On reducing the risk of vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis in the global transition from oral to inactivated poliovirus vaccine

Role and Limits of COVID-19 Vaccines in the Delicate Transition from Pandemic Mitigation to Endemic Control

The recent surge of COVID-19 related to the Omicron variant emergence has thrown a harsh light upon epidemic control in the near future. This should lead the scientific and medical community to question the long-term vaccine strategy for SARS-CoV-2 control. We provide here a critical point of view regarding the virological evolution, epidemiological aspects, and immunological drivers for COVID-19 control, including a vaccination strategy. Overall, we need more innovations in vaccine development to reduce the COVID-19 burden long term. The most adequate answer might be better cooperation between universities, biotech and pharmaceutical companies

Immunochemical and Biophysical Characterization of Inactivated Sabin Poliovirus Products: Insights into Rapid Quality Assessment Tools

The aim of this study was to demonstrate the strength of combining immunochemical and biophysical analysis tools for assessing the quality of Sabin inactivated poliovirus vaccine (Sabin-IPV) bulk products. We assessed Sabin-IPV serotypes 1, 2 and 3 from six different manufacturers and evaluated their comparability through biosensor analysis and biophysical characterization methods, including tryptophan fluorescence and asymmetrical flow field-flow fractionation - multi-angle light scattering analysis. These methods enabled us to assess antigenic as well as conformational and structural integrity profiles, respectively. Based on Sabin-IPV samples that were subjected to accelerated storage conditions, we revealed that existing immunochemical methods exhibit remarkably similar trends to the results obtained by the biophysical characterization methods. While the results underpin that the comparability of Sabin-IPV bulk products of different manufacturers is poor, information about their quality can rapidly be obtained by using both immunochemical and biophysical methods. Furthermore, the study highlights that quality assessment of Sabin-IPV can be obtained through biophysical techniques can complement the assessments performed with monoclonal antibodies and suggests that similar techniques could be employed to characterize other enteroviruses.

Adverse events following immunization with bivalent oral poliovirus vaccine in Jiangsu, China

AIMS

The bivalent oral poliovirus vaccine (bOPV; Sabin types 1 and 3) replaced the trivalent OPV (Sabin types 1, 2 and 3) globally in April 2016. A routine schedule of 1 dose of inactivated poliovirus vaccine and 3 subsequent doses of bOPV was implemented in Jiangsu simultaneously. The schedule was changed to 2 inactivated poliovirus vaccines + 2 bOPV on 1 September 2019. Although OPV type 2 has been removed, challenges persist because of adverse events following immunization (AEFIs) with bOPV. Therefore, we analysed and evaluated the safety profile of bOPV administered in children based on passive postmarketing AEFI surveillance.

METHODS

We collected all bOPV-related AEFI reports in Jiangsu from the Chinese National AEFI Information System (CNAEFIS) between May 2016 and April 2020. We obtained the administered doses of bOPV from the Jiangsu Provincial Electronic Immunization Registries System. A descriptive analysis was performed.

RESULTS

In total, 2084 bOPV-related AEFIs were retrieved from the CNAEFIS. The overall reporting rate was 24.16 per 100 000 doses. Most AEFIs were nonserious. The most frequently reported symptoms were fever, rash and gastrointestinal disorders. Only 1.34% of AEFIs were serious, which thrombocytopenic purpura accounted for the largest category. Seventeen serious adverse events, including 2 vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP) cases, were considered to be related to bOPV vaccination. The rate of VAPP was 0.2 per million doses.

CONCLUSION

AEFI analysis showed that bOPV was well tolerated. The events most frequently reported were nonserious. However, bOPV can still cause VAPP. Attention should be given to risks related to bOPV.

Virus Eradication and Synthetic Biology: Changes with SARS-CoV-2?

The eradication of infectious diseases has been achieved only once in history, in 1980, with smallpox. Since 1988, significant effort has been made to eliminate poliomyelitis viruses, but eradication is still just out of reach. As the goal of viral disease eradication approaches, the ability to recreate historically eradicated viruses using synthetic biology has the potential to jeopardize the long-term sustainability of eradication. However, the emergence of the severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus (SARS-CoV)-2 pandemic has highlighted our ability to swiftly and resolutely respond to a potential outbreak. This virus has been synthetized faster than any other in the past and is resulting in vaccines before most attenuated candidates reach clinical trials. Here, synthetic biology has the opportunity to demonstrate its truest potential to the public and solidify a footing in the world of vaccines.

Confronting vaccine hesitancy: What nurses need to know

This article reviews the origins of vaccine hesitancy, explores common misconceptions about vaccines, and discusses strategies for overcoming vaccine hesitancy.

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 eradication of infectious viral diseases endangered by advances in synthetic biology]

The eradication of infectious diseases is one of the oldest dreams of mankind. It has been materialized only once in History with smallpox in 1980. Considerable efforts are being developed against poliomyelitis viruses since 1988, but the ultimate goal of eradication is not yet achieved. Paradoxically, while the objective of having eradicated these two viral diseases is approaching, synthetic biology multiplies the prowesses of virus "neosynthesis", imperiling at least virtually the durability of these advances. This article emphasizes the potential of a new biology on one side, and the difficult reality of the fight against infections on the other.