Nasal and pharyngeal mucosal immunity to poliovirus in children following routine immunization with inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) in the United States of America.

BACKGROUND: Although polioviruses (PVs) replicate in lymphoid tissue of both the pharynx and ileum, research on polio vaccine-induced mucosal immunity has predominantly focused on intestinal neutralizing and binding antibody levels measured in stool. METHODS: To investigate the extent to which routine immunization with intramuscularly injected inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) may induce nasal and pharyngeal mucosal immunity, we measured PV type-specific neutralization and immunoglobulin (Ig) G, IgA, and IgM levels in nasal secretions, adenoid cell supernatants, and sera collected from 12 children, aged 2 to 5 years, undergoing planned adenoidectomies. All participants were routinely immunized with IPV and had no known contact with live PVs. RESULTS: PV-specific mucosal neutralization was detected in nasal and adenoid samples, mostly from children who had previously received four IPV doses. Across the three PV serotypes, both nasal (Spearman's rho ≥ 0.87, p≤0.0003 for all) and adenoid (Spearman's rho ≥0.57, p≤0.05 for all) neutralization titers correlated with serum neutralization titers. In this small study sample, there was insufficient evidence to determine which Ig isotype(s) was correlated with neutralization. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide policy-relevant evidence that routine immunization with IPV may induce nasal and pharyngeal mucosal immunity. The observed correlations of nasal and pharyngeal mucosal neutralization with serum neutralization contrast with previous observations of distinct intestinal and serum responses to PV vaccines. Further research is warranted to determine which antibody isotype(s) correlate with polio vaccine-induced nasal and pharyngeal mucosal neutralizing activity and to understand the differences from intestinal mucosal immunity.

Fecal Shedding of 2 Novel Live Attenuated Oral Poliovirus Type 2 Vaccine Candidates by Healthy Infants Administered Bivalent Oral Poliovirus Vaccine/Inactivated Poliovirus Vaccine: 2 Randomized Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Primary intestinal immunity through viral replication of live oral vaccine is key to interrupt poliovirus transmission. We assessed viral fecal shedding from infants administered Sabin monovalent poliovirus type 2 vaccine (mOPV2) or low and high doses of 2 novel OPV2 (nOPV2) vaccine candidates. METHODS: In 2 randomized clinical trials in Panama, a control mOPV2 study (October 2015 to April 2016) and nOPV2 study (September 2018 to October 2019), 18-week-old infants vaccinated with bivalent oral poliovirus vaccine/inactivated poliovirus vaccine received 1 or 2 study vaccinations 28 days apart. Stools were assessed for poliovirus RNA by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and live virus by culture for 28 days postvaccination. RESULTS: Shedding data were available from 621 initially reverse-transcription PCR-negative infants (91 mOPV2, 265 nOPV2-c1, 265 nOPV2-c2 recipients). Seven days after dose 1, 64.3% of mOPV2 recipients and 31.3%-48.5% of nOPV2 recipients across groups shed infectious type 2 virus. Respective rates 7 days after dose 2 decreased to 33.3% and 12.9%-22.7%, showing induction of intestinal immunity. Shedding of both nOPV2 candidates ceased at similar or faster rates than mOPV2. CONCLUSIONS: Viral shedding of either nOPV candidate was similar or decreased relative to mOPV2, and all vaccines showed indications that the vaccine virus was replicating sufficiently to induce primary intestinal mucosal immunity.

Safety and immunogenicity of two novel type 2 oral poliovirus vaccine candidates compared with a monovalent type 2 oral poliovirus vaccine in children and infants: two clinical trials.

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.

Safety and immunogenicity of two novel type 2 oral poliovirus vaccine candidates compared with a monovalent type 2 oral poliovirus vaccine in healthy adults: two clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Two novel type 2 oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV2) candidates, novel OPV2-c1 and novel OPV2-c2, designed to be more genetically stable than the licensed Sabin monovalent OPV2, have been developed to respond to ongoing polio outbreaks due to circulating vaccine-derived type 2 polioviruses. METHODS: We did two randomised studies at two centres in Belgium. The first was a phase 4 historical control study of monovalent OPV2 in Antwerp, done before global withdrawal of OPV2, and the second was a phase 2 study in Antwerp and Ghent with novel OPV2-c1 and novel OPV2-c2. Eligible participants were healthy adults aged 18-50 years with documented history of at least three polio vaccinations, including OPV in the phase 4 study and either OPV or inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) in the novel OPV2 phase 2 study, with no dose within 12 months of study start. In the historical control trial, participants were randomly assigned to either one dose or two doses of monovalent OPV2. In the novel OPV2 trial, participants with previous OPV vaccinations were randomly assigned to either one or two doses of novel OPV2-c1 or to one or two doses of novel OPV2-c2. IPV-vaccinated participants were randomly assigned to receive two doses of either novel OPV2-c1, novel OPV2-c2, or placebo. Vaccine administrators were unmasked to treatment; medical staff performing safety and reactogenicity assessments or blood draws for immunogenicity assessments were masked. Participants received the first vaccine dose on day 0, and a second dose on day 28 if assigned to receive a second dose. Primary objectives were assessments and comparisons of safety up to 28 days after each dose, including solicited adverse events and serious adverse events, and immunogenicity (seroprotection rates on day 28 after the first vaccine dose) between monovalent OPV2 and the two novel OPV2 candidates. Primary immunogenicity analyses were done in the per-protocol population. Safety was assessed in the total vaccinated population-ie, all participants who received at least one dose of their assigned vaccine. The phase 4 control study is registered with EudraCT (2015-003325-33) and the phase 2 novel OPV2 study is registered with EudraCT (2018-001684-22) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04544787). FINDINGS: In the historical control study, between Jan 25 and March 18, 2016, 100 volunteers were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive one or two doses of monovalent OPV2 (n=50 in each group). In the novel OPV2 study, between Oct 15, 2018, and Feb 27, 2019, 200 previously OPV-vaccinated volunteers were assigned to the four groups to receive one or two doses of novel OPV2-c1 or novel OPV2-c2 (n=50 per group); a further 50 participants, previously vaccinated with IPV, were assigned to novel OPV2-c1 (n=17), novel OPV2-c2 (n=16), or placebo (n=17). All participants received the first dose of assigned vaccine or placebo and were included in the total vaccinated population. All vaccines appeared safe; no definitely vaccine-related withdrawals or serious adverse events were reported. After first doses in previously OPV-vaccinated participants, 62 (62%) of 100 monovalent OPV2 recipients, 71 (71%) of 100 recipients of novel OPV2-c1, and 74 (74%) of 100 recipients of novel OPV2-c2 reported solicited systemic adverse events, four (monovalent OPV2), three (novel OPV2-c1), and two (novel OPV2-c2) of which were considered severe. In IPV-vaccinated participants, solicited adverse events occurred in 16 (94%) of 17 who received novel OPV2-c1 (including one severe) and 13 (81%) of 16 who received novel OPV2-c2 (including one severe), compared with 15 (88%) of 17 placebo recipients (including two severe). In previously OPV-vaccinated participants, 286 (97%) of 296 were seropositive at baseline; after one dose, 100% of novel OPV2 vaccinees and 97 (97%) of monovalent OPV2 vaccinees were seropositive. INTERPRETATION: Novel OPV2 candidates were as safe, well tolerated, and immunogenic as monovalent OPV2 in previously OPV-vaccinated and IPV-vaccinated adults. These data supported the further assessment of the vaccine candidates in children and infants. FUNDING: University of Antwerp and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Genetic Characterization of Novel Oral Polio Vaccine Type 2 Viruses During Initial Use Phase Under Emergency Use Listing - Worldwide, March-October 2021.

The emergence and international spread of neurovirulent circulating vaccine-derived polioviruses (cVDPVs) across multiple countries in Africa and Asia in recent years pose a major challenge to the goal of eradicating all forms of polioviruses. Approximately 90% of all cVDPV outbreaks are caused by the type 2 strain of the Sabin vaccine, an oral live, attenuated vaccine; cVDPV outbreaks typically occur in areas of persistently low immunization coverage (1). A novel type 2 oral poliovirus vaccine (nOPV2), produced by genetic modification of the type 2 Sabin vaccine virus genome (2), was developed and evaluated through phase I and phase II clinical trials during 2017-2019. nOPV2 was demonstrated to be safe and well-tolerated, have noninferior immunogenicity, and have superior genetic stability compared with Sabin monovalent type 2 (as measured by preservation of the primary attenuation site [domain V in the 5' noncoding region] and significantly lower neurovirulence of fecally shed vaccine virus in transgenic mice) (3-5). These findings indicate that nOPV2 could be an important tool in reducing the risk for generating vaccine-derived polioviruses (VDPVs) and the risk for vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis cases. Based on the favorable preclinical and clinical data, and the public health emergency of international concern generated by ongoing endemic wild poliovirus transmission and cVDPV type 2 outbreaks, the World Health Organization authorized nOPV2 for use under the Emergency Use Listing (EUL) pathway in November 2020, allowing for its first use for outbreak response in March 2021 (6). As required by the EUL process, among other EUL obligations, an extensive plan was developed and deployed for obtaining and monitoring nOPV2 isolates detected during acute flaccid paralysis (AFP) surveillance, environmental surveillance, adverse events after immunization surveillance, and targeted surveillance for adverse events of special interest (i.e., prespecified events that have the potential to be causally associated with the vaccine product), during outbreak response, as well as through planned field studies. Under this monitoring framework, data generated from whole-genome sequencing of nOPV2 isolates, alongside other virologic data for isolates from AFP and environmental surveillance systems, are reviewed by the genetic characterization subgroup of an nOPV working group of the Global Polio Eradication Initiative. Global nOPV2 genomic surveillance during March-October 2021 confirmed genetic stability of the primary attenuating site. Sequence data generated through this unprecedented global effort confirm the genetic stability of nOPV2 relative to Sabin 2 and suggest that nOPV2 will be an important tool in the eradication of poliomyelitis. nOPV2 surveillance should continue for the duration of the EUL.

Immunization Against Poliomyelitis and the Challenges to Worldwide Poliomyelitis Eradication.

Both inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) and oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) have contributed to the rapid disappearance of paralytic poliomyelitis from developed countries despite possessing different vaccine properties. Due to cost, ease of use, and other properties, the Expanded Programme on Immunization added OPV to the routine infant immunization schedule for low-income countries in 1974, but variable vaccine uptake and impaired immune responses due to poor sanitation limited the impact. Following launch of the Global Polio Eradication Initiative in 1988, poliomyelitis incidence has been reduced by >99% and types 2 and 3 wild polioviruses are now eradicated, but progress against type 1 polioviruses which are now confined to Afghanistan and Pakistan has slowed due to insecurity, poor access, and other problems. A strategic, globally coordinated replacement of trivalent OPV with bivalent 1, 3 OPV in 2016 reduced the incidence of vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP) but allowed the escape of type 2 vaccine-derived polioviruses (VDPV2) in areas with low immunization rates and use of monovalent OPV2 in response seeded new VDPV2 outbreaks and reestablishment of type 2 endemicity. A novel, more genetically stable type 2 OPV vaccine is undergoing clinical evaluation and may soon be deployed prevent or reduce VDPV2 emergences.

The safety and immunogenicity of two novel live attenuated monovalent (serotype 2) oral poliovirus vaccines in healthy adults: a double-blind, single-centre phase 1 study.

BACKGROUND: Use of oral live-attenuated polio vaccines (OPV), and injected inactivated polio vaccines (IPV) has almost achieved global eradication of wild polio viruses. To address the goals of achieving and maintaining global eradication and minimising the risk of outbreaks of vaccine-derived polioviruses, we tested novel monovalent oral type-2 poliovirus (OPV2) vaccine candidates that are genetically more stable than existing OPVs, with a lower risk of reversion to neurovirulence. Our study represents the first in-human testing of these two novel OPV2 candidates. We aimed to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of these vaccines, the presence and extent of faecal shedding, and the neurovirulence of shed virus. METHODS: In this double-blind, single-centre phase 1 trial, we isolated participants in a purpose-built containment facility at the University of Antwerp Hospital (Antwerp, Belgium), to minimise the risk of environmental release of the novel OPV2 candidates. Participants, who were recruited by local advertising, were adults (aged 18-50 years) in good health who had previously been vaccinated with IPV, and who would not have any contact with immunosuppressed or unvaccinated people for the duration of faecal shedding at the end of the study. The first participant randomly chose an envelope containing the name of a vaccine candidate, and this determined their allocation; the next 14 participants to be enrolled in the study were sequentially allocated to this group and received the same vaccine. The subsequent 15 participants enrolled after this group were allocated to receive the other vaccine. Participants and the study staff were masked to vaccine groups until the end of the study period. Participants each received a single dose of one vaccine candidate (candidate 1, S2/cre5/S15domV/rec1/hifi3; or candidate 2, S2/S15domV/CpG40), and they were monitored for adverse events, immune responses, and faecal shedding of the vaccine virus for 28 days. Shed virus isolates were tested for the genetic stability of attenuation. The primary outcomes were the incidence and type of serious and severe adverse events, the proportion of participants showing viral shedding in their stools, the time to cessation of viral shedding, the cell culture infective dose of shed virus in virus-positive stools, and a combined index of the prevalence, duration, and quantity of viral shedding in all participants. This study is registered with EudraCT, number 2017-000908-21 and ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03430349. FINDINGS: Between May 22 and Aug 22, 2017, 48 volunteers were screened, of whom 15 (31%) volunteers were excluded for reasons relating to the inclusion or exclusion criteria, three (6%) volunteers were not treated because of restrictions to the number of participants in each group, and 30 (63%) volunteers were sequentially allocated to groups (15 participants per group). Both novel OPV2 candidates were immunogenic and increased the median blood titre of serum neutralising antibodies; all participants were seroprotected after vaccination. Both candidates had acceptable tolerability, and no serious adverse events occurred during the study. However, severe events were reported in six (40%) participants receiving candidate 1 (eight events) and nine (60%) participants receiving candidate 2 (12 events); most of these events were increased blood creatinine phosphokinase but were not accompanied by clinical signs or symptoms. Vaccine virus was detected in the stools of 15 (100%) participants receiving vaccine candidate 1 and 13 (87%) participants receiving vaccine candidate 2. Vaccine poliovirus shedding stopped at a median of 23 days (IQR 15-36) after candidate 1 administration and 12 days (1-23) after candidate 2 administration. Total shedding, described by the estimated median shedding index (50% cell culture infective dose/g), was observed to be greater with candidate 1 than candidate 2 across all participants (2·8 [95% CI 1·8-3·5] vs 1·0 [0·7-1·6]). Reversion to neurovirulence, assessed as paralysis of transgenic mice, was low in isolates from those vaccinated with both candidates, and sequencing of shed virus indicated that there was no loss of attenuation in domain V of the 5'-untranslated region, the primary site of reversion in Sabin OPV. INTERPRETATION: We found that the novel OPV2 candidates were safe and immunogenic in IPV-immunised adults, and our data support the further development of these vaccines to potentially be used for maintaining global eradication of neurovirulent type-2 polioviruses. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

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.

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.

Protocol Paper: Oral Poliovirus Vaccine Transmissibility in Communities After Cessation of Routine Oral Poliovirus Vaccine Immunization.

Background: We aimed to elucidate household and community-level shedding and transmission of trivalent oral polio vaccine (tOPV) in communities with inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) routine immunization after tOPV is administered during a national health week (NHW). Methods: We conducted a 3-arm, randomized trial with data collected at baseline through 10 weeks post-NHW in households with at least 1 child <5 years old in 3 semi-rural communities in Orizaba, Mexico. Selected communities were geographically isolated but socio-demographically similar. Each community was assigned an oral polio vaccine (OPV) immunization rate: 10, 30, or 70% of participating households. From 2653 households in the 3 communities, ~150 households per community were selected, for 466 in total. Households were randomized as vaccinated or unvaccinated, with only 1 child under 5 in the vaccinated household receiving OPV during the February 2015 NHW. No other community members received OPV during this NHW. Stool samples were collected up to 10 weeks post-vaccination for all members of the 466 study households and were analyzed for the presence of OPV serotypes using a multiplex polymerase chain reaction assay. Results: We will report on the factors associated with, and incidence and duration of, household and community shedding and transmission of OPV. The secondary outcomes will characterize temporal and geospatial OPV serotype shedding patterns. Conclusions: The current global polio eradication plan relies on transitioning away from OPV to IPV. This study contributes to understanding patterns of OPV shedding and transmission dynamics in communities with primary IPV immunity, in order to optimize the reduction of OPV transmission.

Characterization of Household and Community Shedding and Transmission of Oral Polio Vaccine in Mexican Communities With Varying Vaccination Coverage.

Background: The World Health Assembly 2012 Polio Eradication and Endgame Strategic Plan calls for the eventual cessation of all oral polio vaccines (OPVs), to be replaced with inactivated polio vaccine (IPV); however, IPV induces less robust mucosal immunity than OPV. This study characterized household and community OPV shedding and transmission after OPV vaccination within primarily IPV-vaccinated communities. Methods: Households in 3 IPV-vaccinated Mexican communities were randomized to receive 3 levels of OPV vaccination coverage (70%, 30%, or 10%). Ten stool samples were collected from all household members over 71 days. Analysis compared vaccinated subjects, household contacts of vaccinated subjects, and subjects in unvaccinated households. Logistic and Cox regression models were fitted to characterize transmission of OPV by coverage and household vaccination status. Results: Among 148 vaccinated children, 380 household contacts, and 1124 unvaccinated community contacts, 78%, 18%, and 7%, respectively, shed OPV. Community and household contacts showed no differences in transmission (odds ratio [OR], 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], .37-1.20), in shedding trajectory (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, .35-1.07), or in time to shedding (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, .39-1.19). Transmission began as quickly as 1 day after vaccination and persisted as long as 71 days after vaccination. Transmission within unvaccinated households differed significantly across vaccination coverage communities, with the 70% community experiencing the most transmissions (15%), and the 10% community experiencing the least (4%). These trends persisted over time and in the time to first shedding analyses. Conclusions: Transmission did not differ between household contacts of vaccinees and unvaccinated households. Understanding poliovirus transmission dynamics is important for postcertification control.

Progress in the development of poliovirus antiviral agents and their essential role in reducing risks that threaten eradication.

Chronic prolonged excretion of vaccine-derived polioviruses by immunodeficient persons (iVDPV) presents a personal risk of poliomyelitis to the patient as well as a programmatic risk of delayed global eradication. Poliovirus antiviral drugs offer the only mitigation of these risks. Antiviral agents may also have a potential role in the management of accidental exposures and in certain outbreak scenarios. Efforts to discover and develop poliovirus antiviral agents have been ongoing in earnest since the formation in 2007 of the Poliovirus Antivirals Initiative. The most advanced antiviral, pocapavir (V-073), is a capsid inhibitor that has recently demonstrated activity in an oral poliovirus vaccine human challenge model. Additional antiviral candidates with differing mechanisms of action continue to be profiled and evaluated preclinically with the goal of having 2 antivirals available for use in combination to treat iVDPV excreters.

Expert review on poliovirus immunity and transmission.

Successfully managing risks to achieve wild polioviruses (WPVs) eradication and address the complexities of oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) cessation to stop all cases of paralytic poliomyelitis depends strongly on our collective understanding of poliovirus immunity and transmission. With increased shifting from OPV to inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV), numerous risk management choices motivate the need to understand the tradeoffs and uncertainties and to develop models to help inform decisions. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention hosted a meeting of international experts in April 2010 to review the available literature relevant to poliovirus immunity and transmission. This expert review evaluates 66 OPV challenge studies and other evidence to support the development of quantitative models of poliovirus transmission and potential outbreaks. This review focuses on characterization of immunity as a function of exposure history in terms of susceptibility to excretion, duration of excretion, and concentration of excreted virus. We also discuss the evidence of waning of host immunity to poliovirus transmission, the relationship between the concentration of poliovirus excreted and infectiousness, the importance of different transmission routes, and the differences in transmissibility between OPV and WPV. We discuss the limitations of the available evidence for use in polio risk models, and conclude that despite the relatively large number of studies on immunity, very limited data exist to directly support quantification of model inputs related to transmission. Given the limitations in the evidence, we identify the need for expert input to derive quantitative model inputs from the existing data.

Review and assessment of poliovirus immunity and transmission: synthesis of knowledge gaps and identification of research needs.

With the intensifying global efforts to eradicate wild polioviruses, policymakers face complex decisions related to achieving eradication and managing posteradication risks. These decisions and the expanding use of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) trigger renewed interest in poliovirus immunity, particularly the role of mucosal immunity in the transmission of polioviruses. Sustained high population immunity to poliovirus transmission represents a key prerequisite to eradication, but poliovirus immunity and transmission remain poorly understood despite decades of studies. In April 2010, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention convened an international group of experts on poliovirus immunology and virology to review the literature relevant for modeling poliovirus transmission, develop a consensus about related uncertainties, and identify research needs. This article synthesizes the quantitative assessments and research needs identified during the process. Limitations in the evidence from oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) challenge studies and other relevant data led to differences in expert assessments, indicating the need for additional data, particularly in several priority areas for research: (1) the ability of IPV-induced immunity to prevent or reduce excretion and affect transmission, (2) the impact of waning immunity on the probability and extent of poliovirus excretion, (3) the relationship between the concentration of poliovirus excreted and infectiousness to others in different settings, and (4) the relative role of fecal-oral versus oropharyngeal transmission. This assessment of current knowledge supports the immediate conduct of additional studies to address the gaps.

Mucosal immunity to poliovirus.

A cornerstone of the global initiative to eradicate polio is the widespread use of live and inactivated poliovirus vaccines in extensive public health campaigns designed to prevent the development of paralytic disease and interrupt transmission of the virus. Central to these efforts is the goal of inducing mucosal immunity able to limit virus replication in the intestine. Recent clinical trials have evaluated new combined regimens of poliovirus vaccines, and demonstrated clear differences in their ability to restrict virus shedding in stool after oral challenge with live virus. Analyses of mucosal immunity accompanying these trials support a critical role for enteric neutralizing IgA in limiting the magnitude and duration of virus shedding. This review summarizes key findings in vaccine-induced intestinal immunity to poliovirus in infants, older children, and adults. The impact of immunization on development and maintenance of protective immunity to poliovirus and the implications for global eradication are discussed.

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.