Immunogenicity and effectiveness of routine immunization with 1 or 2 doses of inactivated poliovirus vaccine: systematic review and meta-analysis

Estimation of the poliovirus type 2 immunity gap in South Africa

In the context of polio eradication efforts, accurate assessment of vaccination programme effectiveness is essential to public health planning and decision making. Such assessments are often based on zero-dose children, estimated using the number of children who did not receive the first dose of the Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis containing vaccine as a proxy. Our study introduces a novel approach to directly estimate the number of children susceptible to poliovirus type 2 (PV2) and uses this approach to provide district-level estimates for South Africa of susceptible children born between 2017 and 2022. We used district-level data on annual doses of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) administered, live births, and population sizes, from 2017 through 2022. We imputed missing vaccination data, implemented flexible assumptions regarding dose distribution in the eligible population, and used estimated efficacy values for one, two, three, and four doses of IPV, to compute the number of susceptible and immune children by birth year. We validated our approach by comparing an intermediary output with zero-dose children (ZDC) estimated using data reported by WHO/UNICEF Estimates of National Immunization Coverage (WUENIC). Our results indicate high heterogeneity in susceptibility to PV2 across South Africa's 52 districts as of the end of 2022. In children under 5 years, PV2 susceptibility ranged from approximately 30 % in districts including Xhariep (31.9 %), Ekurhuleni (30.1 %), and Central Karoo (29.8 %), to less than 4 % in Sarah Baartman (1.9 %), Buffalo City (2.1 %), and eThekwini (3.2 %). Our susceptibility estimates were consistently higher than ZDC over the timeframe. We estimated that ZDC decreased nationally from 155,168 (152,737-158,523) in 2017 to 108,593 in 2021, and increased to 127,102 in 2022, a trend consistent with ZDC derived from data reported by WUENIC. While our approach provides a more comprehensive profile of PV2 susceptibility, our susceptibility and ZDC estimates generally agree in the ranking of districts according to risk.

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.

Effectiveness of poliovirus vaccines against circulating vaccine-derived type 2 poliomyelitis in Nigeria between 2017 and 2022: a case-control study

BACKGROUND

Between 2018 and 2022, Nigeria experienced continuous transmission of circulating vaccine-derived type 2 poliovirus (cVDPV2), with 526 cases of cVDPV2 poliomyelitis detected in total and approximately 180 million doses of monovalent type 2 oral poliovirus vaccine (mOPV2) and 450 million doses of novel type 2 oral poliovirus vaccine (nOPV2) delivered in outbreak response campaigns. Inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) was introduced into routine immunisation in 2015, with a second dose added in 2021. We aimed to estimate the effectiveness of nOPV2 against cVDPV2 paralysis and compare nOPV2 effectiveness with that of mOPV2 and IPV.

METHODS

In this retrospective case-control study, we used acute flaccid paralysis (AFP) surveillance data in Nigeria from Jan 1, 2017, to Dec 31, 2022, using age-matched, onset-matched, and location-matched cVDPV2-negative AFP cases as test-negative controls. We also did a parallel prospective study from March, 2021, using age-matched community controls from the same settlement as the cases. We included children born after May, 2016, younger than 60 months, for whom polio immunisation history (doses of OPV from campaigns and IPV) was reported. We estimated the per-dose effectiveness of nOPV2 against cVDPV2 paralysis using conditional logistic regression and compared nOPV2 effectiveness with that of mOPV2 and IPV.

FINDINGS

In the retrospective case-control study, we identified 509 cVDPV2 poliomyelitis cases in Nigeria with case verification and paralysis onset between Jan 1, 2017, and Dec 31, 2022. Of these, 82 children were excluded for not meeting inclusion criteria, and 363 (85%) of 427 eligible cases were matched to 1303 test-negative controls. Cases reported fewer OPV and IPV doses than test-negative controls (mean number of OPV doses 5·9 [SD 4·2] in cases vs 6·7 [4·3] in controls; one or more IPV doses reported in 95 [26%] of 363 cases vs 513 [39%] of 1303 controls). We found low per-dose effectiveness of nOPV2 (12%, 95% CI -2 to 25) and mOPV2 (17%, 3 to 29), but no significant difference between the two vaccines (p=0·67). The estimated effectiveness of one IPV dose was 43% (23 to 58). In the prospective study, 181 (46%) of 392 eligible cases were matched to 1557 community controls. Using community controls, we found a high effectiveness of IPV (89%, 95% CI 83 to 93, for one dose), a low per-dose effectiveness of nOPV2 (-23%, -45 to -5) and mOPV2 (1%, -23 to 20), and no significant difference between the per-dose effectiveness of nOPV2 and mOPV2 (p=0·12).

INTERPRETATION

We found no significant difference in estimated effectiveness of the two oral vaccines, supporting the recommendation that the more genetically stable nOPV2 should be preferred in cVDPV2 outbreak response. Our findings highlight the role of IPV and the necessity of strengthening routine immunisation, the primary route through which IPV is delivered.

FUNDING

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and UK Medical Research Council.

Persistence of immunity following a single dose of inactivated poliovirus vaccine: a phase 4, open label, non-randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The polio eradication endgame required the withdrawal of Sabin type 2 from the oral poliovirus vaccine and introduction of one or more dose of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) into routine immunisation schedules. However, the duration of single-dose IPV immunity is unknown. We aimed to address this deficiency.

METHODS

In this phase 4, open-label, non-randomised clinical trial, we assessed single-dose IPV immunity. Two groups of infants or children were screened: the first group had previously received IPV at 14 weeks of age or older (previous IPV group; age >2 years); the second had not previously received IPV (no previous IPV group; age 7-12 months). At enrolment, all participants received an IPV dose. Children in the no previous IPV group received a second IPV dose at day 30. Blood was collected three times in each group: on days 0, 7, and 30 in the previous IPV group and on days 0, 30, and 37 in the no previous IPV group. Poliovirus antibody was measured by microneutralisation assay. Immunity was defined as the presence of a detectable antibody or a rapid anamnestic response (ie, priming). We used the χ2 to compare proportions and the Mann-Whitney U test to assess continuous variables. To assess safety, vaccinees were observed for 30 min, caregivers for each participating child reported adverse events after each follow-up visit and were questioned during each follow-up visit regarding any adverse events during the intervening period. Adverse events were recorded and graded according to the severity of clinical symptoms. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03723837.

FINDINGS

From Nov 18, 2018, to July 31, 2019, 502 participants enrolled in the study, 458 (255 [65%] boys and 203 [44%] girls) were included in the per protocol analysis: 234 (93%) in the previous IPV group and 224 (90%) in the no previous IPV group. In the previous IPV group, 28 months after one IPV dose 233 (>99%) of 234 children had persistence of poliovirus type 2 immunity (100 [43%] of 234 children were seropositive; 133 [99%] of 134 were seronegative and primed). In the no previous IPV group, 30 days after one IPV dose all 224 (100%) children who were type 2 poliovirus naive had seroconverted (223 [>99%] children) or were primed (one [<1%]). No adverse events were deemed attributable to study interventions.

INTERPRETATION

A single IPV dose administered at 14 weeks of age or older is highly immunogenic and induces nearly universal type 2 immunity (seroconversion and priming), with immunity persisting for at least 28 months. The polio eradication initiative should prioritise first IPV dose administration to mitigate the paralytic burden caused by poliovirus type 2.

FUNDING

WHO and Rotary International.

Poliovirus antibodies following two rounds of campaigns with a type 2 novel oral poliovirus vaccine in Liberia: a clustered, population-based seroprevalence survey

BACKGROUND

Novel oral poliovirus vaccine type 2 (nOPV2) was administered in Liberia in response to an outbreak of circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus type 2 (cVDPV2) in 2021. We conducted a serological survey of polio antibodies after two national campaigns with nOPV2.

METHODS

This clustered, cross-sectional, population-based seroprevalence survey was conducted in children aged 0-59 months, more than 4 weeks after the second nOPV2 vaccination round. We used a clustered sampling method in four geographical regions of Liberia, followed by a simple random sampling of households. One eligible child was randomly selected per household. Dried blood spot specimens were taken and vaccination history was recorded. The antibody titres against all three poliovirus serotypes were assessed using standard microneutralisation assays done at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, GA, USA.

FINDINGS

Analysable data were obtained from 436 (87%) of 500 enrolled participants. Of these, 371 (85%) children were reported via parental recall to have received two nOPV2 doses, 43 (10%) received one dose, and 22 (5%) received no doses. The seroprevalence against type 2 poliovirus was 38·3% (95% CI 33·7-43·0; 167 of 436 participants). No significant difference was observed between type 2 seroprevalence in children aged 6 months or older who were reported to have received two doses of nOPV2 (42·1%, 95% CI 36·8-47·5; 144 of 342), one dose (28·0%, 12·1-49·4; seven of 25), or no doses (37·5%, 8·5-75·5; three of eight; p=0·39). The seroprevalence against type 1 was 59·6% (54·9-64·3; 260 of 436), and the seroprevalence against type 3 was 53·0% (48·2-57·7; 231 of 436).

INTERPRETATION

Unexpectedly, the data showed low type 2 seroprevalence after two reported doses of nOPV2. This finding is probably affected by the lower oral poliovirus vaccine immunogenicity previously demonstrated in resource-limited settings, with high prevalence of chronic intestinal infections in children and other factors discussed herein. Our results provide the first assessment of nOPV2 performance in outbreak response in the African region.

FUNDING

WHO and Rotary International.

Outbreak management strategies for cocirculation of multiple poliovirus types

Prior modeling studies showed that current outbreak management strategies are unlikely to stop outbreaks caused by type 1 wild polioviruses (WPV1) or circulating vaccine-derived polioviruses (cVDPVs) in many areas, and suggested increased risks of outbreaks with cocirculation of more than one type of poliovirus. The surge of type 2 poliovirus transmission that began in 2019 and continues to date, in conjunction with decreases in preventive supplemental immunization activities (SIAs) for poliovirus types 1 and 3, has led to the emergence of several countries with cocirculation of more than one type of poliovirus. Response to these emerging cocirculation events is theoretically straightforward, but the different formulations, types, and inventories of oral poliovirus vaccines (OPVs) available for outbreak response present challenging practical questions. In order to demonstrate the implications of using different vaccine options and outbreak campaign strategies, we applied a transmission model to a hypothetical population with conditions similar to populations currently experiencing outbreaks of cVDPVs of both types 1 and 2. Our results suggest prevention of the largest number of paralytic cases occurs when using (1) trivalent OPV (tOPV) (or coadministering OPV formulations for all three types) until one poliovirus outbreak type dies out, followed by (2) using a type-specific OPV until the remaining poliovirus outbreak type also dies out. Using tOPV first offers a lower overall expected cost, but this option may be limited by the willingness to expose populations to type 2 Sabin OPV strains. For strategies that use type 2 novel OPV (nOPV2) concurrently administered with bivalent OPV (bOPV, containing types 1 and 3 OPV) emerges as a leading option, but questions remain about feasibility, logistics, type-specific take rates, and coadministration costs.

Assessment of serological responses following vaccination campaigns with type 2 novel oral polio vaccine: a population-based study in Tajikistan in 2021

BACKGROUND

Novel oral poliovirus vaccine type 2 (nOPV2) was used to control an outbreak of type 2 circulating vaccine derived poliovirus (cVDPV2) in Tajikistan, in 2021. We measured seroconversion and seroprevalence of type 2 polio antibodies in children who were reported to have received two doses of nOPV2 in outbreak response campaigns.

METHODS

In this community serosurvey, children born after Jan 1, 2016 were enrolled from seven districts in Tajikistan. Dried blood spot cards were collected before nOPV2 campaigns and after the first and second rounds of the campaigns and were sent to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Atlanta, GA, USA) for microneutralisation assay to determine presence of polio antibodies. The primary endpoint was to assess change in seroprevalence and seroconversion against poliovirus serotype 2 after one and two doses of nOPV2.

FINDINGS

228 (97%) of 236 enrolled children were included in the analysis. The type 2 antibody seroprevalence was 26% (53/204; 95% CI 20 to 33) before nOPV2, 77% (161/210; 70 to 82) after one dose of nOPV2, and 83% (174/209; 77 to 88) after two doses of nOPV2. The increase in seroprevalence was statistically significant between baseline and after one nOPV2 dose (51 percentage points [42 to 59], p<0·0001), but not between the first and second doses (6 percentage points [-2 to 15], p=0·12). Seroconversion from the first nOPV2 dose, 67% (89/132; 59 to 75), was significantly greater than that from the second nOPV2 dose, 44% (20/45; 30 to 60; χ² p=0·010). Total seroconversion after two nOPV2 doses was 77% (101/132; 68 to 83).

INTERPRETATION

Our study demonstrated strong immune responses following nOPV2 outbreak response campaigns in Tajikistan. Our results support previous clinical trial data on the generation of poliovirus type 2 immunity by nOPV2 and provide evidence that nOPV2 can be appropriate for the cVDPV2 outbreak response. The licensure and WHO prequalification of nOPV2 should be accelerated to facilitate wider use of the vaccine.

FUNDING

World Health Organization, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Rotary International.

One Full or Two Fractional Doses of Inactivated Poliovirus Vaccine for Catch-up Vaccination in Older Infants: A Randomized Clinical Trial in Bangladesh

BACKGROUND

The polio eradication endgame called for the removal of trivalent oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) and introduction of bivalent (types 1 and 3) OPV and inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV). However, supply shortages have delayed IPV administration to tens of millions of infants, and immunogenicity data are currently lacking to guide catch-up vaccination policies.

METHODS

We conducted an open-label randomized clinical trial assessing 2 interventions, full or fractional-dose IPV (fIPV, one-fifth of IPV), administered at age 9-13 months with a second dose given 2 months later. Serum was collected at days 0, 60, 67, and 90 to assess seroconversion, priming, and antibody titer. None received IPV or poliovirus type 2-containing vaccines before enrolment.

RESULTS

A single fIPV dose at age 9-13 months yielded 75% (95% confidence interval [CI], 6%-82%) seroconversion against type 2, whereas 2 fIPV doses resulted in 100% seroconversion compared with 94% (95% CI, 89%-97%) after a single full dose (P < .001). Two doses of IPV resulted in 100% seroconversion.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study confirmed increased IPV immunogenicity when administered at an older age, likely due to reduced interference from maternally derived antibodies. Either 1 full dose of IPV or 2 doses of fIPV could be used to vaccinate missed cohorts, 2 fIPV doses being antigen sparing and more immunogenic.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03890497.

Review of use of inactivated poliovirus vaccine in campaigns to control type 2 circulating vaccine derived poliovirus (cVDPV) outbreaks

Delivering inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) with oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) in campaigns has been explored to accelerate the control of type 2 circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus (cVDPV) outbreaks. A review of scientific literature suggests that among populations with high prevalence of OPV failure, a booster with IPV after at least two doses of OPV may close remaining humoral and mucosal immunity gaps more effectively than an additional dose of trivalent OPV. However, IPV alone demonstrates minimal advantage on humoral immunity compared with monovalent and bivalent OPV, and cannot provide the intestinal immunity that prevents infection and spread to those individuals not previously exposed to live poliovirus of the same serotype (i.e. type 2 for children born after the switch from trivalent to bivalent OPV in April 2016). A review of operational data from polio campaigns shows that addition of IPV increases the cost and logistic complexity of campaigns. As a result, campaigns in response to an outbreak often target small areas. Large campaigns require a delay to ensure logistics are in place for IPV delivery, and may need implementation in phases that last several weeks. Challenges to delivery of injectable vaccines through house-to-house visits also increases the risk of missing the children who are more likely to benefit from IPV: those with difficult access to routine immunization and other health services. Based upon this information, the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts in immunization (SAGE) recommended in October 2020 the following strategies: provision of a second dose of IPV in routine immunization to reduce the risk and number of paralytic cases in countries at risk of importation or new emergences; and use of type 2 OPV in high-quality campaigns to interrupt transmission and avoid seeding new type 2 cVDPV outbreaks.

Risk factors for the spread of vaccine-derived type 2 polioviruses after global withdrawal of trivalent oral poliovirus vaccine and the effects of outbreak responses with monovalent vaccine: a retrospective analysis of surveillance data for 51 countries in Africa

BACKGROUND

Expanding outbreaks of circulating vaccine-derived type 2 poliovirus (cVDPV2) across Africa after the global withdrawal of trivalent oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) in 2016 are delaying global polio eradication. We aimed to assess the effect of outbreak response campaigns with monovalent type 2 OPV (mOPV2) and the addition of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) to routine immunisation.

METHODS

We used vaccination history data from children under 5 years old with non-polio acute flaccid paralysis from a routine surveillance database (the Polio Information System) and setting-specific OPV immunogenicity data from the literature to estimate OPV-induced and IPV-induced population immunity against type 2 poliomyelitis between Jan 1, 2015, and June 30, 2020, for 51 countries in Africa. We investigated risk factors for reported cVDPV2 poliomyelitis including population immunity, outbreak response activities, and correlates of poliovirus transmission using logistic regression. We used the model to estimate cVDPV2 risk for each 6-month period between Jan 1, 2016, and June 30, 2020, with different numbers of mOPV2 campaigns and compared the timing and location of actual mOPV2 campaigns and the number of mOPV2 campaigns required to reduce cVDPV2 risk to low levels.

FINDINGS

Type 2 OPV immunity among children under 5 years declined from a median of 87% (IQR 81-93) in January-June, 2016 to 14% (9-37) in January-June, 2020. Type 2 immunity from IPV among children under 5 years increased from 3% (<1-6%) in January-June, 2016 to 35% (24-47) in January-June, 2020. The probability of cVDPV2 poliomyelitis among children under 5 years was negatively correlated with OPV-induced and IPV-induced immunity and mOPV2 campaigns (adjusted odds ratio: OPV 0·68 [95% CrI 0·60-0·76], IPV 0·82 [0·68-0·99] per 10% absolute increase in estimated population immunity, mOPV2 0·30 [0·20-0·44] per campaign). Vaccination campaigns in response to cVDPV2 outbreaks have been smaller and slower than our model shows would be necessary to reduce risk to low levels, covering only 11% of children under 5 years who are predicted to be at risk within 6 months and only 56% within 12 months.

INTERPRETATION

Our findings suggest that as mucosal immunity declines, larger or faster responses with vaccination campaigns using type 2-containing OPV will be required to stop cVDPV2 transmission. IPV-induced immunity also has an important role in reducing the burden of cVDPV2 poliomyelitis in Africa.

FUNDING

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Medical Research Council Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, and WHO.

TRANSLATION

For the French translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

DNA vaccines for SARS-CoV-2: toward third-generation vaccination era

Introduction: Coronavirus outbreak 2019 (COVID-19) has affected all the corners of the globe and created chaos to human life. In order to put some control on the pandemic, vaccines are urgently required that are safe, cost effective, easy to produce, and most importantly induce appropriate immune responses and protection against viral infection. DNA vaccines possess all these features and are promising candidates for providing protection against SARS-CoV-2.Area covered: Current understanding and advances in DNA vaccines toward COVID-19, especially those under various stages of clinical trials.Expert opinion: Through DNA vaccines, host cells are momentarily transformed into factories that produce proteins of the SARS-CoV-2. The host immune system detects these proteins to develop antibodies that neutralize and prevent the infection. This vaccine platform has additional benefits compared to traditional vaccination strategies like strong cellular immune response, higher safety margin, a simple production process as per cGMP norms, lack of any infectious agent, and a robust platform for large-scale production.

Immunogenicity of Fractional Dose Inactivated Poliovirus Vaccine in India

INTRODUCTION

Following the withdrawal of Sabin type 2 from trivalent oral poliovirus vaccine (tOPV) in 2016, the introduction of ≥1 dose of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) in routine immunization was recommended, either as 1 full dose (0.5mL, intramuscular) or 2 fractional doses of IPV (fIPV-0.1mL, intradermal). India opted for fIPV. We conducted a comparative assessment of IPV and fIPV.

METHODS

This was a 4-arm, open-label, multicenter, randomized controlled trial. Infants were enrolled and vaccines administered according to the study design, and the blood was drawn at age 6, 14, and 18 weeks for neutralization testing against all 3 poliovirus types.

RESULTS

Study enrolled 799 infants. The seroconversion against type 2 poliovirus with 2 fIPV doses was 85.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 80.1%-90.0%) when administered at age 6 and 14 weeks, 77.0% (95% CI: 70.5-82.5) when given at age 10 and 14 weeks, compared to 67.9% (95% CI: 60.4-74.6) following 1 full-dose IPV at age 14 weeks.

CONCLUSION

The study demonstrated the superiority of 2 fIPV doses over 1 full-dose IPV in India. Doses of fIPV given at 6 and 14 weeks were more immunogenic than those given at 10 and 14 weeks. Clinical Trial Registry of India (CTRI). Clinical trial registration number was CTRI/2017/02/007793.

Development of the Inactivated QazCovid-in Vaccine: Protective Efficacy of the Vaccine in Syrian Hamsters

In March 2020, the first cases of the human coronavirus disease COVID-19 were registered in Kazakhstan. We isolated the SARS-CoV-2 virus from clinical materials from some of these patients. Subsequently, a whole virion inactivated candidate vaccine, QazCovid-in, was developed based on this virus. To develop the vaccine, a virus grown in Vero cell culture was used, which was inactivated with formaldehyde, purified, concentrated, sterilized by filtration, and then adsorbed on aluminum hydroxide gel particles. The formula virus and adjuvant in buffer saline solution were used as the vaccine. The safety and protective effectiveness of the developed vaccine were studied in Syrian hamsters. The results of the studies showed the absolute safety of the candidate vaccine in the Syrian hamsters. When studying the protective effectiveness, the developed vaccine with an immunizing dose of 5 μg/dose specific antigen protected animals from a wild homologous virus at a dose of 10⁴.⁵ TCID_50/mL. The candidate vaccine induced the formation of virus-neutralizing antibodies in vaccinated hamsters at titers of 3.3 ± 1.45 log2 to 7.25 ± 0.78 log2, and these antibodies were retained for 6 months (observation period) for the indicated titers. No viral replication was detected in vaccinated hamsters, protected against the development of acute pneumonia, and ensured 100% survival of the animals. Further, no replicative virus was isolated from the lungs of vaccinated animals. However, a virulent virus was isolated from the lungs of unvaccinated animals at relatively high titers, reaching 4.5 ± 0.7 log TCID₅₀/mL. After challenge infection, 100% of unvaccinated hamsters showed clinical symptoms (stress state, passivity, tousled coat, decreased body temperature, and body weight, and the development of acute pneumonia), with 25 ± 5% dying. These findings pave the way for testing the candidate vaccine in clinical human trials.

Estimation of oral poliovirus vaccine effectiveness in Afghanistan, 2010-2020

BACKGROUND

Afghanistan is one of two countries with endemic wild poliovirus type 1 (WPV1). The oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) is the predominant vaccine used for polio eradication. Although OPV has been administered in routine childhood immunization and during frequent supplementary immunization activities, WPV1 continues to circulate in Afghanistan and case incidence has been increasing since 2017. We estimated the effectiveness of OPV in Afghanistan during 2010-2020.

METHODS

We conducted a matched case-control analysis using acute flaccid paralysis (AFP) surveillance data from 29,370 children < 15 years with AFP onset between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2020. We matched children with confirmed WPV1 (cases) with children with non-polio AFP (controls) by age at onset of paralysis (+/- 3 months), date of onset of paralysis (+/- 3 months), and province of residence, and compared their reported OPV vaccination history to estimate the effectiveness of OPV in preventing paralysis by WPV1 using conditional logistic regression. To account for changes in OPV formulations provided over the analysis period, we stratified the analysis based on dates of the global switch from trivalent OPV (tOPV) to bivalent OPV (bOPV) in April 2016.

RESULTS

Between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2020, there were 329 WPV1 cases in Afghanistan. The per-dose estimated effectiveness of OPV against WPV1 was 19% (95% CI: 15%-22%) and of ≥ 7 doses was 94% (95% CI: 90%-97%). Before the global switch from tOPV to bOPV, the per-dose estimated effectiveness of OPV was 14% (95% CI: 11%-18%) and of ≥ 7 doses was 92% (95% CI: 85%-96%). After the switch, the per-dose estimated effectiveness of OPV against WPV1 was 32% (24%-39%) and of ≥ 7 doses was 96% (95% CI: 90%-99%).

DISCUSSION

OPV is highly effective in preventing paralysis by WPV1; these results indicate that continued WPV1 transmission in Afghanistan is due to failure to vaccinate, not failure of the vaccine. Although difficult to implement in parts of country, improving the administration of OPV in routine immunization and supplementary immunization activities will be critical for achieving polio eradication in Afghanistan.

Fractional dose compared with standard dose inactivated poliovirus vaccine in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Since WHO recommended introduction of at least a single dose of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) in routine immunisation schedules, there have been global IPV shortages. Fractional-dose IPV (fIPV) administration is one of the strategies to ensure IPV availability. We reviewed studies comparing the effects of fractional with full-dose IPV vaccination to determine when seroconversion proportions with each strategy become similar in children aged 5 years and younger.

METHOD

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched 16 databases in July, 2019, for trials and observational studies, including ongoing studies that compare immunogenicity and adverse events of fractional-dose (0·1 mL) to full-dose (0·5 mL) IPV in healthy children aged 5 years or younger regardless of study design, number of doses, and route of administration. Screening, selection of articles, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were done in duplicate, and conflicts were resolved by discussion or arbitration by a third author. We assessed immunogenicity, the main outcome, as proportion of seroconverted participants and changes in geometric mean titres of anti-poliovirus antibodies. Timepoints were eligible for analysis if measurements were done at least 4 weeks after vaccination. Summary estimates were pooled by use of random-effects meta-analysis. Analysis was stratified by study design, type of outcome measure, type of poliovirus, and number of doses given. We assessed heterogeneity using the χ² test of homogeneity and quantified it using the I² statistic. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. The study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42018092647.

FINDINGS

860 records were screened for eligibility, of which 36 potentially eligible full-text articles were assessed and 14 articles were included in the final analysis: two ongoing trials and 12 articles reporting on ten completed studies. For poliovirus type 2, there were no significant differences in the proportions of seroconversions between fractional and full doses of IPV for two or three doses: the risk ratio for serconversion at one dose was 0·61 (95% CI 0·51-0·72), at two doses was 0·90 (0·82-1·00), and at three doses was 0·95 (0·91-1·00). Geometric mean titres (GMTs) for poliovirus type 2 were lower for fIPV than for full-dose IPV: -0·51 (95% CI -0·87 to -0·14) at one dose, -0·49 (-0·70 to -0·28) at two doses, and -0·98 (-1·46 to -0·51) at three doses. The seroconversion meta-analysis for the three-dose comparison was homogeneous (p=0·45; I²=0%), whereas heterogeneity was observed in the two-dose (p<0·00001; I²=88%) and one-dose (p=0·0004; I²=74%) comparisons. Heterogeneity was observed in meta-analyses of GMTs for one-dose (p<0·00001; I²=92%), two-dose (p=0·002; I²=80%), and three-dose (p<0·00001; I²=93%) comparisons. Findings for types 1 and 3 were similar to those for type 2. The certainty of the evidence was high for the three-dose comparisons and moderate for the rest of the comparisons.

INTERPRETATION

There is no substantial difference in seroconversion between three doses of fIPV and three doses of full-dose IPV, although the full dose gives higher titres of antibodies for poliovirus type 1, 2, and 3. Use of fractional IPV instead of the full dose can stretch supplies and possibly lower the cost of vaccination.

FUNDING

South African Medical Research Council and the National Research Foundation of South Africa.

Safety and immunogenicity of inactivated poliovirus vaccine schedules for the post-eradication era: a randomised open-label, multicentre, phase 3, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Following the global eradication of wild poliovirus, countries using live attenuated oral poliovirus vaccines will transition to exclusive use of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) or fractional doses of IPV (f-IPV; a f-IPV dose is one-fifth of a normal IPV dose), but IPV supply and cost constraints will necessitate dose-sparing strategies. We compared immunisation schedules of f-IPV and IPV to inform the choice of optimal post-eradication schedule.

METHODS

This randomised open-label, multicentre, phase 3, non-inferiority trial was done at two centres in Panama and one in the Dominican Republic. Eligible participants were healthy 6-week-old infants with no signs of febrile illness or known allergy to vaccine components. Infants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1, 1:1:1:2, 2:1:1:1), using computer-generated blocks of four or five until the groups were full, to one of four groups and received: two doses of intradermal f-IPV (administered at 14 and 36 weeks; two f-IPV group); or three doses of intradermal f-IPV (administered at 10, 14, and 36 weeks; three f-IPV group); or two doses of intramuscular IPV (administered at 14 and 36 weeks; two IPV group); or three doses of intramuscular IPV (administered at 10, 14, and 36 weeks; three IPV group). The primary outcome was seroconversion rates based on neutralising antibodies for poliovirus type 1 and type 2 at baseline and at 40 weeks (4 weeks after the second or third vaccinations) in the per-protocol population to allow non-inferiority and eventually superiority comparisons between vaccines and regimens. Three co-primary outcomes concerning poliovirus types 1 and 2 were to determine if seroconversion rates at 40 weeks of age after a two-dose regimen (administered at weeks 14 and 36) of intradermally administered f-IPV were non-inferior to a corresponding two-dose regimen of intramuscular IPV; if seroconversion rates at 40 weeks of age after a two-dose IPV regimen (weeks 14 and 36) were non-inferior to those after a three-dose IPV regimen (weeks 10, 14, and 36); and if seroconversion rates after a two-dose f-IPV regimen (weeks 14 and 36) were non-inferior to those after a three-dose f-IPV regimen (weeks 10, 14, and 36). The non-inferiority boundary was set at -10% for the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the seroconversion rate difference.. Safety was assessed as serious adverse events and important medical events. This study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03239496.

FINDINGS

From Oct 23, 2017, to Nov 13, 2018, we enrolled 773 infants (372 [48%] girls) in Panama and the Dominican Republic (two f-IPV group n=217, three f-IPV group n=178, two IPV group n=178, and three IPV group n=200). 686 infants received all scheduled vaccine doses and were included in the per-protocol analysis. We observed non-inferiority for poliovirus type 1 seroconversion rate at 40 weeks for the two f-IPV dose schedule (95·9% [95% CI 92·0-98·2]) versus the two IPV dose schedule (98·7% [95·4-99·8]), and for the three f-IPV dose schedule (98·8% [95·6-99·8]) versus the three IPV dose schedule (100% [97·9-100]). Similarly, poliovirus type 2 seroconversion rate at 40 weeks for the two f-IPV dose schedule (97·9% [94·8-99·4]) versus the two IPV dose schedule (99·4% [96·4-100]), and for the three f-IPV dose schedule (100% [97·7-100]) versus the three IPV dose schedule (100% [97·9-100]) were non-inferior. Seroconversion rate for the two f-IPV regimen was statistically superior 4 weeks after the last vaccine dose in the 14 and 36 week schedule (95·9% [92·0-98·2]) compared with the 10 and 14 week schedule (83·2% [76·5-88·6]; p=0·0062) for poliovirus type 1. Statistical superiority of the 14 and 36 week schedule was also found for poliovirus type 2 (14 and 36 week schedule 97·9% [94·8-99·4] vs 10 and 14 week schedule 83·9% [77·2-89·2]; p=0·0062), and poliovirus type 3 (14 and 36 week schedule 84·5% [78·7-89·3] vs 10 and 14 week schedule 73·3% [65·8-79·9]; p=0·0062). For IPV, a two dose regimen administered at 14 and 36 weeks (99·4% [96·4-100]) was superior a 10 and 14 week schedule (88·9% [83·4-93·1]; p<0·0001) for poliovirus type 2, but not for type 1 (14 and 36 week schedule 98·7% [95·4-99·8] vs 10 and 14 week schedule 95·6% [91·4-98·1]), or type 3 (14 and 36 week schedule 97·4% [93·5-99·3] vs 10 and 14 week schedule 93·9% [89·3-96·9]). There were no related serious adverse events or important medical events reported in any group showing safety was unaffected by administration route or schedule.

INTERPRETATION

Our observations suggest that adequate immunity against poliovirus type 1 and type 2 is provided by two doses of either IPV or f-IPV at 14 and 36 weeks of age, and broad immunity is provided with three doses of f-IPV, enabling substantial savings in cost and supply. These novel clinical data will inform global polio immunisation policy for the post-eradication era.

FUNDING

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial of bivalent Oral Poliovirus Vaccine and Inactivated Poliovirus Vaccine in Nigerian Children

BACKGROUND

We conducted a trial in Nigeria to assess the immunogenicity of the new bOPV + IPV immunization schedule and gains in type 2 immunity with addition of second dose of IPV. The trial was conducted in August 2016-March 2017 period, well past the tOPV-bOPV switch in April 2016.

METHODS

This was an open-label, two-arm, non-inferiority, multi-center, randomized controlled trial. We enrolled 572 infants of age ≤14 days and randomized them into two arms. Arm A received bOPV at birth, 6 and 10 weeks, bOPV+IPV at week 14 and IPV at week 18. Arm B received IPV each at 6, 10, 14 weeks and bOPV at 18 weeks of age.

RESULTS

Seroconversion rates for poliovirus types 1 and 3, respectively, were 98.9% (95%CI:96.7-99.8) and 98.1% (95%CI:88.2-94.8) in Arm A, and 89.6% (95%CI:85.4-93.0) and 98.5% (95%CI:96.3-99.6) in Arm B. Type 2 seroconversion with one dose IPV in Arm A was 72.0% (95%CI:66.2-77.3), which increased significantly with addition of second dose to 95.9% (95%CI:92.8-97.9).

CONCLUSION

This first trial on the new EPI schedule in a sub-Saharan African country demonstrated excellent immunogenicity against poliovirus types 1 and 3, and substantial/enhanced immunogenicity against poliovirus type 2 after 1 to 2 doses of IPV respectively.

Review of poliovirus modeling performed from 2000 to 2019 to support global polio eradication

INTRODUCTION

Over the last 20 years (2000-2019) the partners of the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) invested in the development and application of mathematical models of poliovirus transmission as well as economics, policy, and risk analyses of polio endgame risk management options, including policies related to poliovirus vaccine use during the polio endgame.

AREAS COVERED

This review provides a historical record of the polio studies published by the three modeling groups that primarily performed the bulk of this work. This review also systematically evaluates the polio transmission and health economic modeling papers published in English in peer-reviewed journals from 2000 to 2019, highlights differences in approaches and methods, shows the geographic coverage of the transmission modeling performed, identified common themes, and discusses instances of similar or conflicting insights or recommendations.

EXPERT OPINION

Polio modeling performed during the last 20 years substantially impacted polio vaccine choices, immunization policies, and the polio eradication pathway. As the polio endgame continues, national preferences for polio vaccine formulations and immunization strategies will likely continue to change. Future modeling will likely provide important insights about their cost-effectiveness and their relative benefits with respect to controlling polio and potentially achieving and maintaining eradication.

The role of genetic sequencing and analysis in the polio eradication programme

Genetic sequencing of polioviruses detected through clinical and environmental surveillance is used to confirm detection, identify their likely origin, track geographic patterns of spread, and determine the appropriate vaccination response. The critical importance of genetic sequencing and analysis to the Global Polio Eradication Initiative has grown with the increasing incidence of vaccine-derived poliovirus (VDPV) infections in Africa specifically (470 reported cases in 2019), and globally, alongside persistent transmission of serotype 1 wild-type poliovirus in Pakistan and Afghanistan (197 reported cases in 2019). Adapting what has been learned about the virus genetics and evolution to address these threats has been a major focus of recent work. Here, we review how phylogenetic and phylogeographic methods have been used to trace the spread of wild-type polioviruses and identify the likely origins of VDPVs. We highlight the analysis methods and sequencing technology currently used and the potential for new technologies to speed up poliovirus detection and the interpretation of genetic data. At a pivotal point in the eradication campaign with the threat of anti-vaccine sentiment and donor and public fatigue, innovation is critical to maintain drive and overcome the last remaining circulating virus.

Immunogenicity of three sequential schedules with Sabin inactivated poliovirus vaccine and bivalent oral poliovirus vaccine in Zhejiang, China: an open-label, randomised, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The globally synchronised introduction of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) and replacement of trivalent oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) with bivalent OPV (bOPV) were successfully implemented in China's routine immunisation programme in May, 2016. In response to the global shortage of Salk-strain IPV, Sabin-strain IPV production was encouraged to develop and use in low-income and middle-income countries. We assessed the immunogenicity of the current routine poliovirus vaccination schedule in China and compared it with alternative schedules that use Sabin-strain IPV (sIPV) and bOPV.

METHODS

This open-label, randomised, controlled trial recruited healthy infants aged 60-75 days from two centres in Zhejiang, China. Eligible infants were full-term, due for their first polio vaccination, weighed more than 2·5 kg at birth, were healthy on physical examination with no obvious medical conditions, and had no contraindications to vaccination. Infants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) using permuted block randomisation (block size of 12) to one of three polio vaccination schedules, with the first, second, and third doses given at ages 2 months, 3 months, and 4 months, respectively: sIPV-bOPV-bOPV (1sIPV+2bOPV group; current regimen), sIPV-sIPV-bOPV (2sIPV+1bOPV group), or sIPV-sIPV-sIPV (3sIPV group). The primary endpoint was the proportion of infants with seroconversion to each of the three poliovirus serotypes 1 month after the third dose. Serious and medically important adverse events were monitored for up to 30 days after each vaccination. We assessed immunity in the per-protocol population (all children who completed all three vaccinations and had pre-vaccination and post-vaccination laboratory data) and safety in all children who received at least one dose of study vaccine. This trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03147560.

RESULTS

Between May 1, 2016, and Dec 1, 2017, we enrolled and randomly assigned 528 eligible infants to one of the three treatment groups (176 in each group); 473 infants (158 in the 1sIPV+2bOPV group, 152 in the 2sIPV+1bOPV group, and 163 in the 3sIPV group) were included in the per-protocol population. 100% seroconversion against poliovirus types 1 and 3 was observed in all three groups. Infants who received an immunisation schedule containing bOPV had significantly higher antibody titres against poliovirus types 1 and 3 than did the sIPV-only group (2048 in all three treatment groups; p<0·0001). Seroconversion against type 2 poliovirus was observed in 98 (62%) infants in the 1sIPV+2bOPV group, 145 (95%) infants in the 2sIPV+1bOPV group, and 161 (99%) infants in the 3sIPV group. No serious adverse events occurred during the study; 14 minor, transient adverse events were observed, with no significant differences across study groups.

INTERPRETATION

All three study schedules were well tolerated and highly immunogenic against poliovirus types 1 and 3. Schedules containing two or three sIPV doses had higher seroconversion rates against poliovirus type 2 than did the schedule with a single dose of sIPV. Our findings support inclusion of two sIPV doses in the routine poliovirus vaccination schedule in China to provide better protection against poliovirus type 2 than provided by the current regimen.

FUNDING

Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention and China National Biotec Group Company.

Immunogenicity and safety profile of a primary dose of bivalent oral polio vaccine given simultaneously with DTwP-Hb-Hib and inactivated poliovirus vaccine at the 4th visit in Indonesian infants

In this study, we aimed to evaluate the immunological protectivity of infants following four doses of bivalent oral polio vaccine (bOPV; Bio Farma), which were given simultaneously with DTwP-Hb-Hib (Pentabio®), along with one dose of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) at the fourth visit. A total of 143 newborn infants who fulfilled the inclusion criteria were enrolled and completed the study. Subjects received the first dose of bOPV at birth. On days 60, 90 and 120, bOPV was given simultaneously with Pentabio®. On day 120, one dose of IPV was also administered. Serum samples for serology analysis were collected before the first dose of bOPV (at day 0), before the second dose of bOPV (at day 60) and 30 days after the last dose of bOPV. In addition, the intensity, duration and relationship of each adverse event to the trial vaccines were assessed. Seroprotection rates after the fourth dose of bOPV were 100%, 91.6% and 99.3% for poliovirus P1, P2 and P3, respectively. Seroconversion rates after the fourth dose of bOPV were 100.0%, 93.3% and 100% for poliovirus P1, P2 and P3, respectively. There were no severe adverse events, and systemic reactions were generally mild during the 1-28 day post-vaccination period. Collectively, our findings indicate that bOPV given simultaneously with Pentabio® and one dose of IPV at the 4th visit was immunogenic and well tolerated.

Equivalent schedules of intradermal fractional dose versus intramuscular full dose of inactivated polio vaccine for prevention of poliomyelitis

BACKGROUND

Poliomyelitis is a debilitating and deadly infection. Despite exponential growth in medical science, there is still no cure for the disease, which is caused by three types of wild polioviruses: types 1, 2, and 3. According to the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI), wild poliovirus is still in circulation in three countries, and fresh cases have been reported even in the year 2018. Due to the administration of live vaccines, the risk for vaccine-derived poliovirus (VDPV) is high in areas that are free from wild polioviruses. This is evident based on the fact that VDPV caused 20 outbreaks between 2000 and 2011. Recent recommendations from the World Health Organization favoured the inclusion of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) in the global immunisation schedule. IPV can be delivered in two ways: intramuscularly and intradermally. IPV was previously administered intramuscularly, but shortages in vaccine supplies, coupled with the higher costs of the vaccines, led to the innovation of delivering a fractional dose (one-fifth) of IPV intradermally. However, there is uncertainty regarding the efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of an intradermal, fractional dose of IPV compared to an intramuscular, full dose of IPV.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the immunogenicity and efficacy of an inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) in equivalent immunisation schedules using fractional-dose IPV given via the intradermal route versus full-dose IPV given via the intramuscular route.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 10 other databases, and two trial registers up to February 2019. We also searched the GPEI website and scanned the bibliographies of key studies and reviews in order to identify any additional published and unpublished trials in this area not captured by our electronic searches.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of healthy individuals of any age who are eligible for immunisation with IPV, comparing intradermal fractional-dose (one-fifth) IPV to intramuscular full-dose IPV.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 RCTs involving a total of 7292 participants, both children (n = 6402) and adults (n = 890). Nine studies were conducted in middle-income countries, three studies in high-income countries, and only one study in a low-income country. Five studies did not report methods of randomisation, and one study failed to conceal the allocations. Eleven studies did not blind participants, and six studies did not blind outcome assessments. Two studies had high attrition rates, and one study selectively reported the results. Three studies were funded by pharmaceutical companies. Paralytic poliomyelitis. No study reported data on this outcome. Seroconversion rates. These were significantly higher for all three types of wild poliovirus for children given intramuscular full-dose IPV after a single primary dose and two primary doses, but only significantly higher for type two wild poliovirus given intramuscularly after three primary doses: • dose one (six studies): poliovirus type 1 (odds ratio (OR) 0.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 0.41; 2570 children); poliovirus type 2 (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.60; 2567 children); poliovirus type 3 (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.30; 2571 children); • dose two (three studies): poliovirus type 1 (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.33; 981 children); poliovirus type 2 (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.60; 853 children); and poliovirus type 3 (OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.22; 855 children); and • dose three (three studies): poliovirus type 1 (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.15; 973 children); poliovirus type 2 (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.63; 973 children); and poliovirus type 3 (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.58; 973 children). Using the GRADE approach, we rated the certainty of the evidence as low or very low for seroconversion rate (after a single, two, or three primary doses) for all three poliovirus types due to significant risk of bias, heterogeneity, and indirectness in applicability/generalisability. Geometric mean titres. No study reported mean antibody titres. Median antibody titres were higher for intramuscular full-dose IPV (7 studies with 4887 children); although these studies also reported a rise in antibody titres in the intradermal group, none reported the duration for which the titres remained high. Any vaccine-related adverse event. Five studies (2217 children) reported more adverse events, such as fever and redness, in the intradermal group, whilst two studies (1904 children) reported more adverse events in the intramuscular group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low- and very low-certainty evidence that intramuscular full-dose IPV may result in a slight increase in seroconversion rates for all three types of wild poliovirus, compared with intradermal fractional-dose IPV. We are uncertain whether intradermal fractional-dose (one-fifth) IPV has better protective effects and causes fewer adverse events in children than intramuscular full-dose IPV.

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.

Immunogenicity of New Primary Immunization Schedules With Inactivated Poliovirus Vaccine and Bivalent Oral Polio Vaccine for the Polio Endgame: A Review

In May 2016, countries using oral polio vaccine for routine immunization switched from trivalent oral poliovirus vaccine (tOPV) to bivalent type 1 and 3 OPV (bOPV). This was done in order to reduce risks from type 2 vaccine-derived polioviruses (VDPV2) and vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP) and to introduce ≥1 dose of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) to mitigate post-switch loss of type 2 immunity. We conducted a literature review of studies that assessed humoral and intestinal immunogenicity induced by the newly recommended schedules. Differences in seroconversion rates were closely associated with both timing of first IPV administration and number of doses administered. All studies demonstrated high levels of immunity for types 1 and 3 regardless of immunization schedule. When administered late in the primary series, a second dose of IPV closed the humoral immunity gap against polio type 2 associated with a single dose. IPV doses and administration schedules appear to have limited impact on type 2 excretion following challenge.

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.

Intestinal Immune Responses to Type 2 Oral Polio Vaccine (OPV) Challenge in Infants Previously Immunized With Bivalent OPV and Either High-Dose or Standard Inactivated Polio Vaccine

Background

The impact of inactivated polio vaccines (IPVs) on intestinal mucosal immune responses to live poliovirus is poorly understood.

Methods

In a 2014 phase 2 clinical trial, Panamanian infants were immunized at 6, 10, and 14 weeks of age with bivalent oral polio vaccine (bOPV) and randomized to receive either a novel monovalent high-dose type 2–specific IPV (mIPV2HD) or a standard trivalent IPV at 14 weeks. Infants were challenged at 18 weeks with a monovalent type 2 oral polio vaccine (mOPV2). Infants’ intestinal immune responses during the 3 weeks following challenge were investigated by measuring poliovirus type-specific neutralization and immunoglobulin (Ig) A, IgA1, IgA2, IgD, IgG, and IgM antibodies in stool samples.

Results

Despite mIPV2HD’s 4-fold higher type 2 polio D–antigen content and heightened serum neutralization profile, mIPV2HD-immunized infants’ intestinal immune responses to mOPV2 challenge were largely indistinguishable from those receiving standard IPV. Mucosal responses were tightly linked to evidence of active infection and, in the 79% of participants who shed virus, robust type 2–specific IgA responses and stool neutralization were observed by 2 weeks after challenge.

Conclusions

Enhancing IPV-induced serum neutralization does not substantively improve intestinal mucosal immune responses or limit viral shedding on mOPV2 challenge.

Clinical Trials Registration

NCT02111135.

Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of fractional dose compared with standard dose inactivated polio vaccination in children

INTRODUCTION

WHO recommends the introduction of at least one single dose of inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) in routine immunisation schedules. Thus, there has been an increased demand and concurrent supply shortages of IPV worldwide. One of the strategies to improve access is the use of fractional instead of full doses of IPV. We aim to compare the effects of fractional with standard doses of IPV.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will include randomised trials, non-randomised trials, case-control studies and cohort studies that compared fractional with full doses of IPV among children aged 5 years or younger. We will search for eligible studies among published and grey literature. Two authors will independently screen the results of the search, select studies, extract data and assess risk of bias. We will stratify analyses by study design, type of poliovirus, type of outcome measure and number of IPV doses given. For each type of poliovirus, we will pool the outcome data from studies using random-effects meta-analyses. Statistical heterogeneity will be assessed using the χ² test of homogeneity and quantified using the I² statistic. To investigate statistical heterogeneity, subgroup analyses will be performed based on the timing of the first fractional dose, age of administration, immunisation schedules and country income status. Sensitivity analyses will be used to assess if the effect of IPV fractional dosing is affected by study design, risk of bias and methods of meta-analysis.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

We obtained approval from the University of Cape Town Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC REF: 412/2018). The findings of this review will provide evidence for decision-making with regards to IPV dosage, eventually improving access to the vaccine by stretching vaccine supplies. The results will be published in the University of Cape Town online library and in a peer reviewed journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018092647.

OPV Vaccination and Shedding Patterns in Mexican and US Children

Background

As wild poliovirus is eradicated and countries switch from oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) to inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) per World Health Organization recommendations, preventing circulation of vaccine-derived poliovirus (cVDPV) is a top priority. Currently, the impact of prior poliovirus vaccination on OPV shedding is not fully understood.

Methods

Stool samples from 2 populations were tested for OPV to assess shedding patterns. 505 samples from 43 US children vaccinated with OPV were collected over 42 days post-vaccination. 1,379 samples from 148 Mexican children vaccinated with OPV were collected over 71 days post-vaccination. Prior vaccination history was recorded for both groups.

Results

Seventeen (40%) of the US children had never received poliovirus vaccination while the Mexican children had received at least 2 doses of IPV and 116 (78%) had OPV exposure. In total, 84% of US children and 78% of Mexican children shed OPV (P = .44, Fisher exact test), with a mean shedding duration of 17.4 days for US children and 9.3 days for Mexican children (P < .0001, Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test).

Conclusions

Prior vaccination did not affect the likelihood of shedding, as the US and Mexico cohorts had similar shedding proportions. However, prior vaccination affected shedding duration as the Mexican children, who were largely OPV exposed and all of whom had at least 2 IPV vaccinations, shed OPV for half as long as the US cohort. Since different countries maintain different poliovirus vaccination schedules, it is likely that duration of shedding of OPV varies in populations around the world.

Stabilized single-injection inactivated polio vaccine elicits a strong neutralizing immune response

Vaccination in the developing world is hampered by limited patient access, which prevents individuals from receiving the multiple injections necessary for protective immunity. Here, we developed an injectable microparticle formulation of the inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) that releases multiple pulses of stable antigen over time. To accomplish this, we established an IPV stabilization strategy using cationic polymers for pH modulation to enhance traditional small-molecule-based stabilization methods. We investigated the mechanism of this strategy and showed that it was broadly applicable to all three antigens in IPV. Our lead formulations released two bursts of IPV 1 month apart, mimicking a typical vaccination schedule in the developing world. One injection of the controlled-release formulations elicited a similar or better neutralizing response in rats, considered the correlate of protection in humans, than multiple injections of liquid vaccine. This single-administration vaccine strategy has the potential to improve vaccine coverage in the developing world.

Post-marketing surveillance study to assess the safety and tolerability of an Inactivated Poliomyelitis Vaccine in Indian children

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the incidence of adverse events following administration of an Inactivated poliomyelitis vaccine (IPV) manufactured by Serum Institute of India Pvt. Ltd., Pune, India.

METHODS

A single 0.5 ml dose of the IPV was administered intramuscularly to children attending private clinics or out-patient department of hospitals for routine immunization across different cities in India. They were observed over a period of 30 d for local or systemic adverse events and rare case of anaphylaxis, if any.

RESULTS

A total of 2210 children were enrolled of which 2120 children received the vaccine within primary immunization series and 90 children received booster dose. The common adverse events reported were pain, erythema, swelling and fever. No serious adverse event was reported during the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

Poliomyelitis vaccine (Inactivated) manufactured by Serum Institute of India Pvt. Ltd., Pune can be safely administered to children following the Expanded Programme on Immunization or World Health Organization recommended immunization schedule.

Addressing the Challenges and Opportunities of the Polio Endgame: Lessons for the Future

The Global Commission for the Certification of the Eradication of Poliomyelitis certified the eradication of type 2 poliovirus in September 2015, making type 2 poliovirus the first human pathogen to be eradicated since smallpox. The eradication of type 2 poliovirus, the absence of detection of type 3 poliovirus worldwide since November 2012, and cornering type 1 poliovirus to only a few geographic areas of 3 countries has enabled implementation of the endgame of polio eradication which calls for a phased withdrawal of oral polio vaccine beginning with the type 2 component, introduction of inactivated poliovirus vaccine, strengthening of routine immunization in countries with extensive polio resources, and initiating activities to transition polio resources, program experience, and lessons learned to other global health initiatives. This supplement focuses on efforts by global partners to successfully launch polio endgame activities to permanently secure and sustain the enormous gains of polio eradication forever.

Immunogenicity study to investigate the interchangeability among three different types of polio vaccine: A cohort study in Japan

In Japan, the routine immunization program with oral polio vaccine (OPV) has been suspended since September 2012, when a program with 4 doses of inactivated monovalent polio vaccine (IPV) or quadrivalent vaccine against diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus with IPV (DTaP-IPV) was introduced. The aim of this study was to examine the interchangeability among these 3 types of polio vaccines.We conducted a prospective cohort study at 5 pediatric clinics in Japan. A total of 153 infants were assigned to 1 of the 4 groups by considering the vaccination history of OPV and trivalent vaccine against DTaP. Eleven infants with a history of OPV received 3 doses of DTaP-IPV; 49 infants with a history of OPV and DTaP received 3 doses of IPV; 50 polio vaccine-naïve infants received 2 doses of IPV followed by 2 doses of DTaP-IPV; and 43 polio vaccine-naive infants received 2 doses of DTaP-IPV followed by IPV. The immunogenicity after polio vaccination was evaluated among these 4 groups.After 2 doses of polio vaccination, more than 80% of the infants exhibited a neutralization antibody titer ≥1:8 for all Sabin strains and wild strains in all groups. After the third dose, the seroprotection proportion (i.e., a neutralization antibody titer ≥1:8) reached about 100%. After the fourth dose, a neutralization antibody titer exceeded the required protective levels (i.e., a neutralization antibody titer ≥1:8) considerably in all groups.Four doses of polio vaccines induced a sufficient level of immunity in Japanese infants, irrespective of vaccine combinations or order.

The Duration of Intestinal Immunity After an Inactivated Poliovirus Vaccine Booster Dose in Children Immunized With Oral Vaccine: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

In 2014, 2 studies showed that inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) boosts intestinal immunity in children previously immunized with oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV). As a result, IPV was introduced in mass campaigns to help achieve polio eradication.

Methods

We conducted an open-label, randomized, controlled trial to assess the duration of the boost in intestinal immunity following a dose of IPV given to OPV-immunized children. Nine hundred healthy children in Vellore, India, aged 1–4 years were randomized (1:1:1) to receive IPV at 5 months (arm A), at enrollment (arm B), or no vaccine (arm C). The primary outcome was poliovirus shedding in stool 7 days after bivalent OPV challenge at 11 months.

Results

For children in arms A, B, and C, 284 (94.7%), 297 (99.0%), and 296 (98.7%), respectively, were eligible for primary per-protocol analysis. Poliovirus shedding 7 days after challenge was less prevalent in arms A and B compared with C (24.6%, 25.6%, and 36.4%, respectively; risk ratio 0.68 [95% confidence interval: 0.53–0.87] for A versus C, and 0.70 [0.55–0.90] for B versus C).

Conclusions

Protection against poliovirus remained elevated 6 and 11 months after an IPV boost, although at a lower level than reported at 1 month.

Clinical Trials Registration

CTRI/2014/09/004979.

Population Immunity against Serotype-2 Poliomyelitis Leading up to the Global Withdrawal of the Oral Poliovirus Vaccine: Spatio-temporal Modelling of Surveillance Data

BACKGROUND

Global withdrawal of serotype-2 oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV2) took place in April 2016. This marked a milestone in global polio eradication and was a public health intervention of unprecedented scale, affecting 155 countries. Achieving high levels of serotype-2 population immunity before OPV2 withdrawal was critical to avoid subsequent outbreaks of serotype-2 vaccine-derived polioviruses (VDPV2s).

METHODS AND FINDINGS

In August 2015, we estimated vaccine-induced population immunity against serotype-2 poliomyelitis for 1 January 2004-30 June 2015 and produced forecasts for April 2016 by district in Nigeria and Pakistan. Population immunity was estimated from the vaccination histories of children <36 mo old identified with non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (AFP) reported through polio surveillance, information on immunisation activities with different oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) formulations, and serotype-specific estimates of the efficacy of these OPVs against poliomyelitis. District immunity estimates were spatio-temporally smoothed using a Bayesian hierarchical framework. Coverage estimates for immunisation activities were also obtained, allowing for heterogeneity within and among districts. Forward projections of immunity, based on these estimates and planned immunisation activities, were produced through to April 2016 using a cohort model. Estimated population immunity was negatively correlated with the probability of VDPV2 poliomyelitis being reported in a district. In Nigeria and Pakistan, declines in immunity during 2008-2009 and 2012-2013, respectively, were associated with outbreaks of VDPV2. Immunity has since improved in both countries as a result of increased use of trivalent OPV, and projections generally indicated sustained or improved immunity in April 2016, such that the majority of districts (99% [95% uncertainty interval 97%-100%] in Nigeria and 84% [95% uncertainty interval 77%-91%] in Pakistan) had >70% population immunity among children <36 mo old. Districts with lower immunity were clustered in northeastern Nigeria and northwestern Pakistan. The accuracy of immunity estimates was limited by the small numbers of non-polio AFP cases in some districts, which was reflected by large uncertainty intervals. Forecasted improvements in immunity for April 2016 were robust to the uncertainty in estimates of baseline immunity (January-June 2015), vaccine coverage, and vaccine efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

Immunity against serotype-2 poliomyelitis was forecasted to improve in April 2016 compared to the first half of 2015 in Nigeria and Pakistan. These analyses informed the endorsement of OPV2 withdrawal in April 2016 by the WHO Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization.

Humoral and intestinal immunity induced by new schedules of bivalent oral poliovirus vaccine and one or two doses of inactivated poliovirus vaccine in Latin American infants: an open-label randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Replacement of the trivalent oral poliovirus vaccine (tOPV) with bivalent types 1 and 3 oral poliovirus vaccine (bOPV) and global introduction of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) are major steps in the polio endgame strategy. In this study, we assessed humoral and intestinal immunity in Latin American infants after three doses of bOPV combined with zero, one, or two doses of IPV.

METHODS

This open-label randomised controlled multicentre trial was part of a larger study. 6-week-old full-term infants due for their first polio vaccinations, who were healthy on physical examination, with no obvious medical conditions and no known chronic medical disorders, were enrolled from four investigational sites in Colombia, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, and Panama. The infants were randomly assigned by permuted block randomisation (through the use of a computer-generated list, block size 36) to nine groups, of which five will be discussed in this report. These five groups were randomly assigned 1:1:1:1 to four permutations of schedule: groups 1 and 2 (control groups) received bOPV at 6, 10, and 14 weeks; group 3 (also a control group, which did not count as a permutation) received tOPV at 6, 10, and 14 weeks; group 4 received bOPV plus one dose of IPV at 14 weeks; and group 5 received bOPV plus two doses of IPV at 14 and 36 weeks. Infants in all groups were challenged with monovalent type 2 vaccine (mOPV2) at 18 weeks (groups 1, 3, and 4) or 40 weeks (groups 2 and 5). The primary objective was to assess the superiority of bOPV-IPV schedules over bOPV alone, as assessed by the primary endpoints of humoral immunity (neutralising antibodies-ie, seroconversion) to all three serotypes and intestinal immunity (faecal viral shedding post-challenge) to serotype 2, analysed in the per-protocol population. Serious and medically important adverse events were monitored for up to 6 months after the study vaccination. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01831050, and has been completed.

FINDINGS

Between May 20, 2013, and Aug 15, 2013, 940 eligible infants were enrolled and randomly assigned to the five treatment groups (210 to group 1, 210 to group 2, 100 to group 3, 210 to group 4, and 210 to group 5). One infant in group 1 was not vaccinated because their parents withdrew consent after enrolment and randomisation, so 939 infants actually received the vaccinations. Three doses of bOPV or tOPV elicited type 1 and 3 seroconversion rates of at least 97·7%. Type 2 seroconversion occurred in 19 of 198 infants (9·6%, 95% CI 6·2-14·5) in the bOPV-only groups, 86 of 88 (97·7%, 92·1-99·4) in the tOPV-only group (p<0·0001 vs bOPV-only), and 156 of 194 (80·4%, 74·3-85·4) infants in the bOPV-one dose of IPV group (p<0·0001 vs bOPV-only). A further 20 of 193 (10%) infants in the latter group seroconverted 1 week after mOPV2 challenge, resulting in around 98% of infants being seropositive against type 2. After a bOPV-two IPV schedule, all 193 infants (100%, 98·0-100; p<0·0001 vs bOPV-only) seroconverted to type 2. IPV induced small but significant decreases in a composite serotype 2 viral shedding index after mOPV2 challenge. 21 serious adverse events were reported in 20 patients during the study, including two that were judged to be possibly related to the vaccines. Most of the serious adverse events (18 [86%] of 21) and 24 (80%) of the 30 important medical events reported were infections and infestations. No deaths occurred during the study.

INTERPRETATION

bOPV provided humoral protection similar to tOPV against polio serotypes 1 and 3. After one or two IPV doses in addition to bOPV, 80% and 100% of infants seroconverted, respectively, and the vaccination induced a degree of intestinal immunity against type 2 poliovirus.

FUNDING

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Preventing Vaccine-Derived Poliovirus Emergence during the Polio Endgame

Reversion and spread of vaccine-derived poliovirus (VDPV) to cause outbreaks of poliomyelitis is a rare outcome resulting from immunisation with the live-attenuated oral poliovirus vaccines (OPVs). Global withdrawal of all three OPV serotypes is therefore a key objective of the polio endgame strategic plan, starting with serotype 2 (OPV2) in April 2016. Supplementary immunisation activities (SIAs) with trivalent OPV (tOPV) in advance of this date could mitigate the risks of OPV2 withdrawal by increasing serotype-2 immunity, but may also create new serotype-2 VDPV (VDPV2). Here, we examine the risk factors for VDPV2 emergence and implications for the strategy of tOPV SIAs prior to OPV2 withdrawal. We first developed mathematical models of VDPV2 emergence and spread. We found that in settings with low routine immunisation coverage, the implementation of a single SIA increases the risk of VDPV2 emergence. If routine coverage is 20%, at least 3 SIAs are needed to bring that risk close to zero, and if SIA coverage is low or there are persistently "missed" groups, the risk remains high despite the implementation of multiple SIAs. We then analysed data from Nigeria on the 29 VDPV2 emergences that occurred during 2004-2014. Districts reporting the first case of poliomyelitis associated with a VDPV2 emergence were compared to districts with no VDPV2 emergence in the same 6-month period using conditional logistic regression. In agreement with the model results, the odds of VDPV2 emergence decreased with higher routine immunisation coverage (odds ratio 0.67 for a 10% absolute increase in coverage [95% confidence interval 0.55-0.82]). We also found that the probability of a VDPV2 emergence resulting in poliomyelitis in >1 child was significantly higher in districts with low serotype-2 population immunity. Our results support a strategy of focused tOPV SIAs before OPV2 withdrawal in areas at risk of VDPV2 emergence and in sufficient number to raise population immunity above the threshold permitting VDPV2 circulation. A failure to implement this risk-based approach could mean these SIAs actually increase the risk of VDPV2 emergence and spread.

Safety and immunogenicity of inactivated poliovirus vaccine when given with measles-rubella combined vaccine and yellow fever vaccine and when given via different administration routes: a phase 4, randomised, non-inferiority trial in The Gambia

BACKGROUND

The introduction of the inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) represents a crucial step in the polio eradication endgame. This trial examined the safety and immunogenicity of IPV given alongside the measles-rubella and yellow fever vaccines at 9 months and when given as a full or fractional dose using needle and syringe or disposable-syringe jet injector.

METHODS

We did a phase 4, randomised, non-inferiority trial at three periurban government clinics in west Gambia. Infants aged 9-10 months who had already received oral poliovirus vaccine were randomly assigned to receive the IPV, measles-rubella, and yellow fever vaccines, singularly or in combination. Separately, IPV was given as a full intramuscular or fractional intradermal dose by needle and syringe or disposable-syringe jet injector at a second visit. The primary outcomes were seroprevalence rates for poliovirus 4-6 weeks post-vaccination and the rate of seroconversion between baseline and post-vaccination serum samples for measles, rubella, and yellow fever; and the post-vaccination antibody titres generated against each component of the vaccines. We did a per-protocol analysis with a non-inferiority margin of 10% for poliovirus seroprevalence and measles, rubella, and yellow fever seroconversion, and (1/3) log2 for log2-transformed antibody titres. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01847872.

FINDINGS

Between July 10, 2013, and May 8, 2014, we assessed 1662 infants for eligibility, of whom 1504 were enrolled into one of seven groups for vaccine interference and one of four groups for fractional dosing and alternative route of administration. The rubella and yellow fever antibody titres were reduced by co-administration but the seroconversion rates achieved non-inferiority in both cases (rubella, -4·5% [95% CI -9·5 to -0·1]; yellow fever, 1·2% [-2·9 to 5·5]). Measles and poliovirus responses were unaffected (measles, 6·8% [95% CI -1·4 to 14·9]; poliovirus serotype 1, 1·6% [-6·7 to 4·7]; serotype 2, 0·0% [-2·1 to 2·1]; serotype 3, 0·0% [-3·8 to 3·9]). Poliovirus seroprevalence was universally high (>97%) after vaccination, but the antibody titres generated by fractional intradermal doses of IPV did not achieve non-inferiority compared with full dose. The number of infants who seroconverted or had a four-fold rise in titres was also lower by the intradermal route. There were no safety concerns.

INTERPRETATION

The data support the future co-administration of IPV, measles-rubella, and yellow fever vaccines within the Expanded Programme on Immunization schedule at 9 months. The administration of single fractional intradermal doses of IPV by needle and syringe or disposable-syringe jet injector compromises the immunity generated, although it results in a high post-vaccination poliovirus seroprevalence.

FUNDING

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Primary and booster vaccination with an inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) is immunogenic and well-tolerated in infants and toddlers in China

INTRODUCTION

Replacing live-attenuated oral poliovirus vaccines (OPV) with inactivated poliovirus vaccines (IPV) is part of the global strategy to eradicate poliomyelitis. China was declared polio-free in 2000 but continues to record cases of vaccine-associated-poliomyelitis and vaccine-derived-poliovirus outbreaks. Two pilot safety studies and two larger immunogenicity trials evaluated the non-inferiority of IPV (Poliorix™, GSK Vaccines, Belgium) versus OPV in infants and booster vaccination in toddlers primed with either IPV or OPV in China.

METHODS

In pilot safety studies, 25 infants received 3-dose IPV primary vaccination (Study A, www.clinicaltrial.gov NCT00937404) and 25 received an IPV booster after priming with three OPV doses (Study B, NCT01021293). In the randomised, controlled immunogenicity and safety trial (Study C, NCT00920439), infants received 3-dose primary vaccination with IPV (N=541) or OPV (N=535) at 2,3,4 months of age, and a booster IPV dose at 18-24 months (N=470, Study D, NCT01323647: extension of study C). Blood samples were collected before and one month post-dose-3 and booster. Reactogenicity was assessed using diary cards. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were captured throughout each study.

RESULTS

Study A and B showed that IPV priming and IPV boosting (after OPV) was safe. Study C: One month post-dose-3, all IPV and ≥ 98.3% OPV recipients had seroprotective antibody titres towards each poliovirus type. The immune response elicited by IPV was non-inferior to Chinese OPV. Seroprotective antibody titres persisted in ≥ 94.7% IPV and ≥ 96.1% OPV recipients at 18-24 months (Study D). IPV had a clinically acceptable safety profile in all studies. Grade 3 local and systemic reactions were uncommon. No SAEs were related to IPV administration.

CONCLUSION

Trivalent IPV is non-inferior to OPV in terms of seroprotection (in the Chinese vaccination schedule) in infant and toddlers, with a clinically acceptable safety profile.

Induction of mucosal immunity through systemic immunization: Phantom or reality?

Generation of protective immunity at mucosal surfaces can greatly assist the host defense against pathogens which either cause disease at the mucosal epithelial barriers or enter the host through these surfaces. Although mucosal routes of immunization, such as intranasal and oral, are being intensely explored and appear promising for eliciting protective mucosal immunity in mammals, their application in clinical practice has been limited due to technical and safety related challenges. Most of the currently approved human vaccines are administered via systemic (such as intramuscular and subcutaneous) routes. Whereas these routes are acknowledged as being capable to elicit antigen-specific systemic humoral and cell-mediated immune responses, they are generally perceived as incapable of generating IgA responses or protective mucosal immunity. Nevertheless, currently licensed systemic vaccines do provide effective protection against mucosal pathogens such as influenza viruses and Streptococcus pneumoniae. However, whether systemic immunization induces protective mucosal immunity remains a controversial topic. Here we reviewed the current literature and discussed the potential of systemic routes of immunization for the induction of mucosal immunity.

Onset of Frozen Shoulder Following Pneumococcal and Influenza Vaccinations

OBJECTIVE

Adhesive capsulitis has been suggested as an adverse effect of vaccine administration into the shoulder area. The purpose of this case series is to report 3 cases of acute onset of adhesive capsulitis following pneumococcal and influenza vaccines.

CLINICAL FEATURES

Patients reported painful shoulder and limited motion following routine vaccination. After clinical examination, a diagnosis of adhesive capsulitis was noted.

INTERVENTION AND OUTCOME

All 3 patients were treated conservatively with physical therapy (active ranges of motion and active-assisted motion), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and activity modification with eventual resolution of symptoms.

CONCLUSION

Reports implicating vaccination with adhesive capsulitis are rare. This case series raises the awareness of pneumococcal and influenza vaccinations as possible causes of adhesive capsulitis that appear to respond to standard treatment. Although vaccines are of tremendous importance in the prevention of serious illness, we emphasize the importance of administering them at the appropriate depth and location for each patient.

Application of radiation technology in vaccines development

One of the earliest methods used in the manufacture of stable and safe vaccines is the use of chemical and physical treatments to produce inactivated forms of pathogens. Although these types of vaccines have been successful in eliciting specific humoral immune responses to pathogen-associated immunogens, there is a large demand for the development of fast, safe, and effective vaccine manufacturing strategies. Radiation sterilization has been used to develop a variety of vaccine types, because it can eradicate chemical contaminants and penetrate pathogens to destroy nucleic acids without damaging the pathogen surface antigens. Nevertheless, irradiated vaccines have not widely been used at an industrial level because of difficulties obtaining the necessary equipment. Recent successful clinical trials of irradiated vaccines against pathogens and tumors have led to a reevaluation of radiation technology as an alternative method to produce vaccines. In the present article, we review the challenges associated with creating irradiated vaccines and discuss potential strategies for developing vaccines using radiation technology.

Impact of inactivated poliovirus vaccine on mucosal immunity: implications for the polio eradication endgame

The polio eradication endgame aims to bring transmission of all polioviruses to a halt. To achieve this aim, it is essential to block viral replication in individuals via induction of a robust mucosal immune response. Although it has long been recognized that inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) is incapable of inducing a strong mucosal response on its own, it has recently become clear that IPV may boost immunity in the intestinal mucosa among individuals previously immunized with oral poliovirus vaccine. Indeed, mucosal protection appears to be stronger following a booster dose of IPV than oral poliovirus vaccine, especially in older children. Here, we review the available evidence regarding the impact of IPV on mucosal immunity, and consider the implications of this evidence for the polio eradication endgame. We conclude that the implementation of IPV in both routine and supplementary immunization activities has the potential to play a key role in halting poliovirus transmission, and thereby hasten the eradication of polio.

Immunogenicity and persistence from different 3-dose schedules of live and inactivated polio vaccines in Chinese infants

BACKGROUND

OPV is the only poliovirus vaccine used in the China EPI system, although IPV is available in the private market. We compared immunigencity and persistence among different schedules of IPV and OPV.

METHODS

536 Chinese infants were enrolled into 4 groups receiving different schedules administered at 2, 3, and 4 months of age: IPV-OPV-OPV, IPV-IPV-OPV, IPV-IPV-IPV, and OPV-OPV-OPV. The I-I-I group received an 18-month IPV booster dose. Blood samples were collected before the first dose, after the third dose, and at 18 months for all groups, and also after the booster dose for the I-I-I group. Polio neutralizing antibody titers were assessed, and seroprotection rates were calculated after primary immunization and at 18 months of age.

RESULTS

Before the first dose, GMTs of the 4 groups ranged from 2.96 to 6.89, and seroprotection rates ranged from 17.6% to 54.3%. After 3 doses, the GMT of the I-O-O and I-I-O groups ranged from 901.09 to 1,110.12, and the GMT of the I-I-I group range was 212.02 to 537.52, significantly lower than for the 2 sequential schedules (P<0.001). Seroprotection rates were 98.1% to 100%, with no significant differences among groups. At 18 months of age, the GMTs declined to a range of 527.00 to 683.44 in the I-O-O and I-I-O groups, and declined to 150.04 to 239.89 in the I-I-I group, significantly lower than for the other 3 groups (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The sequential schedules achieved high GMTs and seroprotection. The IPV-only schedule achieved high seroprotection but with lower GMTs. Sequential schedules are suitable for China. With the 2 sequential schedules, GMTs remained high at 18 months of age and were not inferior to the OPV-only schedule. Thus, with a sequential schedule, the booster dose could be given at 4 years of age, the same age as the current OPV booster dose.

Polio endgame: the global introduction of inactivated polio vaccine

In 2013, the World Health Assembly endorsed a plan that calls for the ultimate withdrawal of oral polio vaccines (OPV) from all immunization programs globally. The withdrawal would begin in a phased manner with removal of the type 2 component of OPV in 2016 through a global switch from trivalent OPV to bivalent OPV (containing only types 1 and 3). To mitigate risks associated with immunity gaps after OPV type 2 withdrawal, the WHO Strategic Advisory Group of Experts has recommended that all 126 OPV-only using countries introduce at least one dose of inactivated polio vaccine into routine immunization programs by end-2015, before the trivalent OPV-bivalent OPV switch. The introduction of inactivated polio vaccine would reduce risks of reintroduction of type 2 poliovirus by providing some level of seroprotection, facilitating interruption of transmission if outbreaks occur, and accelerating eradication by boosting immunity to types 1 and 3 polioviruses.