Outbreak management strategies for cocirculation of multiple poliovirus types

Trade-offs of different poliovirus vaccine options for outbreak response in the United States and other countries that only use inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) in routine immunization

Delays in achieving polio eradication have led to ongoing risks of poliovirus importations that may cause outbreaks in polio-free countries. Because of the low, but non-zero risk of paralysis with oral poliovirus vaccines (OPVs), countries that achieve and maintain high national routine immunization coverage have increasingly shifted to exclusive use of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) for all preventive immunizations. However, immunization coverage within countries varies, with under-vaccinated subpopulations potentially able to sustain transmission of imported polioviruses and experience local outbreaks. Due to its cost, ease-of-use, and ability to induce mucosal immunity, using OPV as an outbreak control measure offers a more cost-effective option in countries in which OPV remains in use. However, recent polio outbreaks in IPV-only countries raise questions about whether and when IPV use for outbreak response may fail to stop poliovirus transmission and what consequences may follow from using OPV for outbreak response in these countries. We systematically reviewed the literature to identify modeling studies that explored the use of IPV for outbreak response in IPV-only countries. In addition, applying a model of the 2022 type 2 poliovirus outbreak in New York, we characterized the implications of using different OPV formulations for outbreak response instead of IPV. We also explored the hypothetical scenario of the same outbreak except for type 1 poliovirus instead of type 2. We find that using IPV for outbreak response will likely only stop outbreaks for polioviruses of relatively low transmission potential in countries with very high overall immunization coverage, seasonal transmission dynamics, and only if IPV immunization interventions reach some unvaccinated individuals. Using OPV for outbreak response in IPV-only countries poses substantial risks and challenges that require careful consideration, but may represent an option to consider for some outbreaks in some populations depending on the properties of the available vaccines and coverage attainable.

Worst-case scenarios: Modeling uncontrolled type 2 polio transmission

In May 2016, the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) coordinated the cessation of all use of type 2 oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV2), except for emergency outbreak response. Since then, paralytic polio cases caused by type 2 vaccine-derived polioviruses now exceed 3,000 cases reported by 39 countries. In 2022 (as of April 25, 2023), 20 countries reported detection of cases and nine other countries reported environmental surveillance detection, but no reported cases. Recent development of a genetically modified novel type 2 OPV (nOPV2) may help curb the generation of neurovirulent vaccine-derived strains; its use since 2021 under Emergency Use Listing is limited to outbreak response activities. Prior modeling studies showed that the expected trajectory for global type 2 viruses does not appear headed toward eradication, even with the best possible properties of nOPV2 assuming current outbreak response performance. Continued persistence of type 2 poliovirus transmission exposes the world to the risks of potentially high-consequence events such as the importation of virus into high-transmission areas of India or Bangladesh. Building on prior polio endgame modeling and assuming current national and GPEI outbreak response performance, we show no probability of successfully eradicating type 2 polioviruses in the near term regardless of vaccine choice. We also demonstrate the possible worst-case scenarios could result in rapid expansion of paralytic cases and preclude the goal of permanently ending all cases of poliomyelitis in the foreseeable future. Avoiding such catastrophic scenarios will depend on the development of strategies that raise population immunity to type 2 polioviruses.

Health Economic Analysis of Antiviral Drugs in the Global Polio Eradication Endgame

BACKGROUND

Polio antiviral drugs (PAVDs) may provide a critical tool in the eradication endgame by stopping poliovirus infections in immunodeficient individuals who may not clear the virus without therapeutic intervention. Although prolonged/chronic poliovirus excreters are rare, they represent a source of poliovirus reintroduction into the general population. Prior studies that assumed the successful cessation of all oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) use estimated the potential upper bound of the incremental net benefits (INBs) of resource investments in research and development of PAVDs. However, delays in polio eradication, OPV cessation, and the development of PAVDs necessitate an updated economic analysis to reevaluate the costs and benefits of further investments in PAVDs.

METHODS

Using a global integrated model of polio transmission, immunity, vaccine dynamics, risks, and economics, we explore the risks of reintroduction of polio transmission due to immunodeficiency-related vaccine-derived poliovirus (iVDPV) excreters and reevaluate the upper bound of the INBs of PAVDs.

RESULTS

Under the current conditions, for which the use of OPV will likely continue for the foreseeable future, even with successful eradication of type 1 wild poliovirus by the end of 2023 and continued use of Sabin OPV for outbreak response, we estimate an upper bound INB of 60 million US$2019. With >100 million US$2019 already invested in PAVD development and with the introduction of novel OPVs that are less likely to revert to neurovirulence, our analysis suggests the expected INBs of PAVDs would not offset their costs.

CONCLUSIONS

While PAVDs could play an important role in the polio endgame, their expected economic benefits drop with ongoing OPV use and poliovirus transmissions. However, stakeholders may pursue the development of PAVDs as a desired product regardless of their economic benefits.HighlightsWhile polio antiviral drugs could play an important role in the polio endgame, their expected economic benefits continue to drop with delays in polio eradication and the continued use of oral poliovirus vaccines.The incremental net benefits of investments in polio antiviral drug development and screening for immunodeficiency-related circulating polioviruses are small.Limited global resources are better spent on increasing global population immunity to polioviruses to stop and prevent poliovirus transmission.

Oral polio vaccine stockpile modeling: insights from recent experience

BACKGROUND

Achieving polio eradication requires ensuring the delivery of sufficient supplies of the right vaccines to the right places at the right times. Despite large global markets, decades of use, and large quantity purchases of polio vaccines by national immunization programs and the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI), forecasting demand for the oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) stockpile remains challenging.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We review OPV stockpile experience compared to pre-2016 expectations, actual demand, and changes in GPEI policies related to the procurement and use of type 2 OPV vaccines. We use available population and immunization schedule data to explore polio vaccine market segmentation, and its role in polio vaccine demand forecasting.

RESULTS

We find that substantial challenges remain in forecasting polio vaccine needs, mainly due to (1) deviations in implementation of plans that formed the basis for earlier forecasts, (2) lack of alignment of tactics/objectives among GPEI partners and other key stakeholders, (3) financing, and (4) uncertainty about development and licensure timelines for new polio vaccines and their field performance characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

Mismatches between supply and demand over time have led to negative consequences associated with both oversupply and undersupply, as well as excess costs and potentially preventable cases.