Immunogenicity and safety of beta variant COVID-19 vaccine AZD2816 and AZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) as primary-series vaccination for previously unvaccinated adults in Brazil, South Africa, Poland, and the UK: a randomised, partly double-blinded, phase 2/3 non-inferiority immunobridging study.

BACKGROUND: AZD2816 is a variant-adapted COVID-19 vaccine that expresses the full-length SARS-CoV-2 beta variant spike protein but is otherwise similar to AZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19). This study aimed to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of AZD1222 or AZD2816 (or both) primary-series vaccination in a cohort of adult participants who were previously unvaccinated. METHODS: In this phase 2/3, randomised, multinational, active-controlled, non-inferiority, immunobridging study, adult participants previously unvaccinated for COVID-19 were enrolled at 16 study sites in Brazil, South Africa, Poland, and the UK. Participants were stratified by age, sex, and comorbidity and randomly assigned 5:5:5:2 to receive a primary series of AZD1222 (AZD1222 group), AZD2816 (AZD2816 [4-week] group), or AZD1222-AZD2816 (AZD1222-AZD2816 group) at 4-week dosing intervals, or AZD2816 at a 12-week interval (AZD2816 [12-week] group) and evaluated for safety and immunogenicity through 180 days after dose 2. Primary outcomes were safety (rates of solicited adverse events occurring during 7 days and unsolicited adverse events occurring during 28 days after each dose) and immunogenicity (non-inferiority of pseudovirus neutralising antibody geometric mean titre [GMT], GMT ratio margin of 0·67, and seroresponse rate, rate difference margin of -10%, recorded 28 days after dose 2 with AZD2816 [4-week interval] against beta vs AZD1222 against ancestral SARS-CoV-2) in participants who were seronegative at baseline. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04973449, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between July 7 and Nov 12, 2021, 1449 participants were assigned to the AZD1222 group (n=413), the AZD2816 (4-week) group (n=415), the AZD1222-AZD2816 group (n=412), and the AZD2816 (12-week) group (n=209). Ten (2·6%) of 378 participants who were seronegative at baseline in the AZD1222 group, nine (2·4%) of 379 in the AZD2816 (4-week) group, eight (2·1%) of 380 in the AZD1222-AZD2816 group, and 11 (5·8%) of 191 in the AZD2816 (12-week) group had vaccine-related unsolicited adverse events. Serious adverse events were recorded in one (0·3%) participant in the AZD1222 group, one (0·3%) in the AZD2816 (4-week) group, two (0·5%) in the AZD1222-AZD2816 group, and none in the AZD2816 (12-week) group. Co-primary immunogenicity endpoints were met: neutralising antibody GMT (ratio 1·19 [95% CI 1·08-1·32]; lower bound greater than 0·67) and seroresponse rate (difference 1·7% [-3·1 to 6·5]; lower bound greater than -10%) at 28 days after dose 2 were non-inferior in the AZD2816 (4-week) group against beta versus in the AZD1222 group against ancestral SARS-CoV-2. Seroresponse rates were highest with AZD2816 against beta (12-week interval 94·3% [95% CI 89·4-97·3]; 4-week interval 85·7% [81·5-89·2]) and with AZD1222 (84·6% [80·3-88·2]) against ancestral SARS-CoV-2. INTERPRETATION: Primary series of AZD1222 and AZD2816 were well tolerated, with no emergent safety concerns. Both vaccines elicited robust immunogenicity against beta and ancestral SARS-CoV-2 with greater responses demonstrated when testing against SARS-CoV-2 strains that matched those targeted by the respective vaccine. These findings demonstrate the continued importance of ancestral COVID-19 vaccines in protecting against severe COVID-19 and highlight the feasibility of using the ChAdOx1 platform to develop COVID-19 vaccines against future SARS-CoV-2 variants. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Influenza Vaccination during Pregnancy: A Descriptive Study of the Knowledge, Beliefs, and Practices of Mexican Gynecologists and Family Physicians.

BACKGROUND: Influenza in pregnancy is associated with elevated morbidity and mortality. Influenza vaccines are safe and effective in pregnancy. There are no Mexican surveys of physicians on knowledge, beliefs, and practices towards influenza and influenza immunization during pregnancy. METHODS: A 32-question descriptive survey was conducted, addressing the general knowledge of influenza as well as beliefs and practices regarding influenza vaccination during pregnancy among Mexican physicians responsible for prenatal care, traditionally Obstetricians (OBGYNs) and Family Physicians (FPs). RESULTS: A total of 206 surveys were available, 98 (47.6%) from OBGYNs and 108 (52.4%) from FPs, representing an estimated 2472 daily pregnancy consultations. In total, 54 of the 206 respondents (26.2%) were not aware that influenza is more severe during pregnancy, 106 of the 206 respondents (51.5%) ignored the potential side effects of influenza infection on the fetus, and 56.8% did not know when to vaccinate pregnant women. Pregnancy as a risk factor for developing influenza complications was only known by 99 of the 206 respondents (48.1%), and 6.1% believed that vaccination does not confer protection to the fetus. CONCLUSIONS: The current beliefs of Mexican OBGYNs and FPs for both influenza morbidity and mortality, and the importance of influenza vaccination during pregnancy are suboptimal. The drivers of these beliefs should be assessed to improve influenza vaccination recommendations, as knowledge alone is not sufficient.

Immunogenicity, safety and reactogenicity of heterologous (third dose) booster vaccination with a full or fractional dose of two different COVID-19 vaccines: A phase 4, single-blind, randomized controlled trial in adults.

In this phase 4 study we assessed boosting with fractional doses of heterologous COVID-19 vaccines in Brazilian adults primed with two doses of CoronaVac (Sinovac/Butantan, São Paulo, Brazil) at least 4 months previously. Participants received either full-dose of ChAdOx1-S (Group 1, n = 232), a half dose of ChAdOx1-S (Group 2, n = 236), or a half dose of BNT162b2 (Group 3, n = 234). The primary objective was to show 80% seroresponse rates (SRR) 28 d after vaccination measured as IgG antibodies against a prototype SARS-CoV-2 spike-protein. Safety was assessed as solicited and unsolicited adverse events. At baseline all participants were seropositive, with high IgG titers overall. SRR at Day 28 were 34.3%, 27.1% and 71.2%, respectively, not meeting the primary objective of 80%, despite robust immune responses in all three groups with geometric mean-fold rise (GMFR) in IgG titers of 3.39, 2.99 and 7.42, respectively. IgG immune responses with similar GMFR were also observed against SARS-CoV-2 variants, Alpha, Beta, Delta, Gamma and D614G. In subsets (n = 35) of participants GMFR of neutralizing immune responses against live prototype SARS-CoV-2 virus and Omicron BA.2 were similar to the IgG responses as were pseudo-neutralizing responses against SARS-CoV-2 prototype and Omicron BA.4/5 variants. All vaccinations were well tolerated with no vaccine-related serious adverse events and mainly transient mild-to-moderate local and systemic reactogenicity. Heterologous boosting with full or half doses of ChAdOx1-S or a half dose of BNT162b2 was safe and immunogenic in CoronaVac-primed adults, but seroresponse rates were limited by high baseline immunity.

The role of a genetically stable, novel oral type 2 poliovirus vaccine in the poliomyelitis endgame

[ABSTRACT]. Poliovirus infection causes paralysis in up to 1 in 200 infected persons. The use of safe and effective inactivated poliovirus vaccines and live attenuated oral poliovirus vaccines (OPVs) means that only two pockets of wild- type poliovirus type 1 remain, in Afghanistan and Pakistan. However, OPVs can revert to virulence, causing outbreaks of circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus (cVDPV). During 2020–2022, cVDPV type 2 (cVDPV2) was responsible for 97–99% of poliomyelitis cases, mainly in Africa. Between January and August 2022, cVDPV2 was detected in sewage samples in Israel, the United Kingdom and the United States of America, where a case of acute flaccid paralysis caused by cVDPV2 also occurred. The Pan American Health Organization has warned that Brazil, the Dominican Republic, Haiti and Peru are at very high risk for the reintroduction of polio- virus and an additional eight countries in Latin America are at high risk, following dropping vaccination rates (average 80% coverage in 2022). Sabin type 2 monovalent OPV has been used to control VDPV2 outbreaks, but its use could also lead to outbreaks. To address this issue, a more genetically stable, novel OPV2 (nOPV2) was developed against cVDPV2 and in 2020 was granted World Health Organization Emergency Use Listing. Rolling out a novel vaccine under the Emergency Use Listing in mass settings to contain outbreaks requires unique local regulatory and operational preparedness.

[RESUMEN]. La infección por poliovirus ocasiona parálisis en hasta 1 de cada 200 personas infectadas. La utilización de vacunas con poliovirus inactivados y de vacunas antipoliomielíticas orales con poliovirus vivos atenuados (OPV) seguras y eficaces ha logrado que solo queden dos focos de poliovirus salvaje de tipo 1, en Afganistán y Pakistán. Sin embargo, las vacunas con OPV pueden revertir a la virulencia y producir brotes de poliovi- rus circulantes de origen vacunal (cVDPV). Durante el período 2020-2022, el cVDPV de tipo 2 (cVDPV2) fue la causa del 97-99% de los casos de poliomielitis, sobre todo en África. Entre enero y agosto del 2022, se encontró el cVDPV2 en muestras de aguas residuales en Estados Unidos de América, donde se produjo un caso de parálisis flácida aguda por el cVDPV2, Israel y Reino Unido y. La Organización Panamericana de la Salud ha advertido que, tras la caída de las tasas de vacunación (con una cobertura promedio del 80% en el 2022), Brasil, Haití, Perú y República Dominicana corren un riesgo muy alto de reintroducción del poliovirus, en tanto que otros ocho países de América Latina se encuentran en una situación de alto riesgo. La OPV mon- ovalente de tipo 2 de Sabin se ha utilizado para controlar los brotes de VDPV2, pero su empleo también podría ocasionar brotes. Para hacer frente a este problema, se creó una nueva OPV2 (nOPV2) contra el cVDPV2, genéticamente más estable, que en el 2020 se incluyó en la lista de uso en emergencias de la Organización Mundial de la Salud. El despliegue a gran escala de una nueva vacuna incluida en la lista de uso en emergen- cias con el fin de contener los brotes exige una extraordinaria preparación regulatoria y operativa local.

[RESUMO]. A infecção pelo poliovírus causa paralisia em 1 de cada 200 pessoas infectadas. O uso de vacinas seguras e eficazes, tanto vacinas inativadas contra o poliovírus quanto vacinas orais contendo poliovírus atenuado (VOP), significa que restam apenas dois bolsões de poliovírus selvagem tipo 1, um no Afeganistão e outro no Paquistão. No entanto, a VOP pode reverter à virulência, causando surtos de poliovírus circulante derivado de vacina (cPVDV). No período 2020-2022, o cPVDV tipo 2 (cPVDV2) foi responsável por 97% a 99% dos casos de poliomielite, principalmente na África. Entre janeiro e agosto de 2022, o cPVDV2 foi detectado em amostras de esgoto em Israel, no Reino Unido e nos Estados Unidos da América, onde também houve um caso de paralisia flácida aguda causada pelo cPVDV2. A Organização Pan-Americana da Saúde alertou que, devido à queda nas taxas de vacinação (cobertura média de 80% em 2022), o Brasil, o Haiti, o Peru e a República Dominicana correm um risco muito alto de reintrodução do poliovírus e outros oito países da América Latina correm um risco alto. A VOP monovalente Sabin tipo 2 tem sido usada para controlar surtos de PVDV2, mas seu uso também pode levar a surtos. Para resolver esse problema, foi desenvolvida uma nova VOP2 (nVOP2), mais estável geneticamente, para combater o cPVDV2. Em 2020, a nVOP2 entrou na Lista de Uso Emergencial da Organização Mundial da Saúde. A distribuição de uma nova vacina incluída na Lista de Uso Emergencial em contextos de massa para conter surtos requer medidas originais de preparação operacional e regulatória em âmbito local.

The role of a genetically stable, novel oral type 2 poliovirus vaccine in the poliomyelitis endgame / Utilidad de una nueva vacuna antipoliomielítica oral del serotipo 2 genéticamente estable contra el poliovirus de tipo 2 en la erradicación de la poliomielitis / O papel de uma nova vacina oral contra o poliovírus tipo 2, geneticamente estável, no estágio final da eliminação da poliomielite

ABSTRACT Poliovirus infection causes paralysis in up to 1 in 200 infected persons. The use of safe and effective inactivated poliovirus vaccines and live attenuated oral poliovirus vaccines (OPVs) means that only two pockets of wild-type poliovirus type 1 remain, in Afghanistan and Pakistan. However, OPVs can revert to virulence, causing outbreaks of circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus (cVDPV). During 2020-2022, cVDPV type 2 (cVDPV2) was responsible for 97-99% of poliomyelitis cases, mainly in Africa. Between January and August 2022, cVDPV2 was detected in sewage samples in Israel, the United Kingdom and the United States of America, where a case of acute flaccid paralysis caused by cVDPV2 also occurred. The Pan American Health Organization has warned that Brazil, the Dominican Republic, Haiti and Peru are at very high risk for the reintroduction of poliovirus and an additional eight countries in Latin America are at high risk, following dropping vaccination rates (average 80% coverage in 2022). Sabin type 2 monovalent OPV has been used to control VDPV2 outbreaks, but its use could also lead to outbreaks. To address this issue, a more genetically stable, novel OPV2 (nOPV2) was developed against cVDPV2 and in 2020 was granted World Health Organization Emergency Use Listing. Rolling out a novel vaccine under the Emergency Use Listing in mass settings to contain outbreaks requires unique local regulatory and operational preparedness.

RESUMEN La infección por poliovirus ocasiona parálisis en hasta 1 de cada 200 personas infectadas. La utilización de vacunas con poliovirus inactivados y de vacunas antipoliomielíticas orales con poliovirus vivos atenuados (OPV) seguras y eficaces ha logrado que solo queden dos focos de poliovirus salvaje de tipo 1, en Afganistán y Pakistán. Sin embargo, las vacunas con OPV pueden revertir a la virulencia y producir brotes de poliovirus circulantes de origen vacunal (cVDPV). Durante el período 2020-2022, el cVDPV de tipo 2 (cVDPV2) fue la causa del 97-99% de los casos de poliomielitis, sobre todo en África. Entre enero y agosto del 2022, se encontró el cVDPV2 en muestras de aguas residuales en Estados Unidos de América, donde se produjo un caso de parálisis flácida aguda por el cVDPV2, Israel y Reino Unido y. La Organización Panamericana de la Salud ha advertido que, tras la caída de las tasas de vacunación (con una cobertura promedio del 80% en el 2022), Brasil, Haití, Perú y República Dominicana corren un riesgo muy alto de reintroducción del poliovirus, en tanto que otros ocho países de América Latina se encuentran en una situación de alto riesgo. La OPV monovalente de tipo 2 de Sabin se ha utilizado para controlar los brotes de VDPV2, pero su empleo también podría ocasionar brotes. Para hacer frente a este problema, se creó una nueva OPV2 (nOPV2) contra el cVDPV2, genéticamente más estable, que en el 2020 se incluyó en la lista de uso en emergencias de la Organización Mundial de la Salud. El despliegue a gran escala de una nueva vacuna incluida en la lista de uso en emergencias con el fin de contener los brotes exige una extraordinaria preparación regulatoria y operativa local.

RESUMO A infecção pelo poliovírus causa paralisia em 1 de cada 200 pessoas infectadas. O uso de vacinas seguras e eficazes, tanto vacinas inativadas contra o poliovírus quanto vacinas orais contendo poliovírus atenuado (VOP), significa que restam apenas dois bolsões de poliovírus selvagem tipo 1, um no Afeganistão e outro no Paquistão. No entanto, a VOP pode reverter à virulência, causando surtos de poliovírus circulante derivado de vacina (cPVDV). No período 2020-2022, o cPVDV tipo 2 (cPVDV2) foi responsável por 97% a 99% dos casos de poliomielite, principalmente na África. Entre janeiro e agosto de 2022, o cPVDV2 foi detectado em amostras de esgoto em Israel, no Reino Unido e nos Estados Unidos da América, onde também houve um caso de paralisia flácida aguda causada pelo cPVDV2. A Organização Pan-Americana da Saúde alertou que, devido à queda nas taxas de vacinação (cobertura média de 80% em 2022), o Brasil, o Haiti, o Peru e a República Dominicana correm um risco muito alto de reintrodução do poliovírus e outros oito países da América Latina correm um risco alto. A VOP monovalente Sabin tipo 2 tem sido usada para controlar surtos de PVDV2, mas seu uso também pode levar a surtos. Para resolver esse problema, foi desenvolvida uma nova VOP2 (nVOP2), mais estável geneticamente, para combater o cPVDV2. Em 2020, a nVOP2 entrou na Lista de Uso Emergencial da Organização Mundial da Saúde. A distribuição de uma nova vacina incluída na Lista de Uso Emergencial em contextos de massa para conter surtos requer medidas originais de preparação operacional e regulatória em âmbito local.

Effectiveness of the Fiocruz recombinant ChadOx1-nCoV19 against variants of SARS-CoV-2 in the Municipality of Botucatu-SP.

Introduction: As the COVID-19 pandemic progresses, rapidly emerging variants of concern raise fears that currently licensed vaccines may have reduced effectiveness against these new strains. In the municipality of Botucatu, São Paulo State, Brazil, a mass vaccination campaign using ChadOx1-nCoV19 was initiated on 16th of May 2021, targeting people 18-60 years old. Two vaccine doses were offered 12 weeks apart, with the second delivered on 8th of August, 2021. This setting offered a unique opportunity to assess the effectiveness of two ChadOx1-nCoV19 doses in a real-life setting. Materials and methods: Data on testing, hospitalization, symptoms, demographics, and vaccination were obtained from the Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina de Botucatu. A test-negative study design was employed; whereby the odds of being vaccinated among cases vs controls were calculated to estimate vaccine effectiveness (VE; 1-OR). All individuals aged 18-60 who received a PCR test after the 16th of May and were unvaccinated prior to this date were included in the analysis until the study ended in mid-November 2021. Results: 77,683 citizens of Botucatu aged 18-60 received the first dose, and 74,051 received a second ChadOx1-nCoV19 dose 12 weeks later for a vaccination coverage of 84.2 and 80.2%, respectively. Of 7.958 eligible PCR tests, 2.109 were positive and 5.849 negative. The VE against any symptomatic infection was estimated at 39.2%, 21 days after dose 1, and 74.5%, 14 days after dose 2. There were no COVID-19-related hospitalizations or deaths among the 74,051 fully vaccinated individuals. The VE against severe disease was estimated at 70.8 and 100% after doses 1 and 2, respectively. 90.5% of all lineages sequenced between doses 1 and 2 (16th of May-7th of August) were of the Gamma variant, while 83.0% were of the Delta variant during the second period after dose 2 (8th of August-18th of November). Discussion: This observational study found the effectiveness of ChadOx1-nCoV19 to be 74.5% against COVID-19 disease of any severity, comparable to the efficacy observed in clinical trials (81.3% after dose 2), despite the dominance of the Gamma and Delta VoCs. No COVID-19-related hospitalizations or deaths in fully vaccinated individuals were reported.

Heterologous versus homologous COVID-19 booster vaccination in previous recipients of two doses of CoronaVac COVID-19 vaccine in Brazil (RHH-001): a phase 4, non-inferiority, single blind, randomised study.

INTRODUCTION: The inactivated whole-virion SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (CoronaVac, Sinovac) has been widely used in a two-dose schedule. We assessed whether a third dose of the homologous or a different vaccine could boost immune responses. METHODS: RHH-001 is a phase 4, participant masked, two centre, safety and immunogenicity study of Brazilian adults (18 years and older) in São Paulo or Salvador who had received two doses of CoronaVac 6 months previously. The third heterologous dose was of either a recombinant adenoviral vectored vaccine (Ad26.COV2-S, Janssen), an mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2, Pfizer-BioNTech), or a recombinant adenoviral-vectored ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222, AstraZeneca), compared with a third homologous dose of CoronaVac. Participants were randomly assigned (5:6:5:5) by a RedCAP computer randomisation system stratified by site, age group (18-60 years or 61 years and over), and day of randomisation, with a block size of 42. The primary outcome was non-inferiority of anti-spike IgG antibodies 28 days after the booster dose in the heterologous boost groups compared with homologous regimen, using a non-inferiority margin for the geometric mean ratio (heterologous vs homologous) of 0·67. Secondary outcomes included neutralising antibody titres at day 28, local and systemic reactogenicity profiles, adverse events, and serious adverse events. This study was registered with Registro Brasileiro de Ensaios Clínicos, number RBR-9nn3scw. FINDINGS: Between Aug 16, and Sept 1, 2021, 1240 participants were randomly assigned to one of the four groups, of whom 1239 were vaccinated and 1205 were eligible for inclusion in the primary analysis. Antibody concentrations were low before administration of a booster dose with detectable neutralising antibodies of 20·4% (95% CI 12·8-30·1) in adults aged 18-60 years and 8·9% (4·2-16·2) in adults 61 years or older. From baseline to day 28 after the booster vaccine, all groups had a substantial rise in IgG antibody concentrations: the geometric fold-rise was 77 (95% CI 67-88) for Ad26.COV2-S, 152 (134-173) for BNT162b2, 90 (77-104) for ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, and 12 (11-14) for CoronaVac. All heterologous regimens had anti-spike IgG responses at day 28 that were superior to homologous booster responses: geometric mean ratios (heterologous vs homologous) were 6·7 (95% CI 5·8-7·7) for Ad26.COV2-S, 13·4 (11·6-15·3) for BNT162b2, and 7·0 (6·1-8·1) for ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. All heterologous boost regimens induced high concentrations of pseudovirus neutralising antibodies. At day 28, all groups except for the homologous boost in the older adults reached 100% seropositivity: geometric mean ratios (heterologous vs homologous) were 8·7 (95% CI 5·9-12·9) for Ad26.COV2-S vaccine, 21·5 (14·5-31·9) for BNT162b2, and 10·6 (7·2-15·6) for ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. Live virus neutralising antibodies were also boosted against delta (B.1.617.2) and omicron variants (B.1.1.529). There were five serious adverse events. Three of which were considered possibly related to the vaccine received: one in the BNT162b2 group and two in the Ad26.COV2-S group. All participants recovered and were discharged home. INTERPRETATION: Antibody concentrations were low at 6 months after previous immunisation with two doses of CoronaVac. However, all four vaccines administered as a third dose induced a significant increase in binding and neutralising antibodies, which could improve protection against infection. Heterologous boosting resulted in more robust immune responses than homologous boosting and might enhance protection. FUNDING: Ministry of Health, Brazil.

Economic Evaluation of Universal Varicella Vaccination in Mexico.

BACKGROUND: Universal varicella vaccination has proven to be cost-effective (CE) in countries where implemented. However, this has not been evaluated for Mexico. METHODS: The yearly disease burden (varicella cases/deaths, outpatient visits, and hospitalizations) was derived from Mexican seroprevalence data adjusted to the 2020 population. The yearly economic burden was calculated by combining disease with Mexican unit cost data from both health care and societal perspectives. Four different vaccination strategies were evaluated: (1) 1 dose of varicella vaccine at 1 year old; (2) 2 doses at 1 and 6 years; (3) 1 dose of varicella vaccine at 1 year, and quadrivalent measles-mumps-rubella-varicella vaccine at 6 years; (4) 2 doses of measles-mumps-rubella-varicella vaccine at 1 and 6 years. We developed an economic model for each vaccination strategy where 20 consecutive birth cohorts were simulated. Vaccination impact (number of avoided cases/deaths) was evaluated for a 20-year follow-up period based on vaccine effectiveness (87% and 97.4% for 1 and 2 doses), and assuming a 95% coverage. We estimated annual costs saved, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and costs per life year gained. RESULTS: Avoided cases during the 20-year follow-up with 1, and 2 doses were 20,570,722 and 23,029,751, respectively. Strategies 1 and 2 were found to be cost saving, and strategy 3 to be CE. Strategy 4 was not CE. Strategies 1 and 2 would allow saving annually $53.16 and $34.41 million USD, respectively, to the Mexican society. CONCLUSIONS: Universal varicella vaccination, using 1 dose or 2 doses, would result in a cost-beneficial and CE public health intervention in Mexico.

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 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.

Inactivated poliovirus vaccine given alone or in a sequential schedule with bivalent oral poliovirus vaccine in Chilean infants: a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 4, non-inferiority study.

BACKGROUND: Bivalent oral poliovirus vaccine (bOPV; types 1 and 3) is expected to replace trivalent OPV (tOPV) globally by April, 2016, preceded by the introduction of at least one dose of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) in routine immunisation programmes to eliminate vaccine-associated or vaccine-derived poliomyelitis from serotype 2 poliovirus. Because data are needed on sequential IPV-bOPV schedules, we assessed the immunogenicity of two different IPV-bOPV schedules compared with an all-IPV schedule in infants. METHODS: We did a randomised, controlled, open-label, non-inferiority trial with healthy, full-term (>2·5 kg birthweight) infants aged 8 weeks (± 7 days) at six well-child clinics in Santiago, Chile. We used supplied lists to randomly assign infants (1:1:1) to receive three polio vaccinations (IPV by injection or bOPV as oral drops) at age 8, 16, and 24 weeks in one of three sequential schedules: IPV-bOPV-bOPV, IPV-IPV-bOPV, or IPV-IPV-IPV. We did the randomisation with blocks of 12 stratified by study site. All analyses were done in a masked manner. Co-primary outcomes were non-inferiority of the bOPV-containing schedules compared with the all-IPV schedule for seroconversion (within a 10% margin) and antibody titres (within two-thirds log2 titres) to poliovirus serotypes 1 and 3 at age 28 weeks, analysed in the per-protocol population. Secondary outcomes were seroconversion and titres to serotype 2 and faecal shedding for 4 weeks after a monovalent OPV type 2 challenge at age 28 weeks. Safety analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01841671, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between April 25 and August 1, 2013, we assigned 570 infants to treatment: 190 to IPV-bOPV-bOPV, 192 to IPV-IPV-bOPV, and 188 to IPV-IPV-IPV. 564 (99%) were vaccinated and included in the intention-to-treat cohort, and 537 (94%) in the per-protocol analyses. In the IPV-bOPV-bOPV, IPV-IPV-bOPV, and IPV-IPV-IPV groups, respectively, the proportions of children with seroconversion to type 1 poliovirus were 166 (98·8%) of 168, 95% CI 95·8-99·7; 178 (100%), 97·9-100·0; and 175 (100%), 97·9-100·0. Proportions with seroconvsion to type 3 poliovirus were 163 (98·2%) of 166, 94·8-99·4; 177 (100%), 97·9-100·0, and 172 (98·9%) of 174, 95·9-99·7. Non-inferiority was thus shown for the bOPV-containing schedules compared with the all-IPV schedule, with no significant differences between groups. In the IPV-bOPV-bOPV, IPV-IPV-bOPV, and IPV-IPV-IPV groups, respectively, the proportions of children with seroprotective antibody titres to type 1 poliovirus were 168 (98·8%) of 170, 95% CI 95·8-99·7; 181 (100%), 97·9-100·0; and 177 (100%), 97·9-100·0. Proportions to type 3 poliovirus were 166 (98·2%) of 169, 94·9-99·4; 180 (100%), 97·9-100·0; and 174 (98·9%) of 176, 96·0-99·7. Non-inferiority comparisons could not be done for this outcome because median titres for the groups receiving OPV were greater than the assay's upper limit of detection (log2 titres >10·5). The proportions of children seroconverting to type 2 poliovirus in the IPV-bOPV-bOPV, IPV-IPV-bOPV, and IPV-IPV-IPV groups, respectively, were 130 (77·4%) of 168, 95% CI 70·5-83·0; 169 (96·0%) of 176, 92·0-98·0; and 175 (100%), 97·8-100. IPV-bOPV schedules resulted in almost a 0·3 log reduction of type 2 faecal shedding compared with the IPV-only schedule. No participants died during the trial; 81 serious adverse events were reported, of which one was thought to be possibly vaccine-related (intestinal intussusception). INTERPRETATION: Seroconversion rates against polioviruses types 1 and 3 were non-inferior in sequential schedules containing IPV and bOPV, compared with an all-IPV schedule, and proportions of infants with protective antibodies were high after all three schedules. One or two doses of bOPV after IPV boosted intestinal immunity for poliovirus type 2, suggesting possible cross protection. Additionally, there was evidence of humoral priming for type 2 from one dose of IPV. Our findings could give policy makers flexibility when choosing a vaccination schedule, especially when trying to eliminate vaccine-associated and vaccine-derived poliomyelitis. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Hepatitis B seroprevalence in Latin America / La seroprevalencia de hepatitis B en América Latina

The seroprevalence of hepatitis B was investigated in over 12.000 subjects in six countries of Latin America: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Mexico and Venezuela. Each study population was stratified according to age, gender and socioeconomic status. Antibodies against hepatitis B core antigen (anti-HBc) were measured in order to determine hepatitis B infection. The highest overall seroprevalence was found in the Dominican Republic (21.4 por ciento), followed by Brazil (7,9 por ciento), Venezuela (3,2 por ciento), Argentina (2,1 por ciento), Mexico (1,4 por ciento) and Chile (0,6 por ciento). In all the countries an increase in seroprevalence was found among persons 16 years old and older, suggesting sexual transmission as the major route of infection. In addition, comparatively high seroprevalence levels were seen at an early age in the Dominican Republic and Brazil, implicating a vertical route of transmission

Se investigó la seroprevalencia de hepatitis B en más de 12 000 sujetos en seis países de América Latina: Argentina, Brasil, Chile, México, República Dominicana y Venezuela. Cada una de las poblaciones estudiadas fue estratificada por edad, sexo y nivel socioeconómico. Se hicieron determinaciones de anticuerpos contra el antígeno nuclear del virus de la hepatitis B (anti-HBc) con el fin de detectar la infección. La seroprevalencia general más alta se encontró en la República Dominicana (21,4%), seguida del Brasil (7,9%), Venezuela (3,2%), Argentina (2,1%), México (1,4%) y Chile (0,6%). En todos los países se encontró un aumento de la seroprevalencia en personas de 16 años de edad o mayores, lo cual indica que la transmisión sexual es la principal fuente de infección. También se hallaron tasas de seroprevalencia elevadas en personas jóvenes en la República Dominicana y el Brasil, fenómeno que apunta hacia la vía de transmisión vertical