Intestinal Immunity to Poliovirus Following Sequential Trivalent Inactivated Polio Vaccine/Bivalent Oral Polio Vaccine and Trivalent Inactivated Polio Vaccine-only Immunization Schedules: Analysis of an Open-label, Randomized, Controlled Trial in Chilean Infants

Enteroviruses: epidemic potential, challenges and opportunities with vaccines

Enteroviruses (EVs) are the most prevalent viruses in humans. EVs can cause a range of acute symptoms, from mild common colds to severe systemic infections such as meningitis, myocarditis, and flaccid paralysis. They can also lead to chronic diseases such as cardiomyopathy. Although more than 280 human EV serotypes exist, only four serotypes have licenced vaccines. No antiviral drugs are available to treat EV infections, and global surveillance of EVs has not been effectively coordinated. Therefore, poliovirus still circulates, and there have been alarming epidemics of non-polio enteroviruses. Thus, there is a pressing need for coordinated preparedness efforts against EVs.This review provides a perspective on recent enterovirus outbreaks and global poliovirus eradication efforts with continuous vaccine development initiatives. It also provides insights into the challenges and opportunities in EV vaccine development. Given that traditional whole-virus vaccine technologies are not suitable for many clinically relevant EVs and considering the ongoing risk of enterovirus outbreaks and the potential for new emerging pathogenic strains, the need for new effective and adaptable enterovirus vaccines is emphasized.This review also explores the difficulties in translating promising vaccine candidates for clinical use and summarizes information from published literature and clinical trial databases focusing on existing enterovirus vaccines, ongoing clinical trials, the obstacles faced in vaccine development as well as the emergence of new vaccine technologies. Overall, this review contributes to the understanding of enterovirus vaccines, their role in public health, and their significance as a tool for future preparedness.

Review of Poliovirus Transmission and Economic Modeling to Support Global Polio Eradication: 2020-2024

Continued investment in the development and application of mathematical models of poliovirus transmission, economics, and risks leads to their use in support of polio endgame strategy development and risk management policies. This study complements an earlier review covering the period 2000-2019 and discusses the evolution of studies published since 2020 by modeling groups supported by the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) partners and others. We systematically review modeling papers published in English in peer-reviewed journals from 2020-2024.25 that focus on poliovirus transmission and health economic analyses. In spite of the long-anticipated end of poliovirus transmission and the GPEI sunset, which would lead to the end of its support for modeling, we find that the number of modeling groups supported by GPEI partners doubled and the rate of their publications increased. Modeling continued to play a role in supporting GPEI and national/regional policies, but changes in polio eradication governance, decentralized management and decision-making, and increased heterogeneity in modeling approaches and findings decreased the overall impact of modeling results. Meanwhile, the failure of the 2016 globally coordinated cessation of type 2 oral poliovirus vaccine use for preventive immunization and the introduction of new poliovirus vaccines and formulation, increased the complexity and uncertainty of poliovirus transmission and economic models and policy recommendations during this time.

Use of inactivated poliovirus vaccine for poliovirus outbreak response

With continued wild poliovirus transmission in Afghanistan and Pakistan and circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus in certain countries, there exists an ongoing risk of importation of polioviruses into other countries, including those that have been polio-free for decades. Diversifying the poliovirus outbreak response toolkit is essential to account for different public health and epidemiological contexts. In this Personal View, we discuss data on intestinal and pharyngeal mucosal immunity induced by inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV), previous programmatic experience of poliovirus outbreak response with IPV, and outbreak response guidelines in countries that exclusively use IPV. With recent reports of poliovirus detection in polio-free countries such as the USA and the UK, it is important to assess the interplay of virus transmission dynamics, vaccine impact on preventing paralysis and virus spread, and regulatory complexities of using oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) and IPV options for outbreak response. As the global eradication programme navigates through cessation of routine OPV use with replacement by IPV and stockpiling of novel OPVs, clarity on the impact of IPV use will be important for informed decision making by global, regional, and national policy makers.

Immune persistence after different polio sequential immunization schedules in Chinese infants

Trivalent oral poliovirus vaccine (tOPV) has been withdrawn and instead an inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) and bivalent type 1 and type 3 OPV (bOPV) sequential immunization schedule has been implemented since 2016, but no immune persistence data are available for this polio vaccination strategy. This study aimed to assess immune persistence following different polio sequential immunization schedules. Venous blood was collected at 24, 36, and 48 months of age from participants who had completed sequential schedules of combined IPV and OPV in phase III clinical trials. The serum neutralizing antibody titers against poliovirus were determined, and the poliovirus-specific antibody-positive rates were evaluated. A total of 1104 participants were enrolled in this study. The positive rates of poliovirus type 1- and type 3-specific antibodies among the sequential immunization groups showed no significant difference at 24, 36, or 48 months of age. The positive rates of poliovirus type 2-specific antibody in the IPV-IPV-tOPV group at all time points were nearly 100%, which was significantly higher than the corresponding rates in other immunization groups (IPV-bOPV-bOPV and IPV-IPV-bOPV). Immunization schedules involving one or two doses of IPV followed by bOPV failed to maintain a high positive rate for poliovirus type 2-specific antibody.

Oral and fecal polio vaccine excretion following bOPV vaccination among Israeli infants

INTRODUCTION

Inactivated polio virus (IPV) vaccinations are a mainstay of immunization schedules in developed countries, while oral polio vaccine (OPV) is administered in developing countries and is the main vaccine in outbreaks. Due to circulating wild poliovirus (WPV1) detection in Israel (2013), oral bivalent polio vaccination (bOPV) was administered to IPV primed children and incorporated into the vaccination regimen.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to determine the extent and timeframe of fecal and salivary polio vaccine virus (Sabin strains) shedding following bOPV vaccination among IPV primed children.

METHODS

Fecal samples were collected from a convenience sample of infants and toddlers attending 11 Israeli daycare centers. Salivary samples were collected from infants and toddlers following bOPV vaccination.

RESULTS

398 fecal samples were collected from 251 children (ages: 6-32 months), 168 received bOPV vaccination 4-55 days prior to sample collection. Fecal excretion continued among 80 %, 50 %, and 20 %, 2, 3, and 7 weeks following vaccination. There were no significant differences in the rate and duration of positive samples among children immunized with 3 or 4 IPV doses. Boys were 2.3-fold more likely to excrete the virus (p = 0.006). Salivary shedding of Sabin strains occurred in 1/47 (2 %) and 1/49 (2 %) samples 4, and 6 days following vaccination respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Fecal detection of Sabin strains among IPV-primed children continues for 7 weeks; additional doses of IPV do not augment intestinal immunity; limited salivary shedding occurs for up to a week. This data can enhance understanding of intestinal immunity achieved by different vaccination schedules and guide recommendations for contact precautions of children following bOPV vaccination.

Mucosal immunity to poliovirus

A cornerstone of the global initiative to eradicate polio is the widespread use of live and inactivated poliovirus vaccines in extensive public health campaigns designed to prevent the development of paralytic disease and interrupt transmission of the virus. Central to these efforts is the goal of inducing mucosal immunity able to limit virus replication in the intestine. Recent clinical trials have evaluated new combined regimens of poliovirus vaccines, and demonstrated clear differences in their ability to restrict virus shedding in stool after oral challenge with live virus. Analyses of mucosal immunity accompanying these trials support a critical role for enteric neutralizing IgA in limiting the magnitude and duration of virus shedding. This review summarizes key findings in vaccine-induced intestinal immunity to poliovirus in infants, older children, and adults. The impact of immunization on development and maintenance of protective immunity to poliovirus and the implications for global eradication are discussed.

Oral rotavirus vaccine shedding as a marker of mucosal immunity

Group A rotaviruses (RVA) remain a leading cause of pediatric diarrhea worldwide, in part due to underperformance of currently approved live-attenuated, oral vaccines in low-and-middle income countries. Improved immune correlates of protection (CoP) for existing oral vaccines and novel strategies to evaluate the performance of next-generation vaccines are needed. Use of oral vaccines as challenge agents in controlled human infection models is a potential approach to CoP discovery that remains underexplored. In a live-attenuated, oral rotavirus vaccine (Rotarix, GlaxoSmithKline) efficacy trial conducted among infants in Dhaka, Bangladesh, we explored the potential for the second dose of the two-dose series to be considered a challenge agent through which RVA immunity could be explored, using fecal virus shedding post-dose 2 as a marker of mucosal immunity. Among 180 vaccinated infants who completed the parent study per protocol, the absence of fecal vaccine shedding following the second dose of Rotarix suggested intestinal mucosal immunity generated by the first dose and a decreased risk of RVA diarrhea through 2 years of life (RR 0.616, 95% CI 0.392-0.968). Further development of controlled human infection models for group A rotaviruses, especially in prospective studies with larger sample sizes, may be a promising tool to assess rotavirus vaccine efficacy and CoPs.

A Randomized Phase 4 Study of Immunogenicity and Safety After Monovalent Oral Type 2 Sabin Poliovirus Vaccine Challenge in Children Vaccinated with Inactivated Poliovirus Vaccine in Lithuania

Background

Understanding immunogenicity and safety of monovalent type 2 oral poliovirus vaccine (mOPV2) in inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV)–immunized children is of major importance in informing global policy to control circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus outbreaks.

Methods

In this open-label, phase 4 study (NCT02582255) in 100 IPV-vaccinated Lithuanian 1–5-year-olds, we measured humoral and intestinal type 2 polio neutralizing antibodies before and 28 days after 1 or 2 mOPV2 doses given 28 days apart and measured stool viral shedding after each dose. Parents recorded solicited adverse events (AEs) for 7 days after each dose and unsolicited AEs for 6 weeks after vaccination.

Results

After 1 mOPV2 challenge, the type 2 seroprotection rate increased from 98% to 100%. Approximately 28 days after mOPV2 challenge 34 of 68 children (50%; 95% confidence interval, 38%–62%) were shedding virus; 9 of 37 (24%; 12%–41%) were shedding 28 days after a second challenge. Before challenge, type 2 intestinal immunity was undetectable in IPV-primed children, but 28 of 87 (32%) had intestinal neutralizing titers ≥32 after 1 mOPV2 dose. No vaccine-related serious or severe AEs were reported.

Conclusions

High viral excretion after mOPV2 among exclusively IPV-vaccinated children was substantially lower after a subsequent dose, indicating induction of intestinal immunity against type 2 poliovirus.

Intestinal antibody responses to two novel live attenuated type 2 oral poliovirus vaccines in healthy adults in Belgium

In a blinded phase 1 trial (EudraCT 2017-0000908-21; NCT03430349) in Belgium, healthy adults (aged 18–50 years) previously immunized exclusively with inactivated poliovirus vaccine were administered a single dose of 1 of 2 novel type 2 oral poliovirus vaccines (nOPV2-c1: S2/cre5/S15domV/rec1/hifi3 (n = 15); nOPV2-c2: S2/S15domV/CpG40 (n = 15)) and isolated for 28 days in a purpose-built containment facility. Using stool samples collected near days 0, 14, 21, and 28, we evaluated intestinal neutralization and immunoglobulin A responses to the nOPV2s and found that nOPV2-c1 and nOPV2-c2 induced detectable poliovirus type 2–specific intestinal neutralizing responses in 40.0% and 46.7% of participants, respectively.

Immunogenicity and safety of different sequential schedules of Sabin strain-based inactivated poliovirus vaccination: A randomized, controlled, open-label, phase IV clinical trial in China

BACKGROUND

The immunogenicity and safety of the sequential schedule of Sabin strain-based inactivated poliovirus vaccine (sIPV) and bivalent oral poliovirus vaccine (bOPV) remains poorly understood in Chinese population.

METHODS

A multi-center, open-label, randomized controlled trial was performed involving 648 healthy infants aged 2 months from Inner Mongolia, Shanxi, and Hebei provinces. These participants were divided into three groups: sIPV-bOPV-bOPV, sIPV-sIPV-bOPV, and sIPV-sIPV-sIPV. Doses were administered sequentially at age 2, 3, and 4 months. Neutralisation assays were tested using sera collected at 2 months and 5 months.

RESULTS

A total of 569 were included in the per-protocol analysis. The seroconversion rates of poliovirus type 1 and 3 were 100% in all three groups, the seroconversion rate of poliovirus type 2 was 91.53% (173/189) (95% CI: 86.62-95.08) in the sIPV-bOPV-bOPV group, 98.38% (182/185) (95% CI: 95.33-99.66) in the sIPV-sIPV-bOPV group, and 99.49% (194/195) (95% CI: 97.18-99.99) in the sIPV-sIPV-sIPV group. For the seroconversion rate of poliovirus types 1 and 3, the sIPV-bOPV-bOPV and sIPV-sIPV-bOPV groups were non-inferior to the sIPV-sIPV-sIPV group. For the seroconversion rate of poliovirus type 2, the sIPV-sIPV-bOPV group was non-inferior to the sIPV-sIPV-sIPV group, and the sIPV-bOPV-bOPV group was inferior to the sIPV-sIPV-sIPV group. All three groups exhibited good safety, with two serious adverse events reported, that were unrelated to vaccine.

CONCLUSIONS

In china, a new vaccination schedule that including 2 doses of IPV in the national immunization programs is essential. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.govNCT04054492.

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.

Intestinal antibody responses to a live oral poliovirus vaccine challenge among adults previously immunized with inactivated polio vaccine in Sweden

Background

Our understanding of the acquisition of intestinal mucosal immunity and the control of poliovirus replication and transmission in later life is still emerging.

Methods

As part of a 2011 randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial of the experimental antiviral agent pocapavir (EudraCT 2011-004804-38), Swedish adults, aged 18-50 years, who had previously received four doses of inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) in childhood were challenged with a single dose of monovalent oral polio vaccine type 1 (mOPV1). Using faecal samples collected before and serially, over the course of 45 days, after mOPV1 challenge from a subset of placebo-arm participants who did not receive pocapavir (N=12), we investigated the kinetics of the intestinal antibody response to challenge virus by measuring poliovirus type 1-specific neutralising activity and IgA concentrations.

Results

In faecal samples collected prior to mOPV1 challenge, we found no evidence of pre-existing intestinal neutralising antibodies to any of the three poliovirus serotypes. Despite persistent high-titered vaccine virus shedding and rising serum neutralisation responses after mOPV1 challenge, intestinal poliovirus type 1-specific neutralisation remained low with a titer of ≤18.4 across all time points and individuals. Poliovirus types 1-specific, 2-specific and 3-specific IgA remained below the limit of detection for all specimens collected postchallenge.

Interpretation

In contrast to recent studies demonstrating brisk intestinal antibody responses to oral polio vaccine challenge in young children previously vaccinated with IPV, this investigation finds that adults previously vaccinated with IPV have only modest intestinal poliovirus type 1-specific neutralisation and no IgA responses that are measurable in stool samples following documented mOPV1 infection.