Report offers harsh verdict on global polio vaccine switch.

Draft evaluation calls 2016 decision to change oral vaccines a "failure".

Oral and Inactivated Polio Vaccine Coverage and Determinants of Coverage Inequality Among the Most At-Risk Populations in Ethiopia.

Combining oral (OPV) and inactivated (IPV) poliovirus vaccines prevents importation of poliovirus and emergence of circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus. We measured the coverage with IPV and third dose of OPV (OPV-3) and identified determinants of coverage inequality in the most at-risk populations in Ethiopia. A national survey representing 10 partly overlapping underserved populations-pastoralists, conflict-affected areas, urban slums, hard-to-reach settings, developing regions, newly formed regions, internally displaced people (IDPs), refugees, and districts neighboring international and interregional boundaries-was conducted among children 12 to 35 months old (N = 3,646). Socioeconomic inequality was measured using the concentration index (CIX) and decomposed using a regression-based approach. One-third (95% CI: 31.5-34.0%) of the children received OPV-3 and IPV. The dual coverage was below 50% in developing regions (19.2%), pastoralists (22.0%), IDPs (22.3%), districts neighboring international (24.1%) and interregional (33.3%) boundaries, refugees (27.0%), conflict-affected areas (29.3%), newly formed regions (33.5%), and hard-to-reach areas (38.9%). Conversely, coverage was better in urban slums (78%). Children from poorest households, living in villages that do not have health posts, and having limited health facility access had increased odds of not receiving the vaccines. Low paternal education, dissatisfaction with vaccination service, fear of vaccine side effects, living in female-headed households, having employed and less empowered mothers were also risk factors. IPV-OPV3 coverage favored the rich (CIX = -0.161, P < 0.001), and causes of inequality were: inaccessibility of health facilities (13.3%), dissatisfaction with vaccination service (12.8%), and maternal (4.9%) and paternal (4.9%) illiteracy. Polio vaccination coverage in the most at-risk populations in Ethiopia is suboptimal, threatening the polio eradication initiative.

Africa battles out-of-control polio outbreaks.

Cases tumble in Pakistan and Afghanistan but African outbreaks now threaten eradication.

Progress Toward Poliomyelitis Eradication - Afghanistan, January 2020-November 2021.

Wild poliovirus types 2 and 3 were declared eradicated in 2015 and 2019, respectively, and, since 2017, transmission of wild poliovirus type 1 (WPV1) has been detected only in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In 2020, these countries reported their highest number of WPV1 cases since 2014 and experienced outbreaks of type 2 circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus (cVDPV2)* (1); in Afghanistan, the number of WPV1 cases reported increased 93%, from 29 in 2019 to 56 in 2020, with 308 cVDPV2 cases reported. This report describes the activities and progress toward polio eradication in Afghanistan during January 2020-November 2021 and updates previous reports (2-4). Despite restrictions imposed by antigovernment elements since 2018, disruption of polio eradication efforts by the COVID-19 pandemic, and civil and political instability, eradication activities have resumed. During January-November 2021, four WPV1 cases and 43 cVDPV2 cases were detected, representing decreases of 93% from 56 and 85% from 281, respectively, during the same period in 2020. After the assumption of nationwide control by the current de facto government of Afghanistan during August 2021, health officials committed to oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) campaigns nationwide, with the potential to vaccinate approximately 2.5 million children against poliovirus who were previously not accessible for ≥2 years. Although challenges remain, vigorous, sustained polio eradication efforts in Afghanistan could result in substantial progress toward eradication during 2022-2023.

Update on Vaccine-Derived Poliovirus Outbreaks - Worldwide, January 2020-June 2021.

As of May 1, 2016, use of oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) type 2 for routine and supplementary immunization activities ceased after a synchronized global switch from trivalent OPV (tOPV; containing Sabin strain types 1, 2, and 3) to bivalent OPV (bOPV; containing Sabin strain types 1 and 3) subsequent to the certified eradication of wild type poliovirus (WPV) type 2 in 2015 (1-3). Circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus (cVDPV) outbreaks* occur when transmission of Sabin strain poliovirus is prolonged in underimmunized populations, allowing viral genetic reversion to neurovirulence, resulting in cases of paralytic polio (1-3). Since the switch, monovalent OPV type 2 (mOPV2, containing Sabin strain type 2) has been used for response to cVDPV type 2 (cVDPV2) outbreaks; tOPV is used if cVDPV2 co-circulates with WPV type 1, and bOPV is used for cVDPV type 1 (cVDPV1) or type 3 (cVDPV3) outbreaks (1-4). In November 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) Emergency Use Listing procedure authorized limited use of type 2 novel OPV (nOPV2), a vaccine modified to be more genetically stable than the Sabin strain, for cVDPV2 outbreak response (3,5). In October 2021, the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (WHO's principal advisory group) permitted wider use of nOPV2; however, current nOPV2 supply is limited (6). This report updates that of July 2019-February 2020 to describe global cVDPV outbreaks during January 2020-June 2021 (as of November 9, 2021)† (3). During this period, there were 44 cVDPV outbreaks of the three serotypes affecting 37 countries. The number of cVDPV2 cases increased from 366 in 2019 to 1,078 in 2020 (7). A goal of the Global Polio Eradication Initiative's (GPEI) 2022-2026 Strategic Plan is to better address the challenges to early CVDPV2 outbreak detection and initiate prompt and high coverage outbreak responses with available type 2 OPV to interrupt transmission by the end of 2023 (8).

Progress Toward Poliomyelitis Eradication - Pakistan, January 2020-July 2021.

When the Global Polio Eradication Initiative began in 1988, wild poliovirus (WPV) transmission was occurring in 125 countries; currently, only WPV type 1 (WPV1) transmission continues, and as of August 2021, WPV1 transmission persists in only two countries (1,2). This report describes Pakistan's progress toward polio eradication during January 2020-July 2021 and updates previous reports (3,4). In 2020, Pakistan reported 84 WPV1 cases, a 43% reduction from 2019; as of August 25, 2021, Pakistan has reported one WPV1 case in 2021. Circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus (cVDPV) emerges as a result of attenuated oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) virus regaining neurovirulence after prolonged circulation in underimmunized populations and can lead to paralysis. In 2019, 22 cases of cVDPV type 2 (cVDPV2) were reported in Pakistan, 135 cases were reported in 2020, and eight cases have been reported as of August 25, 2021. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, planned supplementary immunization activities (SIAs)* were suspended during mid-March-June 2020 (3,5). Seven SIAs were implemented during July 2020-July 2021 without substantial decreases in SIA quality. Improving the quality of polio SIAs, vaccinating immigrants from Afghanistan, and implementing changes to enhance program accountability and performance would help the Pakistan polio program achieve its goal of interrupting WPV1 transmission by the end of 2022.

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.

Hypothetical emergence of poliovirus in 2020: part 2. exploration of the potential role of vaccines in control and eradication.

OBJECTIVES: The emergence of human pathogens with pandemic potential motivates rapid vaccine development. We explore the role of vaccines in control and eradication of a novel emerging pathogen. METHODS: We hypothetically simulate emergence of a novel wild poliovirus (nWPV) in 2020 assuming an immunologically naïve population. Assuming different nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), we explore the impacts of vaccines resembling serotype-specific oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV), novel OPV (nOPV), or inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV). RESULTS: Vaccines most effectively change the trajectory of an emerging disease when disseminated early, rapidly, and widely in the background of ongoing strict NPIs, unless the NPIs successfully eradicate the emerging pathogen before it establishes endemic transmission. Without strict NPIs, vaccines primarily reduce the burden of disease in the remaining susceptible individuals and in new birth cohorts. Live virus vaccines that effectively compete with the nWPVs can reduce disease burdens more than other vaccines. When relaxation of existing NPIs occurs at the time of vaccine introduction, nWPV transmission can counterintuitively increase in the short term. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccines can increase the probability of disease eradication in the context of strict NPIs. However, successful eradication will depend on specific immunization strategies used and a global commitment to eradication.

Health and Economic Outcomes Associated with Polio Vaccine Policy Options: 2019-2029.

The polio endgame remains complicated, with many questions about future polio vaccines and national immunization policies. We simulated possible future poliovirus vaccine routine immunization policies for countries stratified by World Bank Income Levels and estimated the expected costs and cases using an updated integrated dynamic poliovirus transmission, stochastic risk, and economic model. We consider two reference cases scenarios: one that achieves the eradication of all wild polioviruses (WPVs) by 2023 and one in which serotype 1 WPV (WPV1) transmission continues. The results show that the addition of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) to routine immunization in all countries substantially increased the expected costs of the polio endgame, without substantially increasing its expected health or economic benefits. Adding a second dose of IPV to the routine immunization schedules of countries that currently include a single IPV dose further increases costs and does not appear economically justified in the reference case that does not stop WPV transmission. For the reference case that includes all WPV eradication, adding a second IPV dose at the time of successful oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) cessation represents a cost-effective option. The risks and costs of needing to restart OPV use change the economics of the polio endgame, although the time horizon used for modeling impacts the overall economic results. National health leaders will want to consider the expected health and economic net benefits of their national polio vaccine strategies recognizing that preferred strategies may differ.

A Randomized Phase 4 Study of Immunogenicity and Safety After Monovalent Oral Type 2 Sabin Poliovirus Vaccine Challenge in Children Vaccinated with Inactivated Poliovirus Vaccine in Lithuania.

BACKGROUND: Understanding immunogenicity and safety of monovalent type 2 oral poliovirus vaccine (mOPV2) in inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV)-immunized children is of major importance in informing global policy to control circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus outbreaks. METHODS: In this open-label, phase 4 study (NCT02582255) in 100 IPV-vaccinated Lithuanian 1-5-year-olds, we measured humoral and intestinal type 2 polio neutralizing antibodies before and 28 days after 1 or 2 mOPV2 doses given 28 days apart and measured stool viral shedding after each dose. Parents recorded solicited adverse events (AEs) for 7 days after each dose and unsolicited AEs for 6 weeks after vaccination. RESULTS: After 1 mOPV2 challenge, the type 2 seroprotection rate increased from 98% to 100%. Approximately 28 days after mOPV2 challenge 34 of 68 children (50%; 95% confidence interval, 38%-62%) were shedding virus; 9 of 37 (24%; 12%-41%) were shedding 28 days after a second challenge. Before challenge, type 2 intestinal immunity was undetectable in IPV-primed children, but 28 of 87 (32%) had intestinal neutralizing titers ≥32 after 1 mOPV2 dose. No vaccine-related serious or severe AEs were reported. CONCLUSIONS: High viral excretion after mOPV2 among exclusively IPV-vaccinated children was substantially lower after a subsequent dose, indicating induction of intestinal immunity against type 2 poliovirus.

Implication of a High Risk for Type 2 Vaccine-Derived Poliovirus Emergence and Transmission After the Switch From Trivalent to Bivalent Oral Poliovirus Vaccine.

BACKGROUND: China implemented the globally synchronized switch from trivalent oral poliovirus vaccine (tOPV) to bivalent OPV (bOPV) and introduced 1 dose of inactivated poliovirus vaccine on 1 May 2016. We assessed the impact of the switch on the immunity level against poliovirus, especially type 2. METHODS: Children born between 2014 and 2017, who were brought to the hospitals in Urumqi city, Xinjiang Province in 2017, were enrolled and blood samples were collected to test for antibody titers against poliovirus. A comparison of seroprevalence between the children born before (preswitch group) and after the switch (postswitch group) was performed to assess the impact of the switch on the immunity level against polio. RESULTS: A total of 172 subjects were enrolled. The overall seroprevalences were 98.8%, 79.1%, and 98.3% for types 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Seroprevalence for type 2 significantly decreased from 91.6% in the preswitch group to 67.4% in the postswitch group, but no statistically significant change was observed for both types 1 and 3. CONCLUSIONS: The switch from tOPV to bOPV can provide high-level immunity against types 1 and 3 but not against type 2, indicating a high risk of type 2 vaccine-derived poliovirus emergence and transmission.

Poliomyelitis seroprevalence in high risk populations of India before the trivalent-bivalent oral poliovirus vaccine switch in 2016.

INTRODUCTION: This study assessed the seroprevalence against all three polioviruses among the last cohort of infants aged 6-11 months who received tOPV before the tOPV-bOPV switch and had an opportunity to receive a full dose of inactivated poliovirus vaccine introduced in the routine immunization schedule. METHODS: Serum was tested for neutralizing antibodies against polioviruses among infants residing in three different risk- category states for poliovirus transmission in India viz., Bihar historically high-risk state for polio, Madhya Pradesh a State with low routine immunization coverage and Chhattisgarh with lower acute flaccid paralysis surveillance indicators. RESULTS: A total of 1113 serum samples were tested across the three states. The overall seroprevalence was 98.5% (97.7-99.2), 98.9% (98.3-99.5) and 94.4% (93.0-95.8) for poliovirus types 1, 2 and 3 respectively. The median antibody titers for corresponding serotypes were 575, 362 and 181. Infants who received five doses of tOPV showed respective seroprevalence rates of 98.7%, 98.7% and 93.7% against types 1, 2 and 3 polioviruses. There was no significant difference in seroprevalence across the group of IPV recipients. The median reciprocal titers across the groups of IPV recipient was significantly higher (p = 0.006) for poliovirus-3. CONCLUSION: The seroprevalence rates observed in the study are historically the highest in the series of serosurveys that India has conducted to assess the population immunity against polioviruses. Poliovirus 2 seroprevalence was very high at the time of the tOPV-bOPV switch in India effected in April 2016.

Reflections on Modeling Poliovirus Transmission and the Polio Eradication Endgame.

The Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) partners engaged modelers during the past nearly 20 years to support strategy and policy discussions and decisions, and to provide estimates of the risks, costs, and benefits of different options for managing the polio endgame. Limited efforts to date provided insights related to the validation of the models used for GPEI strategy and policy decisions. However, modeling results only influenced decisions in some cases, with other factors carrying more weight in many key decisions. In addition, the results from multiple modeling groups do not always agree, which supports selection of some strategies and/or policies counter to the recommendations from some modelers but not others. This analysis reflects on our modeling, and summarizes our premises and recommendations, the outcomes of these recommendations, and the implications of key limitations of models with respect to polio endgame strategy. We briefly review the current state of the GPEI given epidemiological experience as of early 2020, which includes failure of the GPEI to deliver on the objectives of its 2013-2018 strategic plan despite full financial support. Looking ahead, we provide context for why the GPEI strategy of global oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) cessation to end all cases of poliomyelitis looks infeasible given the current state of the GPEI and the failure to successfully stop all transmission of serotype 2 live polioviruses within four years of the April-May 2016 coordinated cessation of serotype 2 OPV use in routine immunization.

Reduced Mortality After Oral Polio Vaccination and Increased Mortality After Diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis Vaccination in Children in a Low-income Setting.

PURPOSE: The diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine (DTP) and oral polio vaccine (OPV) were introduced in children 3 of 5 months of age in 1981-1983 in Bandim, in the capital of Guinea-Bissau. Because DTP has been linked to deleterious nonspecific effects (NSEs) and OPV to beneficial NSEs, we followed up this cohort to 3 years of age and examined the effects of DTP with OPV on all-cause mortality and the interactions of DTP and OPV with the measles vaccine (MV). METHODS: DTP and OPV were offered at 3 monthly community weighing sessions. Vaccination groups were defined by the last vaccine received. We compared overall mortality for different groups in Cox proportional hazards regression models, reporting hazards ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs. FINDINGS: The study cohort included 1491 children born in Bandim from December 1980 to December 1983. From 3 to 35 months of age, with censoring for MV, children vaccinated with DTP and/or OPV had higher mortality than both unvaccinated children (HR = l.66; 95% CI, 1.03-2.69) and OPV-only vaccinated children (HR = 2.81; 95% CI, 1.02-7.69); DTP-only vaccinated children had higher mortality than OPV-only vaccinated children (HR = 3.38; 95% CI, 1.15--9.93). In the age group of 3-8 months, before MV is administered, DTP-only vaccination was associated with a higher mortality than DTP with OPV (HR = 3.38; 95% CI, 1.59-7.20). Between 9 and 35 months of age, when MV is given, DTP-vaccinated and MV-unvaccinated children had higher mortality (HR = 2.76; 95% CI, 1.36-5.59) than children who had received MV after DTP, and among children who received DTP with MV or after MV, DTP-only vaccination was associated with a higher mortality than DTP with OPV (HR = 6.25; 95% CI, 2.55-15.37). IMPLICATIONS: Because the 2 vaccines had differential effects and the healthiest children were vaccinated first, selection biases are unlikely to explain the estimated impact on child survival. OPV had beneficial NSEs, and administration of OPV with DTP may have reduced the negative effects of DTP.

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.

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.

Progress Toward Poliomyelitis Eradication - Afghanistan, January 2019-July 2020.

Wild poliovirus type 1 (WPV1) transmission is ongoing only in Afghanistan and Pakistan (1). Following a decline in case numbers during 2013-2016, the number of cases in Afghanistan has increased each year during 2017-2020. This report describes polio eradication activities and progress toward polio eradication in Afghanistan during January 2019-July 2020 and updates previous reports (2,3). Since April 2018, insurgent groups have imposed bans on house-to-house vaccination. In September 2019, vaccination campaigns in areas under insurgency control were restarted only at health facilities. In addition, during March-June 2020, all campaigns were paused because of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The number of WPV1 cases reported in Afghanistan increased from 21 in 2018 to 29 in 2019. During January-July 2020, 41 WPV1 cases were reported as of August 29, 2020 (compared with 15 during January-July 2019); in addition, 69 cases of circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus type 2 (cVDPV2), and one case of ambiguous vaccine-derived poliovirus type 2 (aVDPV2) (isolates with no evidence of person-to-person transmission or from persons with no known immunodeficiency) were detected. Dialogue with insurgency leaders through nongovernmental and international organizations is ongoing in an effort to recommence house-to-house campaigns, which are essential to stopping WPV1 transmission in Afghanistan. To increase community demand for polio vaccination, additional community health needs should be addressed, and polio vaccination should be integrated with humanitarian services.

Field investigation and response to a vaccine-derived poliovirus pre-tOPV switch in Southwest Nigeria, October 2015.

A vaccine-derived poliovirus (VDPV) was isolated in an acute flaccid paralysis (AFP) case reported from Ile-Ife, in Osun state, Southwest Nigeria. We investigated the epidemiological characteristics of the polio event and described the immediate public health response that followed. We interviewed the primary caregiver of the case and conducted active case searches for additional AFP cases in the communities in Ife East Local Government Area (LGA) of Osun state. Stool samples of contacts and non-contacts were collected and sent for laboratory investigation. A public health response with mass supplementary immunization in the affected areas followed immediately in the ward the case was located in October 2015. Also, we reviewed the administrative record of the oral polio vaccine (OPV) coverage in the LGA in the previous four years. The VDPV case was a female, one-month-old child with adequate vaccination history for her age. However, the environment of the child was relatively filthy with inappropriate facilities. Laboratory reports from contact samples were negative for VDPV or any polio isolates. A missed AFP case was found from active case searches and a high proportion of under-five children was immunized with tOPV. The OPV3 administrative coverage in the LGA peaked in 2014 (103%) and dropped in 2015 (67%). Efforts directed toward improving environmental hygiene in households and improving OPV coverage in subsequent routine and supplementary immunization are suggested.

Progress Toward Poliovirus Containment Implementation - Worldwide, 2019-2020.

Since 1988, when World Health Organization (WHO) Member States and partners launched the Global Polio Eradication Initiative, the number of wild poliovirus (WPV) cases has declined from 350,000 in 125 countries to 176 in only two countries in 2019 (1). The Global Commission for the Certification of Poliomyelitis Eradication (GCC) declared two of the three WPV types, type 2 (WPV2) and type 3 (WPV3), eradicated globally in 2015 and 2019, respectively (1). Wild poliovirus type 1 (WPV1) remains endemic in Afghanistan and Pakistan (1). Containment under strict biorisk management measures is vital to prevent reintroduction of eradicated polioviruses into communities from poliovirus facilities. In 2015, Member States committed to contain type 2 polioviruses (PV2) in poliovirus-essential facilities (PEFs) certified in accordance with a global standard (2). Member states agreed to report national PV2 inventories annually, destroy unneeded PV2 materials, and, if retaining PV2 materials, establish national authorities for containment (NACs) and a PEF auditing process. Since declaration of WPV3 eradication in October 2019, these activities are also required with WPV3 materials. Despite challenges faced during 2019-2020, including the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the global poliovirus containment program continues to work toward important milestones. To maintain progress, all WHO Member States are urged to adhere to the agreed containment resolutions, including officially establishing legally empowered NACs and submission of PEF Certificates of Participation.