Sequential inactivated (IPV) and live oral (OPV) poliovirus vaccines for preventing poliomyelitis

Oral and fecal polio vaccine excretion following bOPV vaccination among Israeli infants

INTRODUCTION

Inactivated polio virus (IPV) vaccinations are a mainstay of immunization schedules in developed countries, while oral polio vaccine (OPV) is administered in developing countries and is the main vaccine in outbreaks. Due to circulating wild poliovirus (WPV1) detection in Israel (2013), oral bivalent polio vaccination (bOPV) was administered to IPV primed children and incorporated into the vaccination regimen.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to determine the extent and timeframe of fecal and salivary polio vaccine virus (Sabin strains) shedding following bOPV vaccination among IPV primed children.

METHODS

Fecal samples were collected from a convenience sample of infants and toddlers attending 11 Israeli daycare centers. Salivary samples were collected from infants and toddlers following bOPV vaccination.

RESULTS

398 fecal samples were collected from 251 children (ages: 6-32 months), 168 received bOPV vaccination 4-55 days prior to sample collection. Fecal excretion continued among 80 %, 50 %, and 20 %, 2, 3, and 7 weeks following vaccination. There were no significant differences in the rate and duration of positive samples among children immunized with 3 or 4 IPV doses. Boys were 2.3-fold more likely to excrete the virus (p = 0.006). Salivary shedding of Sabin strains occurred in 1/47 (2 %) and 1/49 (2 %) samples 4, and 6 days following vaccination respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Fecal detection of Sabin strains among IPV-primed children continues for 7 weeks; additional doses of IPV do not augment intestinal immunity; limited salivary shedding occurs for up to a week. This data can enhance understanding of intestinal immunity achieved by different vaccination schedules and guide recommendations for contact precautions of children following bOPV vaccination.

The inactivation and destruction of viruses by reactive oxygen species generated through physical and cold atmospheric plasma techniques: Current status and perspectives

BACKGROUND

Outbreaks of airborne viral infections, such as COVID-19, can cause panic regarding other severe respiratory syndrome diseases that may develop and affect public health. It is therefore necessary to develop control methods that offer protection against such viruses.

AIM OF REVIEW

To identify a feasible solution for virus deactivation, we critically reviewed methods of generating reactive oxygen species (ROS), which can attack a wide range of molecular targets to induce antiviral activity, accounting for their flexibility in facilitating host defense mechanisms against a comprehensive range of pathogens. Recently, the role of ROS in microbial decontamination has been critically investigated as a major topic in infectious diseases. ROS can eradicate pathogens directly by inducing oxidative stress or indirectly by promoting pathogen removal through numerous non-oxidative mechanisms, including autophagy, T-cell responses, and pattern recognition receptor signaling.

KEY SCIENTIFIC CONCEPTS OF REVIEW

In this article, we reviewed possible methods for the in vitro generation of ROS with antiviral activity. Furthermore, we discuss, in detail, the novel and environmentally friendly cold plasma delivery system in the destruction of viruses. This review highlights the potential of ROS as therapeutic mediators to modernize current techniques and improvement on the efficiency of inactivating SARS-CoV2 and other viruses.

Controlled Human Infection Models To Accelerate Vaccine Development

The timelines for developing vaccines against infectious diseases are lengthy, and often vaccines that reach the stage of large phase 3 field trials fail to provide the desired level of protective efficacy. The application of controlled human challenge models of infection and disease at the appropriate stages of development could accelerate development of candidate vaccines and, in fact, has done so successfully in some limited cases. Human challenge models could potentially be used to gather critical information on pathogenesis, inform strain selection for vaccines, explore cross-protective immunity, identify immune correlates of protection and mechanisms of protection induced by infection or evoked by candidate vaccines, guide decisions on appropriate trial endpoints, and evaluate vaccine efficacy. We prepared this report to motivate fellow scientists to exploit the potential capacity of controlled human challenge experiments to advance vaccine development. In this review, we considered available challenge models for 17 infectious diseases in the context of the public health importance of each disease, the diversity and pathogenesis of the causative organisms, the vaccine candidates under development, and each model's capacity to evaluate them and identify correlates of protective immunity. Our broad assessment indicated that human challenge models have not yet reached their full potential to support the development of vaccines against infectious diseases. On the basis of our review, however, we believe that describing an ideal challenge model is possible, as is further developing existing and future challenge models.

Insights into COVID-19 Vaccine Development Based on Immunogenic Structural Proteins of SARS-CoV-2, Host Immune Responses, and Herd Immunity

The first quarter of the 21st century has remarkably been characterized by a multitude of challenges confronting human society as a whole in terms of several outbreaks of infectious viral diseases, such as the 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), China; the 2009 influenza H1N1, Mexico; the 2012 Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), Saudi Arabia; and the ongoing coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19), China. COVID-19, caused by SARS-CoV-2, reportedly broke out in December 2019, Wuhan, the capital of China’s Hubei province, and continues unabated, leading to considerable devastation and death worldwide. The most common target organ of SARS-CoV-2 is the lungs, especially the bronchial and alveolar epithelial cells, culminating in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in severe patients. Nevertheless, other tissues and organs are also known to be critically affected following infection, thereby complicating the overall aetiology and prognosis. Excluding H1N1, the SARS-CoV (also referred as SARS-CoV-1), MERS, and SARS-CoV-2 are collectively referred to as coronaviruses, and taxonomically placed under the realm Riboviria, order Nidovirales, suborder Cornidovirineae, family Coronaviridae, subfamily Orthocoronavirinae, genus Betacoronavirus, and subgenus Sarbecovirus. As of 23 September 2021, the ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has globally resulted in around 229 million and 4.7 million reported infections and deaths, respectively, apart from causing huge psychosomatic debilitation, academic loss, and deep economic recession. Such an unprecedented pandemic has compelled researchers, especially epidemiologists and immunologists, to search for SARS-CoV-2-associated potential immunogenic molecules to develop a vaccine as an immediate prophylactic measure. Amongst multiple structural and non-structural proteins, the homotrimeric spike (S) glycoprotein has been empirically found as the most suitable candidate for vaccine development owing to its immense immunogenic potential, which makes it capable of eliciting both humoral and cell-mediated immune responses. As a consequence, it has become possible to design appropriate, safe, and effective vaccines, apart from related therapeutic agents, to reduce both morbidity and mortality. As of 23 September 2021, four vaccines, namely, Comirnaty, COVID-19 vaccine Janssen, Spikevax, and Vaxzevria, have received the European Medicines Agency’s (EMA) approval, and around thirty are under the phase three clinical trial with emergency authorization by the vaccine-developing country-specific National Regulatory Authority (NRA). In addition, 100–150 vaccines are under various phases of pre-clinical and clinical trials. The mainstay of global vaccination is to introduce herd immunity, which would protect the majority of the population, including immunocompromised individuals, from infection and disease. Here, we primarily discuss category-wise vaccine development, their respective advantages and disadvantages, associated efficiency and potential safety aspects, antigenicity of SARS-CoV-2 structural proteins and immune responses to them along with the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 VOC, and the urgent need of achieving herd immunity to contain the pandemic.

Immunogenicity and safety of sabin-strain based inactivated poliovirus vaccine replacing salk-strain based inactivated poliovirus vaccine: An innovative application of different strain-IPVs replacement

BACKGROUND

A domestic Sabin strain-based inactivated poliovirus vaccine (Sabin IPV) was approved by China Food and Drug Administration in 2017 as a replacement for the Salk strain-based inactivated poliovirus vaccine (Salk IPV) that has been in use in China for over 10 years. The present post-marketing trial was implemented in China to assess the immunogenicity and safety of replacing the Salk IPV with the Sabin IPV in the last two immunizations of the standard three-dose schedule.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized, controlled clinical trial with two groups that received three doses of IPVs at the age of 2, 3, and 4 months: the Salk-Sabin-Sabin group and the Salk-Salk-Salk group. Blood samples were collected before vaccination and 30-40 days after the third dose of vaccination. The seroconversion rates and antibody geometric mean titers (GMTs) were calculated and analyzed to evaluate immunogenicity. The safety of both immunization schedules was also monitored and analyzed.

RESULTS

Of 360 recruited healthy infants, all three IPV doses were administered and blood collection was completed in 330 infants. All participants (100%) in both groups were seropositive for all three poliovirus types after the last vaccination. There were significant differences between the two groups (P < 0.001) in the GMTs for antibodies against poliovirus types 1 and 2, but no significant difference was observed for antibodies against type 3 (P = 0.009). A non-inferiority t-test showed that the post-immunization GMTs for all three types in the Salk-Sabin-Sabin group were not inferior to those in the Salk-Salk-Salk group (P < 0.001). Safety assessment indicated that there was no significant difference in the incidence of all adverse events between the two groups (P = 0.806).

CONCLUSIONS

The Salk-Sabin-Sabin IPV immunization schedule is not inferior to the Salk-Salk-Salk IPV schedule in terms of both immunogenicity and safety. Clinical trial number: NCT04051736.

Equivalent schedules of intradermal fractional dose versus intramuscular full dose of inactivated polio vaccine for prevention of poliomyelitis

BACKGROUND

Poliomyelitis is a debilitating and deadly infection. Despite exponential growth in medical science, there is still no cure for the disease, which is caused by three types of wild polioviruses: types 1, 2, and 3. According to the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI), wild poliovirus is still in circulation in three countries, and fresh cases have been reported even in the year 2018. Due to the administration of live vaccines, the risk for vaccine-derived poliovirus (VDPV) is high in areas that are free from wild polioviruses. This is evident based on the fact that VDPV caused 20 outbreaks between 2000 and 2011. Recent recommendations from the World Health Organization favoured the inclusion of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) in the global immunisation schedule. IPV can be delivered in two ways: intramuscularly and intradermally. IPV was previously administered intramuscularly, but shortages in vaccine supplies, coupled with the higher costs of the vaccines, led to the innovation of delivering a fractional dose (one-fifth) of IPV intradermally. However, there is uncertainty regarding the efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of an intradermal, fractional dose of IPV compared to an intramuscular, full dose of IPV.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the immunogenicity and efficacy of an inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) in equivalent immunisation schedules using fractional-dose IPV given via the intradermal route versus full-dose IPV given via the intramuscular route.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 10 other databases, and two trial registers up to February 2019. We also searched the GPEI website and scanned the bibliographies of key studies and reviews in order to identify any additional published and unpublished trials in this area not captured by our electronic searches.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of healthy individuals of any age who are eligible for immunisation with IPV, comparing intradermal fractional-dose (one-fifth) IPV to intramuscular full-dose IPV.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 RCTs involving a total of 7292 participants, both children (n = 6402) and adults (n = 890). Nine studies were conducted in middle-income countries, three studies in high-income countries, and only one study in a low-income country. Five studies did not report methods of randomisation, and one study failed to conceal the allocations. Eleven studies did not blind participants, and six studies did not blind outcome assessments. Two studies had high attrition rates, and one study selectively reported the results. Three studies were funded by pharmaceutical companies. Paralytic poliomyelitis. No study reported data on this outcome. Seroconversion rates. These were significantly higher for all three types of wild poliovirus for children given intramuscular full-dose IPV after a single primary dose and two primary doses, but only significantly higher for type two wild poliovirus given intramuscularly after three primary doses: • dose one (six studies): poliovirus type 1 (odds ratio (OR) 0.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 0.41; 2570 children); poliovirus type 2 (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.60; 2567 children); poliovirus type 3 (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.30; 2571 children); • dose two (three studies): poliovirus type 1 (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.33; 981 children); poliovirus type 2 (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.60; 853 children); and poliovirus type 3 (OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.22; 855 children); and • dose three (three studies): poliovirus type 1 (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.15; 973 children); poliovirus type 2 (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.63; 973 children); and poliovirus type 3 (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.58; 973 children). Using the GRADE approach, we rated the certainty of the evidence as low or very low for seroconversion rate (after a single, two, or three primary doses) for all three poliovirus types due to significant risk of bias, heterogeneity, and indirectness in applicability/generalisability. Geometric mean titres. No study reported mean antibody titres. Median antibody titres were higher for intramuscular full-dose IPV (7 studies with 4887 children); although these studies also reported a rise in antibody titres in the intradermal group, none reported the duration for which the titres remained high. Any vaccine-related adverse event. Five studies (2217 children) reported more adverse events, such as fever and redness, in the intradermal group, whilst two studies (1904 children) reported more adverse events in the intramuscular group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low- and very low-certainty evidence that intramuscular full-dose IPV may result in a slight increase in seroconversion rates for all three types of wild poliovirus, compared with intradermal fractional-dose IPV. We are uncertain whether intradermal fractional-dose (one-fifth) IPV has better protective effects and causes fewer adverse events in children than intramuscular full-dose IPV.

Sequential inactivated (IPV) and live oral (OPV) poliovirus vaccines for preventing poliomyelitis

BACKGROUND

Poliomyelitis mainly affects unvaccinated children under five years of age, causing irreversible paralysis or even death. The oral polio vaccine (OPV) contains live attenuated virus, which can, in rare cases, cause a paralysis known as vaccine-associated paralytic polio (VAPP), and also vaccine-derived polioviruses (VDPVs) due to acquired neurovirulence after prolonged duration of replication. The incidence of poliomyelitis caused by wild polio virus (WPV) has declined dramatically since the introduction of OPV and later the inactivated polio vaccine (IPV), however, the cases of paralysis linked to the OPV are currently more frequent than those related to the WPV. Therefore, in 2016, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended at least one IPV dose preceding routine immunisation with OPV to reduce VAPPs and VDPVs until polio could be eradicated.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness, safety, and immunogenicity of sequential IPV-OPV immunisation schemes compared to either OPV or IPV alone.

SEARCH METHODS

In May 2019 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 14 other databases, three trials registers and reports of adverse effects on four web sites. We also searched the references of identified studies, relevant reviews and contacted authors to identify additional references.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, controlled before-after studies, nationwide uncontrolled before-after studies (UBAs), interrupted time series (ITS) and controlled ITS comparing sequential IPV-OPV schedules (one or more IPV doses followed by one or more OPV doses) with IPV alone, OPV alone or non-sequential IPV-OPV combinations.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 studies: 16 RCTs involving 6407 healthy infants (age range 96 to 975 days, mean 382 days), one ITS with 28,330 infants and four nationwide studies (two ITS, two UBA). Ten RCTs were conducted in high-income countries; five in the USA, two in the UK, and one each in Chile, Israel, and Oman. The remaining six RCTs were conducted in middle-income countries; China, Bangladesh, Guatemala, India, and Thailand. We rated all included RCTs at low or unclear risk of bias for randomisation domains, most at high or unclear risk of attrition bias, and half at high or unclear risk for conflict of interests. Almost all RCTs were at low risk for the remaining domains. ITSs and UBAs were mainly considered at low risk of bias for most domains. IPV-OPV versus OPV It is uncertain if an IPV followed by OPV schedule is better than OPV alone at reducing the number of WPV cases (very low-certainty evidence); however, it may reduce VAPP cases by 54% to 100% (three nationwide studies; low-certainty evidence). There is little or no difference in vaccination coverage between IPV-OPV and OPV-only schedules (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 1.06; 1 ITS study; low-certainty evidence). Similarly, there is little or no difference between the two schedule types for the number of serious adverse events (SAEs) (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.70; 4 studies, 1948 participants; low-certainty evidence); or the number of people with protective humoral response P1 (moderate-certainty evidence), P2 (for the most studied schedule; two IPV doses followed by OPV; low-certainty evidence), and P3 (low-certainty evidence). Two IPV doses followed by bivalent OPV (IIbO) may reduce P2 neutralising antibodies compared to trivalent OPV (moderate-certainty evidence), but may make little or no difference to P1 or P2 neutralising antibodies following an IIO schedule or OPV alone (low-certainty evidence). Both IIO and IIbO schedules may increase P3 neutralising antibodies compared to OPV (moderate-certainty evidence). It may also lead to lower mucosal immunity given increased faecal excretion of P1 (low-certainty evidence), P2 and P3 (moderate-certainty evidence) after OPV challenge. IPV-OPV versus IPV It is uncertain if IPV-OPV is more effective than IPV alone at reducing the number of WPV cases (very low-certainty evidence). There were no data regarding VAPP cases. There is no clear evidence of a difference between IPV-OPV and OPV schedules for the number of people with protective humoral response (low- and moderate-certainty evidence). IPV-OPV schedules may increase mean titres of P1 neutralising antibodies compared to OPV alone (low- and moderate-certainty evidence), but the effect on P2 and P3 titres is not clear (very low- and moderate-certainty evidence). IPV-OPV probably reduces the number of people with P3 poliovirus faecal excretion after OPV challenge with IIO and IIOO sequences (moderate-certainty evidence), and may reduce the number with P2 (low-certainty evidence), but not with P1 (very low-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference between the schedules in number of SAEs (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.43; 2 studies, 1063 participants, low-certainty evidence). The number of persons with P2 protective humoral immunity and P2 neutralising antibodies are probably lower with most sequential schemes without P2 components (i.e. bOPV) than with trivalent OPV or IVP alone (moderate-certainty evidence). IPV (3)-OPV versus IPV (2)-OPV One study (137 participants) showed no clear evidence of a difference between three IPV doses followed by OPV and two IPV doses followed by OPV, on the number of people with P1 (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.03), P2 (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.03), or P3 (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.05) protective humoral and intestinal immunity; all moderate-certainty evidence. This study did not report on any other outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

IPV-OPV compared to OPV may reduce VAPPs without affecting vaccination coverage, safety or humoral response, except P2 with sequential schemes without P2 components, but increase poliovirus faecal excretion after OPV challenge for some polio serotypes. Compared to IPV-only schedules, IPV-OPV may have little or no difference on SAEs, probably has little or no effect on persons with protective humoral response, may increase neutralising antibodies, and probably reduces faecal excretion after OPV challenge of certain polio serotypes. Using three IPV doses as part of a IPV-OPV schedule does not appear to be better than two IPV doses for protective humoral response. Sequential schedules during the transition from OPV to IPV-only immunisation schedules seems a reasonable option aligned with current WHO recommendations. Findings could help decision-makers to optimise polio vaccination policies, reducing inequities between countries.