaccines developed today are based on techniques which were developed a long time ago. In the beginning, vaccines were prepared from tissue fluids obtained from infected animals or people, but at present, the scenario has changed with the development of vaccines from live or killed whole microorganisms and toxins or using genetic engineering approaches. Considerable efforts have been made in vaccine development, but there are still many diseases that need attention, and new technologies are being developed in vaccinology to combat them. In this chapter, we discuss different approaches for vaccine development, including the properties and preparation of whole-cell vaccines.

Co-circulation of coxsackieviruses A-6, A-10, and A-16 causes hand, foot, and mouth disease in Guangzhou city, China

Background

Hand, foot, and mouth disease (HFMD) is a common infectious disease occurring in children under 5 years of age worldwide, and Enterovirus A71 (EV-A71) and Coxsackievirus A16 (CVA-16) are identified as the predominant pathogens. In recent years, Coxsackievirus A6 (CVA-6) and Coxsackievirus A10 (CVA-10) have played more and more important role in a series of HFMD outbreaks. This study aimed to understand the epidemic characteristics associated with HFMD outbreak in Guangzhou, 2018.

Methods

The clinical and laboratory data of 1220 enterovirus-associated HFMD patients in 2018 were analysed in this study. Molecular diagnostic methods were performed to identify its serotypes. Phylogenetic analyses were depicted based on the complete VP1 gene.

Results

There were 21 enterovirus serotypes detected in Guangzhou in 2018. Three serotypes of enterovirus, CVA-6 (364/1220, 29.8%), CVA-10 (305/1220, 25.0%), and CVA-16 (397/1220, 32.5%), were identified as the causative pathogens and accounted for 87.3% among all 1220 HFMD patients. In different seasons, CVA-6 was the predominant pathogen of HFMD during autumn, and CVA-10 as well as CVA-16 were more prevalent in summer. Patients infected by CVA-6, CVA-10 or CVA-16 showed similar clinical features and laboratory characteristics, and the ratios of severe HFMD were 5.8, 5.9, and 1.5% in the three serotypes. Phylogenetic analyses of VP1 sequences showed that the CVA-6, CVA-10, and CVA-16 sequences belonged to the sub-genogroup E2, genogroup E, and genogroup B1, respectively.

Conclusions

CVA-6, CVA-10, and CVA-16 were the predominant and co-circulated serotypes in Guangzhou China, 2018, which should be the new target for prevention and control of HFMD. Our findings provide useful information for diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of HFMD.

Potency of the Sabin inactivated poliovirus vaccine (sIPV) after exposure to freezing temperatures in cold chains

With more demand for Sabin inactivated poliovirus vaccines (sIPVs) to support the global polio eradication effort worldwide, data regarding the potency characteristics of sIPV after exposure to freezing temperatures are urgently required. In the present study, the sIPVs were stored at -20°C for 24 h, 1 week, and 2 weeks in the freezer or in a vaccine carrier for 1 or 3 freeze-thaw cycle to evaluate the effect mediated by freezing temperatures that may be encountered during routine storage and transfer. The in vitro potency was then determined by a D-antigen enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, and the in vivo potency was evaluated in Wistar rats. In the in vitro study for freezer storage groups, the D-antigen contents for all three types decreased and were lower than the release specifications after storing at -20°C for 2 weeks. After storing at -20°C for 1 week, the D-antigen contents for types I and III in combined group of a total of 45 vials, and for type II in the specific lot groups containing 15 vials decreased, but were within the release specifications. Moreover, no significant change in in vivo potency was observed. For vaccine carrier transfer groups, the D-antigen contents did not decrease after 1 freeze-thaw cycle; in contrast, it decreased, but no significant in vivo potency loss was observed after 3 freeze-thaw cycles. These results suggest that it may be possible to retain sufficient sIPV potency after short periods of freezing or freeze-thawing during transport.

Sequential inactivated (IPV) and live oral (OPV) poliovirus vaccines for preventing poliomyelitis

BACKGROUND

Poliomyelitis mainly affects unvaccinated children under five years of age, causing irreversible paralysis or even death. The oral polio vaccine (OPV) contains live attenuated virus, which can, in rare cases, cause a paralysis known as vaccine-associated paralytic polio (VAPP), and also vaccine-derived polioviruses (VDPVs) due to acquired neurovirulence after prolonged duration of replication. The incidence of poliomyelitis caused by wild polio virus (WPV) has declined dramatically since the introduction of OPV and later the inactivated polio vaccine (IPV), however, the cases of paralysis linked to the OPV are currently more frequent than those related to the WPV. Therefore, in 2016, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended at least one IPV dose preceding routine immunisation with OPV to reduce VAPPs and VDPVs until polio could be eradicated.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness, safety, and immunogenicity of sequential IPV-OPV immunisation schemes compared to either OPV or IPV alone.

SEARCH METHODS

In May 2019 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 14 other databases, three trials registers and reports of adverse effects on four web sites. We also searched the references of identified studies, relevant reviews and contacted authors to identify additional references.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, controlled before-after studies, nationwide uncontrolled before-after studies (UBAs), interrupted time series (ITS) and controlled ITS comparing sequential IPV-OPV schedules (one or more IPV doses followed by one or more OPV doses) with IPV alone, OPV alone or non-sequential IPV-OPV combinations.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 studies: 16 RCTs involving 6407 healthy infants (age range 96 to 975 days, mean 382 days), one ITS with 28,330 infants and four nationwide studies (two ITS, two UBA). Ten RCTs were conducted in high-income countries; five in the USA, two in the UK, and one each in Chile, Israel, and Oman. The remaining six RCTs were conducted in middle-income countries; China, Bangladesh, Guatemala, India, and Thailand. We rated all included RCTs at low or unclear risk of bias for randomisation domains, most at high or unclear risk of attrition bias, and half at high or unclear risk for conflict of interests. Almost all RCTs were at low risk for the remaining domains. ITSs and UBAs were mainly considered at low risk of bias for most domains. IPV-OPV versus OPV It is uncertain if an IPV followed by OPV schedule is better than OPV alone at reducing the number of WPV cases (very low-certainty evidence); however, it may reduce VAPP cases by 54% to 100% (three nationwide studies; low-certainty evidence). There is little or no difference in vaccination coverage between IPV-OPV and OPV-only schedules (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 1.06; 1 ITS study; low-certainty evidence). Similarly, there is little or no difference between the two schedule types for the number of serious adverse events (SAEs) (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.70; 4 studies, 1948 participants; low-certainty evidence); or the number of people with protective humoral response P1 (moderate-certainty evidence), P2 (for the most studied schedule; two IPV doses followed by OPV; low-certainty evidence), and P3 (low-certainty evidence). Two IPV doses followed by bivalent OPV (IIbO) may reduce P2 neutralising antibodies compared to trivalent OPV (moderate-certainty evidence), but may make little or no difference to P1 or P2 neutralising antibodies following an IIO schedule or OPV alone (low-certainty evidence). Both IIO and IIbO schedules may increase P3 neutralising antibodies compared to OPV (moderate-certainty evidence). It may also lead to lower mucosal immunity given increased faecal excretion of P1 (low-certainty evidence), P2 and P3 (moderate-certainty evidence) after OPV challenge. IPV-OPV versus IPV It is uncertain if IPV-OPV is more effective than IPV alone at reducing the number of WPV cases (very low-certainty evidence). There were no data regarding VAPP cases. There is no clear evidence of a difference between IPV-OPV and OPV schedules for the number of people with protective humoral response (low- and moderate-certainty evidence). IPV-OPV schedules may increase mean titres of P1 neutralising antibodies compared to OPV alone (low- and moderate-certainty evidence), but the effect on P2 and P3 titres is not clear (very low- and moderate-certainty evidence). IPV-OPV probably reduces the number of people with P3 poliovirus faecal excretion after OPV challenge with IIO and IIOO sequences (moderate-certainty evidence), and may reduce the number with P2 (low-certainty evidence), but not with P1 (very low-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference between the schedules in number of SAEs (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.43; 2 studies, 1063 participants, low-certainty evidence). The number of persons with P2 protective humoral immunity and P2 neutralising antibodies are probably lower with most sequential schemes without P2 components (i.e. bOPV) than with trivalent OPV or IVP alone (moderate-certainty evidence). IPV (3)-OPV versus IPV (2)-OPV One study (137 participants) showed no clear evidence of a difference between three IPV doses followed by OPV and two IPV doses followed by OPV, on the number of people with P1 (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.03), P2 (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.03), or P3 (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.05) protective humoral and intestinal immunity; all moderate-certainty evidence. This study did not report on any other outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

IPV-OPV compared to OPV may reduce VAPPs without affecting vaccination coverage, safety or humoral response, except P2 with sequential schemes without P2 components, but increase poliovirus faecal excretion after OPV challenge for some polio serotypes. Compared to IPV-only schedules, IPV-OPV may have little or no difference on SAEs, probably has little or no effect on persons with protective humoral response, may increase neutralising antibodies, and probably reduces faecal excretion after OPV challenge of certain polio serotypes. Using three IPV doses as part of a IPV-OPV schedule does not appear to be better than two IPV doses for protective humoral response. Sequential schedules during the transition from OPV to IPV-only immunisation schedules seems a reasonable option aligned with current WHO recommendations. Findings could help decision-makers to optimise polio vaccination policies, reducing inequities between countries.

The potential impact of a prophylactic vaccine for Ebola in Sierra Leone

The 2014 outbreak of Ebola virus disease (EVD) in West Africa was multinational and of an unprecedented scale primarily affecting the countries of Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone. One of the qualities that makes EVD of high public concern is its potential for extremely high mortality rates (up to 90%). A prophylactic vaccine for ebolavirus (rVSV-ZEBOV) has been developed, and clinical trials show near-perfect efficacy. We have developed an ordinary differential equations model that simulates an EVD epidemic and takes into account (1) transmission through contact with infectious EVD individuals and deceased EVD bodies, (2) the heterogeneity of the risk of becoming infected with EVD, and (3) the increased survival rate of infected EVD patients due to greater access to trained healthcare providers. Using fitted parameter values that closely simulate the dynamics of the 2014 outbreak in Sierra Leone, we utilize our model to predict the potential impact of a prophylactic vaccine for the ebolavirus using various vaccination strategies including ring vaccination. Our results show that an rVSV-ZEBOV vaccination coverage as low as 40% in the general population and 95% in healthcare workers will prevent another catastrophic outbreak like the 2014 outbreak from occurring.