Poliovirus type 1 systemic humoral and intestinal mucosal immunity induced by monovalent oral poliovirus vaccine, fractional inactivated poliovirus vaccine, and bivalent oral poliovirus vaccine: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: To inform response strategies, we examined type 1 humoral and intestinal immunity induced by 1) one fractional inactivated poliovirus vaccine (fIPV) dose given with monovalent oral poliovirus vaccine (mOPV1), and 2) mOPV1 versus bivalent OPV (bOPV). METHODS: We conducted a randomized, controlled, open-label trial in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Healthy infants aged 5 weeks were block randomized to one of four arms: mOPV1 at age 6-10-14 weeks/fIPV at 6 weeks (A); mOPV1 at 6-10-14 weeks/fIPV at 10 weeks (B); mOPV1 at 6-10-14 weeks (C); and bOPV at 6-10-14 weeks (D). Immune response at 10 weeks and cumulative response at 14 weeks was assessed among the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as seroconversion from seronegative (<1:8 titers) to seropositive (≥1:8) or a four-fold titer rise among seropositive participants sustained to age 18 weeks. We examined virus shedding after two doses of mOPV1 with and without fIPV, and after the first mOPV1 or bOPV dose. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03722004). FINDINGS: During 18 December 2018 - 23 November 2019, 1,192 infants were enrolled (arms A:301; B:295; C:298; D:298). Immune responses at 14 weeks did not differ after two mOPV1 doses alone (94% [95% CI: 91-97%]) versus two mOPV1 doses with fIPV at 6 weeks (96% [93-98%]) or 10 weeks (96% [93-98%]). Participants who received mOPV1 and fIPV at 10 weeks had significantly lower shedding (p < 0·001) one- and two-weeks later compared with mOPV1 alone. Response to one mOPV1 dose was significantly higher than one bOPV dose (79% versus 67%; p < 0·001) and shedding two-weeks later was significantly higher after mOPV1 (76% versus 56%; p < 0·001) indicating improved vaccine replication. Ninety-nine adverse events were reported, 29 serious including two deaths; none were attributed to study vaccines. INTERPRETATION: Given with the second mOPV1 dose, fIPV improved intestinal immunity but not humoral immunity. One mOPV1 dose induced higher humoral and intestinal immunity than bOPV. FUNDING: U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Immunogenicity of novel oral poliovirus vaccine type 2 administered concomitantly with bivalent oral poliovirus vaccine: an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Novel 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. METHODS: We 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. FINDINGS: Between 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. INTERPRETATION: Co-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. FUNDING: The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Concurrent outbreaks of circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus types 1 and 2 affecting the Republic of the Philippines and Malaysia, 2019-2021.

Concurrent outbreaks of circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus serotypes 1 and 2 (cVDPV1, cVDPV2) were confirmed in the Republic of the Philippines in September 2019 and were subsequently confirmed in Malaysia by early 2020. There is continuous population subgroup movement in specific geographies between the two countries. Outbreak response efforts focused on sequential supplemental immunization activities with monovalent Sabin strain oral poliovirus vaccine type 2 (mOPV2) and bivalent oral poliovirus vaccines (bOPV, containing Sabin strain types 1 and 3) as well as activities to enhance poliovirus surveillance sensitivity to detect virus circulation. A total of six cVDPV1 cases, 13 cVDPV2 cases, and one immunodeficiency-associated vaccine-derived poliovirus type 2 case were detected, and there were 35 cVDPV1 and 31 cVDPV2 isolates from environmental surveillance sewage collection sites. No further cVDPV1 or cVDPV2 have been detected in either country since March 2020. Response efforts in both countries encountered challenges, particularly those caused by the global COVID-19 pandemic. Important lessons were identified and could be useful for other countries that experience outbreaks of concurrent cVDPV serotypes.

Head-to-head comparison of the immunogenicity of RotaTeq and Rotarix rotavirus vaccines and factors associated with seroresponse in infants in Bangladesh: a randomised, controlled, open-label, parallel, phase 4 trial.

BACKGROUND: A head-to-head comparison of the most widely used oral rotavirus vaccines has not previously been done, particularly in a high child mortality setting. We therefore aimed to compare the immunogenicity of RotaTeq (Merck, Kenilworth, NJ, USA) and Rotarix (GlaxoSmithKline, Rixensart, Belgium) rotavirus vaccines in the same population and examined risk factors for low seroresponse. METHODS: We did a randomised, controlled, open-label, parallel, phase 4 trial in urban slums within Mirpur and Mohakahli (Dhaka, Bangladesh). We enrolled eligible participants who were healthy infants aged 6 weeks and full-term (ie, >37 weeks' gestation). We randomly assigned participants (1:1), using block randomisation via a computer-generated electronic allocation with block sizes of 8, 16, 24, and 32, to receive either three RotaTeq vaccine doses at ages 6, 10, and 14 weeks or two Rotarix doses at ages 6 and 10 weeks without oral poliovirus vaccine. Coprimary outcomes were the rotavirus-specific IgA seroconversion in both vaccines, and the comparison of the rotavirus IgA seroconversion by salivary secretor phenotype in each vaccine arm. Seroconversion at age 18 weeks in the RotaTeq arm and age of 14 weeks in the Rotarix arm was used to compare the complete series of each vaccine. Seroconversion at age 14 weeks was used to compare two RotaTeq doses versus two Rotarix doses. Seroconversion at age 22 weeks was used to compare the immunogenicity at the same age after receiving the full vaccine series. Safety was assessed for the duration of study participation. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02847026. FINDINGS: Between Sept 1 and Dec 8, 2016, a total of 1144 infants were randomly assigned to either the RotaTeq arm (n=571) or Rotarix arm (n=573); 1080 infants (531 in the RotaTeq arm and 549 in the Rotarix arm) completed the study. Rotavirus IgA seroconversion 4 weeks after the full series occurred in 390 (73%) of 531 infants age 18 weeks in the RotaTeq arm and 354 (64%) of 549 infants age 14 weeks in the Rotarix arm (p=0·01). At age 14 weeks, 4 weeks after two doses, RotaTeq recipients had lower seroconversion than Rotarix recipients (268 [50%] of 531 vs 354 [64%] of 549; p<0·0001). However, at age 22 weeks, RotaTeq recipients had higher seroconversion than Rotarix recipients (394 [74%] of 531 vs 278 [51%] of 549; p<0·0001). Among RotaTeq recipients, seroconversion 4 weeks after the third dose was higher than after the second dose (390 [73%] of 531 vs 268 [50%] of 531; p<0·0001]. In the RotaTeq arm, rotavirus IgA seroconversion was lower in non-secretors than in secretors at ages 14 weeks (p=0·08), 18 weeks (p=0·01), and 22 weeks (p=0·02). Similarly, in the Rotarix arm, rotavirus IgA seroconversion was lower in non-secretors than in secretors at ages 14 weeks (p=0·02) and 22 weeks (p=0·01). 65 (11%) of 571 infants had adverse events in the RotaTeq arm compared with 63 (11%) of 573 infants in the Rotarix arm; no adverse events were attributed to the use of either vaccine. One death due to aspiration occurred in the RotaTeq arm, which was not related to the vaccine. INTERPRETATION: RotaTeq induced a higher magnitude and longer duration of rotavirus IgA response than Rotarix in this high child mortality setting. Additional vaccination strategies should be evaluated to overcome the suboptimal performance of current oral rotavirus vaccines in these settings. FUNDING: US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Surveillance to Track Progress Toward Polio Eradication - Worldwide, 2020-2021.

Since the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) was established in 1988, the number of reported poliomyelitis cases worldwide has declined by approximately 99.99%. By the end of 2021, wild poliovirus (WPV) remained endemic in only two countries (Pakistan and Afghanistan). However, a WPV type 1 (WPV1) case with paralysis onset in 2021, was reported by Malawi a year after the World Health Organization (WHO) African Region (AFR) was certified as WPV-free and circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus (cVDPV) cases were reported from 31 countries during 2020-2021 (1,2). cVDPVs are oral poliovirus vaccine-derived viruses that can emerge after prolonged circulation in populations with low immunity and cause paralysis. The primary means of detecting poliovirus transmission is through surveillance for acute flaccid paralysis (AFP) among persons aged <15 years, with confirmation through stool specimen testing by WHO-accredited laboratories, supplemented by systematic sampling of sewage and testing for the presence of poliovirus (environmental surveillance). The COVID-19 pandemic caused disruptions in polio vaccination and surveillance activities across WHO regions in 2020; during January-September 2020, the number of reported cases of AFP declined and the interval between stool collection and receipt by laboratories increased compared with the same period in 2019 (3). This report summarizes surveillance performance indicators for 2020 and 2021 in 43 priority countries* and updates previous reports (4). In 2021, a total of 32 (74%) priority countries† met two key surveillance performance indicator targets nationally, an improvement from 2020 when only 23 (53%) met both targets; however, substantial national and subnational gaps persist. High-performing poliovirus surveillance is critical to tracking poliovirus transmission. Frequent monitoring of surveillance indicators could help identify gaps, guide improvements, and enhance the overall sensitivity and timelines of poliovirus detection to successfully achieve polio eradication.

Assessing the immunogenicity of three different inactivated polio vaccine schedules for use after oral polio vaccine cessation, an open label, phase IV, randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: After 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. METHODS: We 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. FINDINGS: Of 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. INTERPRETATION: Results 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.

Surveillance to Track Progress Toward Polio Eradication - Worldwide, 2019-2020.

When the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) was established in 1988, an estimated 350,000 poliomyelitis cases were reported worldwide. In 2020, 140 wild poliovirus (WPV) cases were confirmed, representing a 99.99% reduction since 1988. WPV type 1 transmission remains endemic in only two countries (Pakistan and Afghanistan), but outbreaks of circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus (cVDPV) occurred in 33 countries during 2019-2020 (1,2). Poliovirus transmission is detected primarily through syndromic surveillance for acute flaccid paralysis (AFP) among children aged <15 years, with confirmation by laboratory testing of stool specimens. Environmental surveillance supplements AFP surveillance and plays an increasingly important role in detecting poliovirus transmission. Within 2 weeks of COVID-19 being declared a global pandemic (3), GPEI recommended continuing surveillance activities with caution and paused all polio supplementary immunization activities (4). This report summarizes surveillance performance indicators for 2019 and 2020 in 42 priority countries at high risk for poliovirus transmission and updates previous reports (5). In 2020, 48% of priority countries* in the African Region, 90% in the Eastern Mediterranean Region, and 40% in other regions met AFP surveillance performance indicators nationally. The number of priority countries rose from 40 in 2019 to 42 in 2020.† Analysis of 2019-2020 AFP surveillance data from 42 countries at high risk for poliovirus transmission indicates that national and subnational nonpolio AFP rates and stool specimen adequacy declined in many priority countries, particularly in the African Region, suggesting a decline in surveillance sensitivity and quality. The findings in this report can be used to guide improvements to restore a sensitive surveillance system that can track poliovirus transmission and provide evidence of interruption of transmission.

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Global Poliovirus Surveillance.

On January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (1). On March 24, 2020, the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) suspended all polio supplementary immunization activities and recommended the continuation of polio surveillance (2). In April 2020, GPEI shared revised polio surveillance guidelines in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, which focused on reducing the risk for transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, to health care workers and communities by modifying activities that required person-to-person contact, improving hand hygiene and personal protective equipment use practices, and overcoming challenges related to movement restrictions, while continuing essential polio surveillance functions (3). GPEI assessed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on polio surveillance by comparing data from January to September 2019 to the same period in 2020. Globally, the number of acute flaccid paralysis (AFP) cases reported declined 33% and the mean number of days between the second stool collected and receipt by the laboratory increased by 70%. Continued analysis of AFP case reporting and stool collection is critical to ensure timely detection and response to interruptions of polio surveillance.

New analytic approaches for analyzing and presenting polio surveillance data to supplement standard performance indicators.

BACKGROUND: Sensitive surveillance for acute flaccid paralysis (AFP) allows for rapid detection of polio outbreaks and provides essential evidence to support certification of the eradication of polio. However, accurately assessing the sensitivity of surveillance systems can be difficult due to limitations in the reliability of available performance indicators, including the rate of detection of non-polio AFP and the proportion of adequate stool sample collection. Recent field reviews have found evidence of surveillance gaps despite indicators meeting expected targets. METHODS: We propose two simple new approaches for AFP surveillance performance indicator analysis to supplement standard indicator analysis approaches commonly used by the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI): (1) using alternative groupings of low population districts in the country (spatial binning) and (2) flagging unusual patterns in surveillance data (surveillance flags analysis). Using GPEI data, we systematically compare AFP surveillance performance using standard indicator analysis and these new approaches. RESULTS: Applying spatial binning highlights areas meeting surveillance indicator targets that do not when analyzing performance of low population districts. Applying the surveillance flags we find several countries with unusual data patterns, in particular age groups which are not well-covered by the surveillance system, and countries with implausible rates of adequate stool specimen collection. CONCLUSIONS: Analyzing alternate groupings of administrative units is a simple method to find areas where traditional AFP surveillance indicator targets are not reliably met. For areas where AFP surveillance indicator targets are met, systematic assessment of unusual patterns ('flags') can be a useful prompt for further investigation and field review.

Immunogenicity of full and fractional dose of inactivated poliovirus vaccine for use in routine immunisation and outbreak response: an open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Intradermal 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. METHODS: We 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. FINDINGS: Between 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. INTERPRETATION: fIPV appears to be an effective dose-sparing strategy for routine immunisation and outbreak responses. FUNDING: US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Surveillance to Track Progress Toward Polio Eradication - Worldwide, 2017-2018.

When the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) began in 1988, cases of poliomyelitis were reported from 125 countries. Since then, only Afghanistan, Nigeria, and Pakistan have experienced uninterrupted transmission of wild poliovirus (WPV). The primary means of detecting poliovirus is through surveillance for acute flaccid paralysis (AFP) among children aged <15 years with testing of stool specimens for WPV and vaccine-derived polioviruses (VDPVs) in World Health Organization (WHO)-accredited laboratories of the Global Polio Laboratory Network (GPLN) (1,2). AFP surveillance is supplemented by environmental surveillance for polioviruses in sewage at selected locations. Analysis of genomic sequences of isolated polioviruses enables assessment of transmission by time and place, potential gaps in surveillance, and emergence of VDPVs (3). This report presents 2017-2018 poliovirus surveillance data, focusing on 31 countries* identified as high-priority countries because of a "high risk of poliovirus transmission and limited capacity to adequately address those risks" (4). Some of these countries are located within WHO regions with endemic polio, and others are in regions that are polio-free. In 2018, 26 (84%) of the 31 countries met AFP surveillance indicators nationally; however, subnational variation in surveillance performance was substantial. Surveillance systems need continued strengthening through monitoring, supervision, and improvements in specimen collection and transport to provide sufficient evidence for interruption of poliovirus circulation.

Feasibility of jet injector use during inactivated poliovirus vaccine house-to-house vaccination campaigns.

BACKGROUND: To attain high coverage during polio vaccination campaigns, an outreach house-to-house strategy is used to administer oral poliovirus vaccine. Administering an injectable vaccine house-to-house requires a skilled work force and increases risks of needle stick injuries. Needle-free injection devices provide a safer alternative to needles and syringes for administering injectable vaccines. We evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of a needle-free injection device to administer injectable poliovirus vaccine during a house-to-house vaccination outreach activity. METHODS: Vaccination teams administered injectable poliovirus vaccine using the Pharmajet® needle-free intramuscular jet injector to children ages 6-59 months in 766 homes. Data on the feasibility of using the jet injector in an outreach campaign setting and the acceptability of the jet injector by caregivers and vaccinators were collected. RESULTS: A total of 993 injections were administered. Vaccinators faced challenges during device preparation in 16% (n = 158) of injections; challenges were related to problems loading the injector and not having a flat surface to use for setup of the injector. Among 32 vaccinators interviewed after the vaccination campaign, the main reported advantage of the device was absence of sharps disposal (91%) while the main reported disadvantage was unacceptability by parents (90%) which was related to the vaccine, not the device. CONCLUSIONS: The needle-free jet injector was feasible for use in house-to-house campaigns. Acceptability by vaccinators was low as 81% stated that the jet injector was not easier to use than needle and syringe. Parental refusal related to frequent polio vaccination campaigns was the biggest challenge. In addition, novelty of the device posed a challenge to teams as they needed to reassure parents about safety of the device. To take full advantage of the ability to take injectable vaccines door-to-door during vaccination campaigns using a needle-free jet injector device, tailored social mobilization efforts are needed ahead of campaigns.

Assessing the potency and immunogenicity of inactivated poliovirus vaccine after exposure to freezing temperatures.

According to manufacturers, inactivated poliovirus vaccines (IPVs) are freeze sensitive and require storage between 2°C and 8°C, whereas oral poliovirus vaccine requires storage at -20 °C. Introducing IPV into ongoing immunization services might result in accidental exposure to freezing temperatures and potential loss of vaccine potency. To better understand the effect of freezing IPVs, samples of single-dose vaccine vials from Statens Serum Institut (VeroPol) and multi-dose vaccine vials from Sanofi Pasteur (IPOL) were exposed to freezing temperatures mimicking what a vaccine vial might encounter in the field. D-antigen content was measured to determine the in vitro potency by ELISA. Immunogenicity testing was conducted for a subset of exposed IPVs using the rat model. Freezing VeroPol had no detectable effect on in vitro potency (D-antigen content) in all exposures tested. Freezing of the IPOL vaccine for 7 days at -20 °C showed statistically significant decreases in D-antigen content by ELISA in poliovirus type 1 (p < 0.0001) and type 3 (p = 0.048). Reduction of poliovirus type 2 potency also approached significance (p = 0.062). The observed loss in D-antigen content did not affect immunogenicity in the rat model. Further work is required to determine the significance of the loss observed and the implications for vaccine handling policies and practices.

Immunogenicity of type 2 monovalent oral and inactivated poliovirus vaccines for type 2 poliovirus outbreak response: an open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Monovalent 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. METHODS: We 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. FINDINGS: Between 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. INTERPRETATION: Administration 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. FUNDING: US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Impact of a pharmacist-driven care package on Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia management in a large community healthcare network: A propensity score-matched, quasi-experimental study.

OBJECTIVES: Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB) is an important cause of morbidity and mortality. Suboptimal treatment has been associated with poor patient outcomes. Our antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) evaluated SAB management based on predefined performance measures both prior to and after instituting a "care package" intervention led by clinical pharmacists and infectious diseases physicians. The primary outcome included a 4-point "optimal care score" (OCS) consisting of targeted antibiotic therapy within 24hours, repeating blood cultures, antibiotic duration assessment, and appropriate duration of therapy. The presence of an ID consult, SAB readmission and mortality were also assessed. METHODS: This was a quasi-experimental, propensity score matched study of SAB management. Adult patients were retrospectively evaluated from October 2011 - October 2012, and intervention took place from November 2013 - December 2015. Intervention consisted of a clinical pharmacist contacting the primary team after identification of SAB to recommend (1) appropriate antibiotics within 24hours, (2) repeat blood cultures to document clearance, (3) assessment for metastatic infection, (4) and appropriate duration of therapy. These constituted the 4-point OCS. ID consult was also recommended. Patients were propensity score matched 1:2 based on age, diabetes, presence of hardware, methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) isolate, and stratified infectious source. Patients ≥18 with SAB were included. RESULTS: Intervention was associated with improved adherence to each metric within the OCS, and more patients in the intervention cohort achieved a perfect OCS of 4. Intervention was associated with a lower rate of readmission and mortality. CONCLUSION: A pharmacist-driven, ASP intervention on SAB therapy was associated with increased adherence to core SAB care metrics and reduced relapse and mortality.

Lessons Learned From the Introduction of Inactivated Poliovirus Vaccine in Bangladesh.

Background: We assessed programmatic adaptations and infants' uptake of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) after its introduction into the routine immunization schedule in Bangladesh. Methods: Using convenience and probability sampling, we selected 23 health facilities, 36 vaccinators, and 336 caregivers, within 5 districts and 3 city corporations. We collected data during August-October 2015 by conducting interviews, reviewing vaccination records, and observing activities. Results: Knowledge about IPV was high among vaccinators (94%). No problems with IPV storage, transport, or waste disposal were detected, but shortages were reported in 20 health facilities (87%). Wastage per 5-dose vaccine vial was above the recommended 30% in 20 health facilities (87%); all were related to providing <5 doses per open vial. Among eligible infants, 87% and 86% received the third dose of pentavalent and oral poliovirus vaccine, respectively, but only 65% received IPV at the same visit. Among 73 infants not vaccinated with IPV, 58% of caregivers reported that vaccine was unavailable. Conclusions: Bangladesh successfully introduced IPV, but shortages related to insufficient global supply and high vaccine wastage in small outreach immunization sessions might reduce its impact on population immunity. Minimizing wastage and use of a 2-dose fractional-IPV schedule could extend IPV immunization to more children.

Cold-Chain Adaptability During Introduction of Inactivated Polio Vaccine in Bangladesh, 2015.

Background: Introduction of inactivated polio vaccine creates challenges in maintaining the cold chain for vaccine storage and distribution. Methods: We evaluated the cold chain in 23 health facilities and 36 outreach vaccination sessions in 8 districts and cities of Bangladesh, using purposive sampling during August-October 2015. We interviewed immunization and cold-chain staff, assessed equipment, and recorded temperatures during vaccine storage and transportation. Results: All health facilities had functioning refrigerators, and 96% had freezers. Temperature monitors were observed in all refrigerators and freezers but in only 14 of 66 vaccine transporters (21%). Recorders detected temperatures >8°C for >60 minutes in 5 of 23 refrigerators (22%), 3 of 6 cold boxes (50%) transporting vaccines from national to subnational depots, and 8 of 48 vaccine carriers (17%) used in outreach vaccination sites. Temperatures <2°C were detected in 4 of 19 cold boxes (21%) transporting vaccine from subnational depots to health facilities and 14 of 48 vaccine carriers (29%). Conclusions: Bangladesh has substantial cold-chain storage and transportation capacity after inactivated polio vaccine introduction, but temperature fluctuations during vaccine transport could cause vaccine potency loss that could go undetected. Bangladesh and other countries should strive to ensure consistent and sufficient cold-chain storage and monitor the cold chain during vaccine transportation at all levels.

Real-World Experience with Oritavancin Therapy in Invasive Gram-Positive Infections.

INTRODUCTION: Oritavancin is a novel lipoglycopeptide approved for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. The pharmacokinetic profile and convenient one-time dosing make oritavancin an enticing option for other serious Gram-positive infections requiring prolonged treatment courses. Unfortunately, data for using oritavancin in these populations are limited. METHODS: We report ten cases of oritavancin use for invasive Gram-positive infections in our health system, and provide a review of the currently available literature regarding oritavancin therapy for invasive infections. RESULTS: Among the ten patients who received oritavancin, the most common infection was methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) bacteremia (n = 5, 50%). Other indications for oritavancin use included methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) bursitis (n = 1, 10%), group B streptococcal bacteremia with native tricuspid valve infective endocarditis (n = 1, 10%), coagulase-negative staphylococcal bacteremia (n = 1, 10%), MSSA deep tissue infection (n = 1, 10%), and enterococcal bacteremia (n = 1, 10%). Oritavancin was well tolerated, and 7/10 (70%) patients were successfully treated. CONCLUSION: Oritavancin is a potential option for patients with invasive Gram-positive infections. Further study is warranted.