Does IPV Boost Intestinal Immunity among Children under Five Years of Age? An Experience from Pakistan

The oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) has been the mainstay of polio eradication, especially in low-income countries, and its use has eliminated wild poliovirus type 2. However, the inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) is safer than OPV, as IPV protects against paralytic poliomyelitis without producing adverse reactions. The present study compared mucosal and humoral responses to poliovirus vaccines administered to previously OPV-immunized children to assess the immunity gap in children in areas of high poliovirus transmission. A cluster-randomized trial was implemented in three high-risk districts of Pakistan-Karachi, Kashmore, and Bajaur-from June 2013 to May 2014. This trial was community-oriented and included three arms, focusing on healthy children below five years of age. The study involved the randomization of 387 clusters, of which 360 were included in the final analysis. The control arm (A) received the routine polio program bivalent poliovirus vaccine (bOPV). The second arm (B) received additional interventions, including health camps providing routine vaccinations and preventive maternal and child health services. In addition to the interventions in arm B, the third arm (C) was also provided with IPV. Blood and stool samples were gathered from children to evaluate humoral and intestinal immunity. The highest levels of poliovirus type 1 serum antibodies were observed in Group C (IPV + OPV). The titers for poliovirus type 2 (P2) and poliovirus type 3 (P3) were noticeably higher in those who had received a routine OPV dose than in those who had not across all study groups and visits. Providing an IPV booster after at least two OPV doses could potentially fill immunity gaps in regions where OPV does not show high efficacy. However, IPV only marginally enhances humoral immunity and fails to offer intestinal immunity, which is critical to stop the infection and spread of live poliovirus in populations that have not been exposed before.

Messenger RNA-based vaccines: Past, present, and future directions in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic

mRNA vaccines have received major attention in the fight against COVID-19. Formulations from companies such as Moderna and BioNTech/Pfizer have allowed us to slowly ease the social distancing measures, mask requirements, and lockdowns that have been prevalent since early 2020. This past year's focused work on mRNA vaccines has catapulted this technology to the forefront of public awareness and additional research pursuits, thus leading to new potential for bionanotechnology principles to help drive further innovation using mRNA. In addition to alleviating the burden of COVID-19, mRNA vaccines could potentially provide long-term solutions all over the world for diseases ranging from influenza to AIDS. Herein, we provide a brief commentary based on the history and development of mRNA vaccines in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, we address current research using the technology and future directions of mRNA vaccine research.

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.

Poliopolis: pushing boundaries of scientific innovations for disease eradication

Although global polio eradication is within reach, sustained eradication of all polioviruses requires cessation of oral poliovirus vaccine use to mitigate against vaccine-derived poliovirus circulation and vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis. The first step in this direction was the WHO-recommended global withdrawal of live attenuated type 2 Sabin poliovirus from routine immunisation in May 2016, with future use restricted to outbreak response, and handling controlled by strict containment provisions (GAPIII). This creates unique challenges for development and testing of novel type 2 poliovirus vaccines. We describe the creation of a novel purpose-built containment facility, Poliopolis, to study new monovalent OPV2 vaccine candidates in healthy adult volunteers, which may be a model for future endeavors in vaccine development for emergency use.

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.

Facility-Associated Release of Polioviruses into Communities-Risks for the Posteradication Era

The Global Polio Eradication Initiative continues to make progress toward the eradication target. Indigenous wild poliovirus (WPV) type 2 was last detected in 1999, WPV type 3 was last detected in 2012, and over the past 2 years WPV type 1 has been detected only in parts of 2 countries (Afghanistan and Pakistan). Once the eradication of poliomyelitis is achieved, infectious and potentially infectious poliovirus materials retained in laboratories, vaccine production sites, and other storage facilities will continue to pose a risk for poliovirus reintroduction into communities. The recent breach in containment of WPV type 2 in an inactivated poliovirus vaccine manufacturing site in the Netherlands prompted this review, which summarizes information on facility-associated release of polioviruses into communities reported over >8 decades. Successful polio eradication requires the management of poliovirus containment posteradication to prevent the consequences of the reestablishment of poliovirus transmission.

An inactivated poliovirus vaccine using Sabin strains produced on the serum-free PER.C6® cell culture platform is immunogenic and safe in a non-human primate model

Background

The World Health Organization recommends the development of affordable next-generation inactivated poliovirus vaccines (IPV) using attenuated poliovirus Sabin strains. Previously, we introduced a novel PER.C6® cell culture platform, which allows for high yield production of an affordable trivalent Sabin IPV vaccine.

Methods

Immunogenicity and safety of this novel PER.C6®-based Sabin-IPV (sIPV) was assessed in rats and non-human primates (NHPs). NHPs received one of four different dose dilutions vaccine according to current human schedule (three prime-immunizations and one boost immunization). For comparison, NHPs received commercially available reference Salk IPV or sIPV.

Results

Dose-dependent immunogenicity and good tolerability was observed for the PER.C6®-based sIPV formulations in rats and NHPs. In NHPs, the lowest tested dose that induced anti-Sabin virus-neutralizing antibody titers that were non-inferior to commercial sIPV after three immunizations was 5-7.5-25 D-antigen units for type 1, 2 and 3 respectively.

Discussion

PER.C6®-based sIPV induced comparable immunogenicity to commercial Salk IPV and sIPV vaccines in NHPs. Together with the absence of any preclinical safety signals, these data warrant further testing in clinical trials. sIPV produced on the PER.C6® cell platform could be one solution to the need for an affordable and immunogenic IPV to achieve and maintain global polio eradication.