Safety of the novel oral poliovirus vaccine type 2 (nOPV2) in infants and young children aged 1 to <5 years and lot-to-lot consistency of the immune response to nOPV2 in infants in The Gambia: a phase 3, double-blind, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Novel oral poliovirus vaccine type 2 (nOPV2) has been engineered to improve the genetic stability of Sabin oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) and reduce the emergence of circulating vaccine-derived polioviruses. This trial aimed to provide key safety and immunogenicity data required for nOPV2 licensure and WHO prequalification. METHODS: This phase 3 trial recruited infants aged 18 to <52 weeks and young children aged 1 to <5 years in The Gambia. Infants randomly assigned to receive one or two doses of one of three lots of nOPV2 or one lot of bivalent OPV (bOPV). Young children were randomised to receive two doses of nOPV2 lot 1 or bOPV. The primary immunogenicity objective was to assess lot-to-lot equivalence of the three nOPV2 lots based on one-dose type 2 poliovirus neutralising antibody seroconversion rates in infants. Equivalence was declared if the 95% CI for the three pairwise rate differences was within the -10% to 10% equivalence margin. Tolerability and safety were assessed based on the rates of solicited adverse events to 7 days, unsolicited adverse events to 28 days, and serious adverse events to 3 months post-dose. Stool poliovirus excretion was examined. The trial was registered as PACTR202010705577776 and is completed. FINDINGS: Between February and October, 2021, 2345 infants and 600 young children were vaccinated. 2272 (96·9%) were eligible for inclusion in the post-dose one per-protocol population. Seroconversion rates ranged from 48·9% to 49·2% across the three lots. The minimum lower bound of the 95% CIs for the pairwise differences in seroconversion rates between lots was -5·8%. The maximum upper bound was 5·4%. Equivalence was therefore shown. Of those seronegative at baseline, 143 (85·6%) of 167 (95% CI 79·4-90·6) infants and 54 (83·1%) of 65 (71·7-91·2) young children seroconverted over the two-dose nOPV2 schedule. The post-two-dose seroprotection rates, including participants who were both seronegative and seropositive at baseline, were 604 (92·9%) of 650 (95% CI 90·7-94·8) in infants and 276 (95·5%) of 289 (92·4-97·6) in young children. No safety concerns were identified. 7 days post-dose one, 78 (41·7%) of 187 (95% CI 34·6-49·1) infants were excreting the type 2 poliovirus. INTERPRETATION: nOPV2 was immunogenic and safe in infants and young children in The Gambia. The data support the licensure and WHO prequalification of nOPV2. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Collecting and reporting adverse events in low-income settings-perspectives from vaccine trials in the Gambia.

BACKGROUND: Despite Africa's significant infectious disease burden, it is underrepresented in global vaccine clinical trials. While this trend is slowly reversing, it is important to recognize and mitigate the challenges that arise when conducting vaccine clinical trials in this environment. These challenges stem from a variety of factors peculiar to the population and may negatively impact adverse event collection and reporting if not properly addressed. METHODS: As a team of clinical researchers working within the MRCG (Medical Research Council Unit The Gambia), we have conducted 12 phase 1 to 3 vaccine trials over the past 10 years. In this article, we discuss the challenges we face and the strategies we have developed to improve the collection and reporting of adverse events in low-income settings. OUTCOME: Healthcare-seeking behaviors in the Gambia are influenced by spiritual and cultural beliefs as well as barriers to accessing orthodox healthcare; participants in trials may resort to non-orthodox care, reducing the accuracy of reported adverse events. To address this, trial eligibility criteria prohibit self-treatment and herbal product use during trials. Instead, round-the-clock care is provided to trial participants, facilitating safety follow-up. Constraints in the healthcare system in the Gambia such as limitations in diagnostic tools limit the specificity of diagnosis when reporting adverse events. To overcome these challenges, the Medical Research Council Unit maintains a Clinical Services Department, offering medical care and diagnostic services to study participants. Sociocultural factors, including low literacy rates and social influences, impact adverse event collection. Solicited adverse events are collected during home visits on paper-based or electronic report forms. Community engagement meetings are held before each study starts to inform community stakeholders about the study and answer any questions they may have. These meetings ensure that influential members of the community understand the purpose of the study and the risks and benefits of participating in the trial. This understanding makes them more likely to support participation within their communities. CONCLUSION: Conducting ethical vaccine clinical trials in resource-limited settings requires strategies to accurately collect and report adverse events. Our experiences from the Gambia offer insights into adverse event collection in these settings.