Search

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., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Continued emergence and spread of circulating vaccine-derived type 2 polioviruses and vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis from Sabin oral poliovirus vaccines (OPVs) has stimulated development of two novel type 2 OPV candidates (OPV2-c1 and OPV2-c2) designed to have similar immunogenicity, improved genetic stability, and less potential to reacquire neurovirulence. We aimed to assess safety and immunogenicity of the two novel OPV candidates compared with a monovalent Sabin OPV in children and infants., Methods: We did two single-centre, multi-site, partly-masked, randomised trials in healthy cohorts of children (aged 1-4 years) and infants (aged 18-22 weeks) in Panama: a control phase 4 study with monovalent Sabin OPV2 before global cessation of monovalent OPV2 use, and a phase 2 study with low and high doses of two novel OPV2 candidates. All participants received one OPV2 vaccination and subsets received two doses 28 days apart. Parents reported solicited and unsolicited adverse events. Type 2 poliovirus neutralising antibodies were measured at days 0, 7, 28, and 56, and stool viral shedding was assessed up to 28 days post-vaccination. Primary objectives were to assess safety in all participants and non-inferiority of novel OPV2 day 28 seroprotection versus monovalent OPV2 in infants (non-inferiority margin 10%). These studies were registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02521974 and NCT03554798., Findings: The control study took place between Oct 23, 2015, and April 29, 2016, and the subsequent phase 2 study between Sept 19, 2018, and Sept 30, 2019. 150 children (50 in the control study and 100 of 129 assessed for eligibility in the novel OPV2 study) and 684 infants (110 of 114 assessed for eligibility in the control study and 574 of 684 assessed for eligibility in the novel OPV2 study) were enrolled and received at least one study vaccination. Vaccinations were safe and well tolerated with no causally associated serious adverse events or important medical events in any group. Solicited and unsolicited adverse events were overwhelmingly mild or moderate irrespective of vaccine or dose. Nearly all children were seroprotected at baseline, indicating high baseline immunity. In children, the seroprotection rate 28 days after one dose was 100% for monovalent OPV2 and both novel OPV2 candidates. In infants at day 28, 91 (94% [95% CI 87-98]) of 97 were seroprotected after receiving monovalent OPV2, 134 (94% [88-97]) of 143 after high-dose novel OPV2-c1, 122 (93% [87-97]) of 131 after low-dose novel OPV2-c1, 138 (95% [90-98]) of 146 after high-dose novel OPV2-c2, and 115 (91% [84-95]) of 127 after low-dose novel OPV2-c2. Non-inferiority was shown for low-dose and high-dose novel OPV2-c1 and high-dose novel OPV2-c2 despite monovalent OPV2 recipients having higher baseline immunity., Interpretation: Both novel OPV2 candidates were safe, well tolerated, and immunogenic in children and infants. Novel OPV2 could be an important addition to our resources against poliovirus given the current epidemiological situation., Funding: Fighting Infectious Diseases in Emerging Countries and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)