Vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis in the Russian Federation in 1998-2014

Surveillance of acute flaccid paralysis and poliomyelitis on some territories of Russia and South Viet Nam. Part 1. Polioviruses and paralysis

The epidemiological and etiological aspects of poliomyelitis and acute flaccid paralysis (AFP) in Russia and Vietnam were analysed and compared. The polio-free status is maintained on 14 territories of Russia and 29 provinces of South Vietnam. The quality of epidemiological and virological surveillance for acute flaccid paralysis is in accordance with the requirements of the national and international polio surveillance systems. All AFP cases were revealed, registered, reported and investigated in both countries. The percentage of poliovirus isolation from 2,492 samples collected from patients with acute flaccid paralysis and contact persons in different years in Russia ranged from 1.30.89 to 9.80.79. In South Vietnam, 2,143 samples from patients with acute flaccid paralysis were investigated. In Russia and Vietnam, we isolated vaccine polioviruses of all three types with predominance of type 3 polioviruses (63% and 50%, respectively) in both countries. From AFP patients in Russia and Vietnam, polioviruses were isolated in 4.9% and 1.0% studied samples, respectively. Some VDPV strains were revealed on the territories of Russia and South Vietnam. Here, we describe five cases of vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis registered in Russia and two cases of AFP caused by VDPV type 2 reported in Vietnam. To prevent the risk of developing vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis, it is indispensable to ensure high-quality surveillance for acute flaccid paralysis, maintain 95% polio vaccine pediatric coverage and strictly comply with sanitary legislation, including the National Vaccination Schedule when vaccinating children, to improve virological surveillance of polioviruses using classical and new virological and molecular methods and to continue research on poliomyelitis, including development of new safe and effective poliovirus vaccines able to induce both humoral and mucosal immunity. The systematic control of adequate polio vaccination is indispensable in order to prevent transmission of imported wild polioviruses into polio free countries as well as circulation of vaccine-derived polioviruses worldwide.

Vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis in a child: fast transformation from Sabin-like virus to vaccine-derived poliovirus triggered an epidemiological response in two countries of the European region

OBJECTIVES

The detection of a vaccine-derived poliovirus (VDPV) requires an epidemiological assessment and response. Using repeated stool sampling from a child who is immunocompetent and was vaccinated against poliomyelitis with acute flaccid paralysis, a case of an extremely rapid evolution of Sabin-like poliovirus (PV) type 3 was traced in the child's body.

METHODS

The case was independently identified in two countries-Tajikistan and Russia. Stool samples for the study were also independently collected in two countries on different days from the onset of paralysis. Virological, serological, and molecular methods; full genome Sanger; and high-throughput sequencing were performed to characterize isolates.

RESULTS

PV isolates from samples collected on days 2, 3, and 14 contained eight, seven, and seven mutations in the VP1-coding region, respectively, and were classified as Sabin-like PV type 3. The isolates from samples collected on days 15 and 18 had 11 mutations and were classified as vaccine-derived PVs, which required an epidemiological response in the two countries.

CONCLUSION

The results indicate the need to continue acute flaccid paralysis surveillance, maintain high vaccination coverage, and develop and introduce new effective, genetically stable PV vaccines.

Cost-effectiveness of various immunization schedules with inactivated Sabin strain polio vaccine in Hangzhou, China

Background

It is necessary to select suitable inactivated poliovirus vaccine(IPV) and live, attenuated oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) sequential immunization programs and configure the corresponding health resources. An economic evaluation was conducted on the sequential procedures of Sabin strain-based IPV (sIPV) and bivalent OPV (bOPV) with different doses to verify whether a cost-effectiveness target can be achieved. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different sIPV immunization schedules, which would provide convincing evidence to further change the poliovirus vaccine (PV) immunization strategies in China.

Methods

Five strategies were included in this analysis. Based on Strategy 0(S₀), the incremental cost (IC), incremental effect (IE), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the four different strategies (S₁/S₂/S₃/S₄) were calculated based on the perspective of the society. Seven cost items were included in this study. Results of field investigations and expert consultations were used to calculate these costs.

Results

The ICs of S₁/S₂/S₃/S₄ was Chinese Yuan (CNY) 30.77, 68.58, 103.82, and 219.82 million, respectively. The IE of vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (IE_VAPP) cases of S₁/S₂/S₃/S₄ were 0.22, 0.22, 0.22, and 0.11, respectively, while the IE of disability-adjusted life-years (IE_DALY) of S₁/S₂/S₃/S₄ were 8.98, 8.98, 8.98, and 4.49, respectively. The ICER_VAPP of S₁/S₂/S₃/S₄ gradually increased to CNY 13.99, 31.17, 47.19, and 199.83 million/VAPP, respectively. The ICER_DALY of S₁/S₂/S₃/S₄ also gradually increased to CNY 0.34, 0.76, 1.16, and 4.90 million/DALY, respectively.

Conclusion

ICER_VAPP and ICER_DALY were substantially higher for S₃ (four-sIPV) and S₄ (replacement of self-funded sIPV based on one-sIPV-three-bOPV). Two-sIPV-two-bOPV had a cost-effectiveness advantage, whereas S2/S3/S4 had no cost-effectiveness advantage.

Cost-Effectiveness of Three Poliovirus Immunization Schedules in Shanghai, China

In Shanghai, China, a polio immunization schedule of four inactivated polio vaccines (IPV) has been implemented since 2020, replacing the schedules of a combination of two IPVs and two bivalent live attenuated oral polio vaccines (bOPV), and four trivalent live attenuated oral polio vaccines (tOPV). This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of these three schedules in infants born in 2016, in preventing vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP). We performed a decision tree model and estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Compared to the four-tOPV schedule, the two-IPV-two-bOPV schedule averted 1.2 VAPP cases and 16.83 disability-adjusted life years (DALY) annually; while the four-IPV schedule averted 1.35 VAPP cases and 18.96 DALY annually. Consequently, ICER_VAPP and ICER_DALY were substantially high for two-IPV-two-bOPV (CNY 12.96 million and 0.93 million), and four-IPV (CNY 21.24 million and 1.52 million). Moreover, net monetary benefit of the two-IPV-two-bOPV and four-IPV schedules was highest when the cost of IPV was hypothesized to be less than CNY 23.75 or CNY 9.11, respectively, and willingness-to-pay was hypothesized as CNY 0.6 million in averting one VAPP-induced DALY. IPV-containing schedules are currently cost-ineffective in Shanghai. They may be cost-effective by reducing the prices of IPV, which may accelerate polio eradication in Chinese settings.

Case of Poliomyelitis Caused by Significantly Diverged Derivative of the Poliovirus Type 3 Vaccine Sabin Strain Circulating in the Orphanage

Significantly divergent polioviruses (VDPV) derived from the oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) from Sabin strains, like wild polioviruses, are capable of prolonged transmission and neuropathology. This is mainly shown for VDPV type 2. Here we describe a molecular-epidemiological investigation of a case of VDPV type 3 circulation leading to paralytic poliomyelitis in a child in an orphanage, where OPV has not been used. Samples of feces and blood serum from the patient and 52 contacts from the same orphanage were collected twice and investigated. The complete genome sequencing was performed for five polioviruses isolated from the patient and three contact children. The level of divergence of the genomes of the isolates corresponded to approximately 9–10 months of evolution. The presence of 61 common substitutions in all isolates indicated a common intermediate progenitor. The possibility of VDPV3 transmission from the excretor to susceptible recipients (unvaccinated against polio or vaccinated with inactivated poliovirus vaccine, IPV) with subsequent circulation in a closed children’s group was demonstrated. The study of the blood sera of orphanage residents at least twice vaccinated with IPV revealed the absence of neutralizing antibodies against at least two poliovirus serotypes in almost 20% of children. Therefore, a complete rejection of OPV vaccination can lead to a critical decrease in collective immunity level. The development of new poliovirus vaccines that create mucosal immunity for the adequate replacement of OPV from Sabin strains is necessary.

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.