Safety and immunogenicity of inactivated poliovirus vaccine schedules for the post-eradication era: a randomised open-label, multicentre, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Bandyopadhyay AS
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7992032 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Safety and immunogenicity of inactivated poliovirus vaccine schedules for the post-eradication era: a randomised open-label, multicentre, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.
Bandyopadhyay Ananda S AS Gast Chris C Rivera Luis L Sáez-Llorens Xavier X Oberste M Steven MS Weldon William C WC Modlin John J Clemens Ralf R Costa Clemens Sue Ann SA Jimeno Jose J Rüttimann Ricardo R
The Lancet. Infectious diseases 20201023 4
<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>This rando ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundWe assessed immunogenicity of three-dose and two-dose immunization schedules with a Sabin-strain inactivated poliovirus vaccine (sIPV) produced by one Chinese vaccine manufacturer.MethodsThis was an open label, randomized, controlled trial conducted in 16 vaccination clinics in Shandong province. Infants were allocated randomly to either a 3-dose study arm (sIPV administered at 2, 3, and 4 months of age) or a 2-dose arm (sIPV administered at 4 and 8-11 months of age). Poliovirus neutralizing antibodies were measured in sera collected prior to the first sIPV dose and one month after the last dose.FindingsWe enrolled 560 infants; 536 (95.7%) completed the study. Final seropositivity rates were >98% for all three serotypes in both study arms. There were no statistically significant differences in seropositivity between the 2-dose and the 3-dose schedule. Final median reciprocal titres of polio antibodies were high overall (>1:768 for all serotypes) and statistically significantly higher in 2-dose recipients compared with 3-dose recipients (p < 0.001).InterpretationThis study offers evidence that two doses of sIPV administered at 4 and 8-11 months of age and three doses of sIPV administered at 2, 3, and 4 months of age both provide serological protection against poliomyelitis. Median reciprocal titres of polio antibodies were high overall, and were more related to the interval between doses than the number of doses, with the longer interval of the 2-dose schedule producing higher reciprocal titres than the shorter-interval 3-dose schedule. The protection provided by the 3-dose schedule is achieved earlier in life than the protection with the 2-dose schedule. Countries planning to use an IPV-only schedule in the post-eradication era can consider this 2-dose sIPV option as an immunogenic and dose-sparing strategy.FundingWorld Health Organization (from a grant from International PolioPlus Committee, Rotary International, Evanston, IL, USA).
| S-EPMC8315596 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMonovalent type 2 oral poliovirus vaccine (mOPV2) and inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) are used to respond to type 2 poliovirus outbreaks. We aimed to assess the effect of two mOPV2 doses on the type 2 immune response by varying the time interval between mOPV2 doses and IPV co-administration with mOPV2.MethodsWe did a randomised, controlled, parallel, open-label, non-inferiority, inequality trial at two study clinics in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Healthy infants aged 6 weeks (42-48 days) at enrolment were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to receive two mOPV2 doses (each dose consisting of two drops [0·1 mL in total] of about 105 50% cell culture infectious dose of type 2 Sabin strain) at intervals of 1 week, 2 weeks, 4 weeks (standard or control group), or 4 weeks with IPV (0·5 mL of type 1 [Mahoney, 40 D-antigen units], type 2 [MEF-1, 8 D-antigen units], and type 3 [Saukett, 32 D-antigen units]) administered intramuscularly with the first mOPV2 dose. We used block randomisation, randomly selecting blocks of sizes four, eight, 12, or 16 stratified by study sites. We concealed randomisation assignment from staff managing participants in opaque, sequentially numbered, sealed envelopes. Parents and clinic staff were unmasked to assignment after the randomisation envelope was opened. Laboratory staff analysing sera were masked to assignment, but investigators analysing data and assessing outcomes were not. The primary outcome was type 2 immune response measured 4 weeks after mOPV2 administration. The primary modified intention-to-treat analysis included participants with testable serum samples before and after vaccination. A non-inferiority margin of 10% and p=0·05 (one-tailed) was used. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02643368, and is closed to accrual.FindingsBetween Dec 7, 2015, and Jan 5, 2016, we randomly assigned 760 infants to receive two mOPV2 doses at intervals of 1 week (n=191), 2 weeks (n=191), 4 weeks (n=188), or 4 weeks plus IPV (n=190). Immune responses after two mOPV2 doses were observed in 161 (93%) of 173 infants with testable serum samples in the 1 week group, 169 (96%) of 177 in the 2 week group, and 176 (97%) of 181 in the 4 week group. 1 week and 2 week intervals between two mOPV2 doses were non-inferior to 4 week intervals because the lower bound of the absolute differences in the percentage of immune responses were greater than -10% (-4·2% [90% CI -7·9 to -0·4] in the 1 week group and -1·8% [-5·0 to 1·5] in the 2 week group vs the 4 week group). The immune response elicited by two mOPV2 doses 4 weeks apart was not different when IPV was added to the first dose (176 [97%] of 182 infants with IPV vs 176 [97%] of 181 without IPV; p=1·0). During the trial, two serious adverse events (pneumonia; one [1%] of 186 patients in the 1 week group and one [1%] of 182 in the 4 week group) and no deaths were reported; the adverse events were not attributed to the vaccines.InterpretationAdministration of mOPV2 at short intervals does not interfere with its immunogenicity. The addition of IPV to the first mOPV2 dose did not improve poliovirus type 2 immune response.FundingUS Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
| S-EPMC10495755 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNovel oral poliovirus vaccine type 2 (nOPV2) was developed by modifying the Sabin strain to increase genetic stability and reduce risk of seeding new circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus type 2 outbreaks. Bivalent oral poliovirus vaccine (bOPV; containing Sabin types 1 and 3) is the vaccine of choice for type 1 and type 3 outbreak responses. We aimed to assess immunological interference between nOPV2 and bOPV when administered concomitantly.MethodsWe conducted an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised, controlled trial at two clinical trial sites in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Healthy infants aged 6 weeks were randomly assigned (1:1:1) using block randomisation, stratified by site, to receive nOPV2 only, nOPV2 plus bOPV, or bOPV only, at the ages of 6 weeks, 10 weeks, and 14 weeks. Eligibility criteria included singleton and full term (≥37 weeks' gestation) birth and parents intending to remain in the study area for the duration of study follow-up activities. Poliovirus neutralising antibody titres were measured at the ages of 6 weeks, 10 weeks, 14 weeks, and 18 weeks. The primary outcome was cumulative immune response for all three poliovirus types at the age of 14 weeks (after two doses) and was assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, which was restricted to participants with adequate blood specimens from all study visits. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of study product. A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used to compare single and concomitant administration. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04579510.FindingsBetween Feb 8 and Sept 26, 2021, 736 participants (244 in the nOPV2 only group, 246 in the nOPV2 plus bOPV group, and 246 in the bOPV only group) were enrolled and included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. After two doses, 209 (86%; 95% CI 81-90) participants in the nOPV2 only group and 159 (65%; 58-70) participants in the nOPV2 plus bOPV group had a type 2 poliovirus immune response; 227 (92%; 88-95) participants in the nOPV2 plus bOPV group and 229 (93%; 89-96) participants in the bOPV only group had a type 1 response; and 216 (88%; 83-91) participants in the nOPV2 plus bOPV group and 212 (86%; 81-90) participants in the bOPV only group had a type 3 response. Co-administration was non-inferior to single administration for types 1 and 3, but not for type 2. There were 15 serious adverse events (including three deaths, one in each group, all attributable to sudden infant death syndrome); none were attributed to vaccination.InterpretationCo-administration of nOPV2 and bOPV interfered with immunogenicity for poliovirus type 2, but not for types 1 and 3. The blunted nOPV2 immunogenicity we observed would be a major drawback of using co-administration as a vaccination strategy.FundingThe US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
| S-EPMC10503264 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundA rapid increase in circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus type 2 outbreaks, and the need to reserve inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) for routine immunisation, has increased the value of fractional dose IPV (fIPV) as a measure to prevent acute flaccid paralysis. However, the intradermal route of administration has been viewed as prohibitive to outbreak response campaigns. We aimed to establish the immunogenicity and safety of administering intradermal fIPV with a disposable syringe jet injector (DSJI) or an intradermal adaptor (IDA) compared with standard administration with a BCG needle and syringe (N&S).MethodsThis pragmatic, non-inferiority trial was undertaken in a campaign setting in communities in The Gambia. Children aged 4-59 months without contraindication to vaccination were eligible. Children were not individually randomly assigned; instead, the vaccination teams were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to one of three administration methods. Parents and the field team were not masked, but laboratory personnel were masked. Baseline demographic and anthropometric data were collected from the participants. Public health officers experienced at intradermal immunisation, and nurses without experience, had 2 h of training on each of the administration methods before the campaign. Participants were vaccinated using the administration method in use by the vaccination team in their community. Poliovirus serum neutralising antibodies (SNA) were measured in children aged 24-59 months before and 4 weeks after vaccination. Adverse events and data on injection quality were collected from all participants. The primary outcome was the type 2 immune response rate (seroconversion in seronegative [SNA titre <8] children plus a 4-fold titre rise in seropositive children). Adjusted differences in the immune response between the DSJI or IDA group versus the N&S group were calculated with 97·5% CIs. A margin of -10% was used to define the non-inferiority of DSJI or IDA compared to N&S. Immunogenicity analysis was done per protocol. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.govNCT02967783 and has been completed.FindingsBetween Oct 28 and Dec 29, 2016, 3189 children aged 4-59 months were recruited, of whom 3170 were eligible. Over 3 days, 2720 children were vaccinated (N&S, 917; IDA, 874; and DSJI, 929). Among 992 children aged 25-59 months with a baseline SNA available, 90·1% (95% CI 86·1-92·9; 281/312) of those vaccinated using the DSJI had an immune response to type 2 compared with 93·8% (90·6-95·8; 331/353) of those vaccinated with N&S and 96·6% (94·0-98·0; 316/327) of those vaccinated with IDA. All (53/53) type 2 seronegative children seroconverted. For polio type 2, non-inferiority was shown for both the IDA (adjusted difference 0·7% [97·5% CI -3·3 to 4·7], unadjusted difference 2·9% [-0·9 to 6·8]) and DSJI (adjusted difference -3·3% [-8·3 to 1·5], unadjusted difference -3·7% [-8·7 to 1·1]) compared with N&S. Non-inferiority was shown for type 1 and 3 for the IDA and DSJI. Neither injection quality nor the training and experience of the vaccinators had an effect on immune response. No safety concerns were reported.InterpretationIn a campaign, intradermal fIPV is safe and generates consistent immune responses that are not dependent on vaccinator experience or injection quality when administered using an N&S, DSJI, or IDA. Countries facing vaccine-derived poliovirus type 2 outbreaks should consider fIPV campaigns to boost population immunity and prevent cases of acute flaccid paralysis.FundingWorld Health Organization and the Medical Research Council.
| S-EPMC8786671 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) is efficacious against paralytic disease, but its effect on mucosal immunity is debated. We assessed the efficacy of IPV in boosting mucosal immunity. Participants received IPV, bivalent 1 and 3 oral poliovirus vaccine (bOPV), or no vaccine. A bOPV challenge was administered 4 weeks later, and excretion was assessed 3, 7, and 14 days later. Nine hundred and fifty-four participants completed the study. Any fecal shedding of poliovirus type 1 was 8.8, 9.1, and 13.5% in the IPV group and 14.4, 24.1, and 52.4% in the control group by 6- to 11-month, 5-year, and 10-year groups, respectively (IPV versus control: Fisher's exact test P < 0.001). IPV reduced excretion for poliovirus types 1 and 3 between 38.9 and 74.2% and 52.8 and 75.7%, respectively. Thus, IPV in OPV-vaccinated individuals boosts intestinal mucosal immunity.
| S-EPMC10389671 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIntradermal administration of fractional inactivated poliovirus vaccine (fIPV) is a dose-sparing alternative to the intramuscular full dose. We aimed to compare the immunogenicity of two fIPV doses versus one IPV dose for routine immunisation, and also assessed the immunogenicity of an fIPV booster dose for an outbreak response.MethodsWe did an open-label, randomised, controlled, inequality, non-inferiority trial in two clinics in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Healthy infants were randomly assigned at 6 weeks to one of four groups: group A received IPV at age 14 weeks and IPV booster at age 22 weeks; group B received IPV at age 14 weeks and fIPV booster at age 22 weeks; group C received IPV at age 6 weeks and fIPV booster at age 22 weeks; and group D received fIPV at 6 weeks and 14 weeks and fIPV booster at age 22 weeks. IPV was administered by needle-syringe as an intramuscular full dose (0·5 mL), and fIPV was administered intradermally (0·1 mL of the IPV formulation was administered using the 0·1 mL HelmJect auto-disable syringe with a Helms intradermal adapter). Both IPV and fIPV were administered on the outer, upper right thigh of infants. The primary outcome was vaccine response to poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3 at age 22 weeks (routine immunisation) and age 26 weeks (outbreak response). Vaccine response was defined as seroconversion from seronegative (<1:8) at baseline to seropositive (≥1:8) or four-fold increase in reciprocal antibody titres adjusted for maternal antibody decay and was assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population (infants who received polio vaccines per group assignment and polio antibody titre results to serotypes 1, 2, and 3 at 6, 22, 23, and 26 weeks of age). The non-inferiority margin was 12·5%. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02847026.FindingsBetween Sept 1, 2016 and May 2, 2017, 1076 participants were randomly assigned and included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis: 271 in Group A, 267 in group B, 268 in group C, and 270 in group D. Vaccine response at 22 weeks to two doses of fIPV (group D) was significantly higher (p<0·0001) than to one dose of IPV (groups A and B) for all three poliovirus serotypes: the type 1 response comprised 212 (79% [95% CI 73-83]) versus 305 (57% [53-61]) participants, the type 2 response comprised 173 (64% [58-70]) versus 249 (46% [42-51]) participants, and the type 3 response comprised 196 (73% [67-78]) versus 196 (36% [33-41]) participants. At 26 weeks, the fIPV booster was non-inferior to IPV (group B vs group A) for serotype 1 (-1·12% [90% CI -2·18 to -0·06]), serotype 2 (0·40%, [-2·22 to 1·42]), and serotype 3 (1·51% [-3·23 to -0·21]). Of 129 adverse events, 21 were classified as serious including one death; none were attributed to IPV or fIPV.InterpretationfIPV appears to be an effective dose-sparing strategy for routine immunisation and outbreak responses.FundingUS Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
| S-EPMC7069654 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIdentifying polio vaccine regimens that can elicit robust intestinal mucosal immunity and interrupt viral transmission is a key priority of the polio endgame.MethodsIn a 2013 Chilean clinical trial (NCT01841671) of trivalent inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) and bivalent oral polio vaccine (bOPV; targeting types 1 and 3), infants were randomized to receive IPV-bOPV-bOPV, IPV-IPV-bOPV, or IPV-IPV-IPV at 8, 16, and 24 weeks of age and challenged with monovalent oral polio vaccine type 2 (mOPV2) at 28 weeks. Using fecal samples collected from 152 participants, we investigated the extent to which IPV-bOPV and IPV-only immunization schedules induced intestinal neutralizing activity and immunoglobulin A against polio types 1 and 2.ResultsOverall, 37% of infants in the IPV-bOPV groups and 26% in the IPV-only arm had detectable type 2-specific stool neutralization after the primary vaccine series. In contrast, 1 challenge dose of mOPV2 induced brisk intestinal immune responses in all vaccine groups, and significant rises in type 2-specific stool neutralization titers (P < .0001) and immunoglobulin A concentrations (P < 0.0001) were measured 2 weeks after the challenge. In subsidiary analyses, duration of breastfeeding also appeared to be associated with the magnitude of polio-specific mucosal immune parameters measured in infant fecal samples.ConclusionsTaken together, these results underscore the concept that mucosal and systemic immune responses to polio are separate in their induction, functionality, and potential impacts on transmission and, specifically, provide evidence that primary vaccine regimens lacking homologous live vaccine components are likely to induce only modest, type-specific intestinal immunity.
| S-EPMC6206105 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAfter global oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) cessation, the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (SAGE) currently recommends a two-dose schedule of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) beginning ≥14-weeks of age to achieve at least 90% immune response. We aimed to compare the immunogenicity of three different two-dose IPV schedules started before or at 14-weeks of age.MethodsWe conducted a randomized, controlled, open-label, inequality trial at two sites in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Healthy infants at 6-weeks of age were randomized into one of five arms to receive two-dose IPV schedules at different ages with and without OPV. The three IPV-only arms are presented: Arm C received IPV at 14-weeks and 9-months; Arm D received IPV at 6-weeks and 9-months; and Arm E received IPV at 6 and 14-weeks. The primary outcome was immune response defined as seroconversion from seronegative (<1:8) to seropositive (≥1:8) after vaccination, or a four-fold rise in antibody titers and median reciprocal antibody titers to all three poliovirus types measured at 10-months of age.FindingsOf the 987 children randomized to Arms C, D, and E, 936 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. At 10-months, participants in Arm C (IPV at 14-weeks and 9-months) had ≥99% cumulative immune response to all three poliovirus types which was significantly higher than the 77-81% observed in Arm E (IPV at 6 and 14-weeks). Participants in Arm D (IPV at 6-weeks and 9-months) had cumulative immune responses of 98-99% which was significantly higher than that of Arm E (p value < 0.0001) but not different from Arm C.InterpretationResults support current SAGE recommendations for IPV following OPV cessation and provide evidence that the schedule of two full IPV doses could begin as early as 6-weeks.
| S-EPMC9059229 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSabin inactivated and bivalent oral poliovirus vaccine (sIPV, bOPV) were commonly used in China since 2016. We conducted an open-label, randomised, controlled phase 4 trial to assess immune persistence following sequential immunisation with sIPV or bOPV, and immunogenicity and safety of a booster dose of poliovirus vaccine in children aged 4 years.MethodsParticipants from a previous clinical trial with three different sequential schedules with sIPV (I) or bOPV (B) at ages 2, 3, and 4 months (Groups I-B-B, I-I-B, I-I-I) in 2017 were followed-up. The children were further divided into five subgroups after sIPV was given for Group I-B-B, and sIPV or bOPV randomly given for Group I-I-B and Group I-I-I (128 children in Groups I-B-B-I, 60 in Group I-I-B-B, 64 in Group I-I-B-I, 68 in Group I-I-I-B, 67 in Group I-I-I-I). Immune persistence and immunogenicity were assessed by measuring poliovirus type-specific antibodies, and safety were analysed in all children who received the booster dose.FindingsBetween Dec 5, 2020 and Jun 30, 2021, we respectively enrolled 381 participants in the immune persistence analysis, and 352 participants in per protocol (PP) analysis of the immunogenicity of the booster immunisation. Seropositivity rates of antibodies against poliovirus types 1 and 3 were all >90% four years after primary immunisation, while for poliovirus type 2 were 46.83%, 75.41%, and 90.23% (χ2 = 60.948, P < 0.001) for Groups I-B-B, I-I-B, and I-I-I, respectively. After the booster dose, seropositivity rates were 100% for all three serotypes in Group I-B-B-I, I-I-B-I and I-I-I-I; In Group I-I-B-B and I-I-I-B, the seropositivity rates for types 1 and 3 were all 100%, for type 2 were 92.59% and 98.46%. The geometric mean titres (GMTs) against poliovirus 1 and 3 were all high in five groups (>1860.73), and the GMTs against type 2 were significantly lower in groups booster with bOPV: Group I-I-B-B (50.60) and Group I-I-I-B (247.84). There was no significant difference in seropositivity rates or GMTs for all three serotypes (P > 0.05) between Group I-I-B-I and I-I-I-I. No serious adverse events occurred during the study.InterpretationOur findings suggest that at least two sIPV doses are needed in the current routine poliovirus immunisation schedule, and schedules containing 3 or 4 doses of sIPV provide better protection against poliovirus type 2 than the current sIPV-sIPV-bOPV-bOPV schedule in China.FundingMedical and Health Science and Technology of Zhejiang Province (2021KY118). This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04576910).
| S-EPMC10240380 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe safety and immunogenicity of the coadministration of an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (Sinopharm BBIBP-CorV), quadrivalent split-virion inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV4), and 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV23) in adults in China is unknown.MethodsIn this open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial, participants aged ≥ 18 years were recruited from the community. Individuals were eligible if they had no history of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine or any pneumonia vaccine and had not received an influenza vaccine during the 2020-21 influenza season. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1), using block randomization stratified, to either: SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and IIV4 followed by SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and PPV23 (SARS-CoV-2 + IIV4/PPV23 group); two doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (SARS-CoV-2 vaccine group); or IIV4 followed by PPV23 (IIV4/PPV23 group). Vaccines were administered 28 days apart, with blood samples taken on day 0 and day 28 before vaccination, and on day 56.ResultsBetween March 10 and March 15, 2021, 1152 participants were recruited and randomly assigned to three groups (384 per group). 1132 participants were included in the per-protocol population (375 in the SARS-CoV-2 + IIV4/PPV23 group, 380 in the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine group, and 377 in the IIV4/PPV23 group). The seroconversion rate (100 % vs 100 %) and GMT (159.13 vs 173.20; GMT ratio of 0.92 [95 % CI 0.83 to 1.02]) of SARS-CoV-2 neutralising antibodies in the SARS-CoV-2 + IIV4/PPV23 group was not inferior to those in the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine group. The SARS-CoV-2 + IIV4/PPV23 group was not inferior to the IIV4/PPV23 group in terms of seroconversion rates and GMT of influenza virus antibodies for all strains except for the seroconversion rate for the B/Yamagata strain. The SARS-CoV-2 + IIV4/PPV23 group was not inferior to the IIV4/PPV23 group regarding seroconversion rates and GMC of Streptococcus pneumoniae IgG antibodies specific to all serotypes. All vaccines were well tolerated.ConclusionsThe coadministration of the inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and IIV4/PPV23 is safe with satisfactory immunogenicity. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04790851.
| S-EPMC9334936 | biostudies-literature