Immunogenicity of sequential inactivated and oral poliovirus vaccines (OPV) versus inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) alone in healthy infants: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Serological investigation on the prevalence of poliovirus in Guangdong province: A cross-sectional study

In 2019, we conducted a cross-sectional study for polio virus seroprevalence in Guangdong province, China. We assessed the positivity rates of poliomyelitis NA and GMT in serum across various demographic groups, and the current findings were compared with pre-switch data from 2014. Using multistage random sampling method, four counties/districts were randomly selected per city, and within each, one general hospital and two township hospitals were chosen. Healthy individuals coming for medical checkups or vaccination were invited. A total of 1318 individual samples were collected and tested. In non-newborn population, age-dependent positivity rates ranged from 77.8% to 100% for PV1 NA and 70.3% to 98.9% for PV3 NA (p < .01). The lowest GMT values for both types (17.03 and 8.46) occurred in the 20 to <30 years age group, while peak GMTs for PV1 and PV3 were observed in 1 to <2 (340.14) and 0 to <1-year (168.90) age groups, respectively. GMTs for PV1 (P = .002) and PV3 (P = .007) in Eastern Guangdong were lower than those in the other three regions. Male participants showed higher GMTs than females (P = .016 and .033, respectively). In newborn population, both males and females showed higher PV1 NA positivity rates and GMTs compared to PV3 (p < .05). Post-switch PV3 NA positivity rates were higher than pre-switch rates (p = .016). GMTs of both PV1 and PV3 were significantly higher post-switch (p < .001). The positivity rates of NAs and GMTs remain high level, which play an important role in resisting poliomyelitis infection. Effect of the converted immunization program was more pronounced than that before.

Immunological evaluation of an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in rhesus macaques

Because of the relatively limited understanding of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pathogenesis, immunological analysis for vaccine development is needed. Mice and macaques were immunized with an inactivated severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine prepared by two inactivators. Various immunological indexes were tested, and viral challenges were performed on day 7 or 150 after booster immunization in monkeys. This inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine was produced by sequential inactivation with formaldehyde followed by propiolactone. The various antibody responses and specific T cell responses to different viral antigens elicited in immunized animals were maintained for longer than 150 days. This comprehensive immune response could effectively protect vaccinated macaques by inhibiting viral replication in macaques and substantially alleviating immunopathological damage, and no clinical manifestation of immunopathogenicity was observed in immunized individuals during viral challenge. This candidate inactivated vaccine was identified as being effective against SARS-CoV-2 challenge in rhesus macaques.

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.

Safety and Immunogenicity of Sabin Strain Inactivated Poliovirus Vaccine Compared With Salk Strain Inactivated Poliovirus Vaccine, in Different Sequential Schedules With Bivalent Oral Poliovirus Vaccine: Randomized Controlled Noninferiority Clinical Trials in China

Background

A new Sabin strain inactivated poliovirus vaccine (sIPV) proved to be immunogenic and safe in all IPV primary immunization in the previous study, with the corresponding profiles in sequential immunizations unclear.

Methods

Two clinical trials on the “IPV + 2 bivalent oral polio vaccine (2bOPV)” (Trial A) and “2IPV + bOPV” (Trial B) vaccination were conducted. Both clinical trials were randomized, controlled, double-blinded, noninferiority trials, and wild-strain IPV (wIPV) was adopted as the control vaccine. In each clinical trial, 240 healthy infants were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive sequential vaccinations containing sIPV or wIPV. Immunogenicity and safety were assessed using per-protocol and safety populations, respectively.

Results

For Trial A, the seroconversion rates in the experimental and control groups were 100% and 99.1%, respectively, against type 1; both 100.0% against type 3. For Trial B, the seroconversion rates in experimental and control groups were 99.2% and 100.0%, respectively, against type 1; both 100% against type 3. No serious adverse events related to vaccines were reported.

Conclusions

The new sIPV demonstrated an immunogenicity noninferior to that of the wIPV and a good safety profile in sequential vaccination with bOPV.

Clinical trial numbers

NCT:03822754; NCT:03822767.

Vaccine schedules and the effect on humoral and intestinal immunity against poliovirus: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The eradication of wild and vaccine-derived poliovirus requires the global withdrawal of oral poliovirus vaccines (OPVs) and replacement with inactivated poliovirus vaccines (IPVs). The first phase of this effort was the withdrawal of the serotype 2 vaccine in April 2016, with a switch from trivalent OPVs to bivalent OPVs. The aim of our study was to produce comparative estimates of humoral and intestinal mucosal immunity associated with different routine immunisation schedules.

METHODS

We did a random-effect meta-analysis with single proportions and a network meta-analysis in a Bayesian framework to synthesise direct and indirect data. We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomised controlled trials published from Jan 1, 1980, to Nov 1, 2018, comparing poliovirus immunisation schedules in a primary series. Only trials done outside western Europe or North America and without variation in age schedules (ie, age at administration of the vaccine) between study groups were included in the analyses, because trials in high-income settings differ in vaccine immunogenicity and schedules from other settings and to ensure consistency within the network of trials. Data were extracted directly from the published reports. We assessed seroconversion against poliovirus serotypes 1, 2, and 3, and intestinal immunity against serotype 2, measured by absence of shedding poliovirus after a challenge OPV dose.

FINDINGS

We identified 437 unique studies; of them, 17 studies with a maximum of 8279 evaluable infants were eligible for assessment of humoral immunity, and eight studies with 4254 infants were eligible for intestinal immunity. For serotype 2, there was low between-trial heterogeneity in the data (τ=0·05, 95% credible interval [CrI] 0·009-0·15) and the risk ratio (RR) of seroconversion after three doses of bivalent OPVs was 0·14 (95% CrI 0·11-0·17) compared with three doses of trivalent OPVs. The addition of one or two full doses of an IPV after a bivalent OPV schedule increased the RR to 0·85 (0·75-1·0) and 1·1 (0·98-1·4). However, the addition of an IPV to bivalent OPV schedules did not significantly increase intestinal immunity (0·33, 0·18-0·61), compared with trivalent OPVs alone. For serotypes 1 and 3, there was susbstantial inconsistency and between-trial heterogeneity between direct and indirect effects, so we only present pooled estmates on seroconversion, which were at least 80% for serotype 1 and at least 88% for serotype 3 for all vaccine schedules.

INTERPRETATION

For WHO's polio eradication programme, the addition of one IPV dose for all birth cohorts should be prioritised to protect against paralysis caused by type 2 poliovirus; however, this inclusion will not prevent transmission or circulation in areas with faecal-oral transmission.

FUNDING

UK Medical Research Council.