Search

In 2012, the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (SAGE) recommended introduction of at least one inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) dose in essential immunization programs. We evaluated systemic humoral and intestinal mucosal immunity of a sequential IPV-bivalent oral poliovirus vaccine (bOPV) schedule compared with a co-administration IPV + bOPV schedule in an open-label, randomized, controlled, non-inferiority, inequality trial in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Healthy infants aged 6 weeks were randomized to either: (A) IPV and bOPV at 6 and bOPV at 10 and 14 weeks (IPV + bOPV-bOPV-bOPV); or (B) IPV at 6 and bOPV at 10 and 14 weeks (IPV-bOPV-bOPV). Of 456 participants enrolled and randomly assigned during May-August 2015, 428 (94%) were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (arm A: 211, arm B: 217). Humoral immune responses did not differ at 18 weeks between study arms: type 1 (98% versus 96%; p = 0.42), type 2 (37% versus 39%; p = 0.77), and type 3 (97% versus 93%; p = 0.07). Virus shedding one week after the bOPV challenge dose in arm B was non-inferior to arm A (type 1 difference = -3% [90% confidence interval: -6 - 0.4%]; type 3 difference: -3% [-6 to -0.2%]). Twenty-six adverse events including seven serious adverse events were reported among 25 participants including one death; none were attributed to study vaccines. An IPV-bOPV-bOPV sequential schedule induced comparable systemic humoral immunity to all poliovirus types and types 1 and 3 intestinal mucosal immunity as an IPV + bOPV-bOPV-bOPV co-administration schedule., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Khalequ Zaman, Asma Binte Aziz, Mohammad Yunus, Warda Haque b reports financial support was provided by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cynthia J Snider’s spouse previously owned stock in Sanofi Pasteur, (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

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., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

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., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) faces substantial challenges with managing outbreaks of serotype 2 circulating vaccine-derived polioviruses (cVDPV2s) in 2021. A full five years after the globally coordinated removal of serotype 2 oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV2) from trivalent oral poliovirus vaccine (tOPV) for use in national immunization programs, cVDPV2s did not die out. Since OPV2 cessation, responses to outbreaks caused by cVDPV2s mainly used serotype 2 monovalent OPV (mOPV2) from a stockpile. A novel vaccine developed from a genetically stabilized OPV2 strain (nOPV2) promises to potentially facilitate outbreak response with lower prospective risks, although its availability and properties in the field remain uncertain. Using an established global poliovirus transmission model and building on a related analysis that characterized the impacts of disruptions in GPEI activities caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, we explore the implications of trade-offs associated with delaying outbreak response to avoid using mOPV2 by waiting for nOPV2 availability (or equivalently, delayed responses waiting for national validation of meeting the criteria for nOPV2 initial use). Consistent with prior modeling, responding as quickly as possible with available mOPV2 promises to reduce the expected burden of disease in the outbreak population and to reduce the chances for the outbreak virus to spread to other areas. Delaying cVDPV2 outbreak response (e.g., modeled as no response January-June 2021) to wait for nOPV2 can considerably increase the total expected cases (e.g., by as many as 1,300 cVDPV2 cases in the African region during 2021-2023) and increases the likelihood of triggering the need to restart widescale preventive use of an OPV2-containing vaccine in national immunization programs that use OPV. Countries should respond to any cVDPV2 outbreaks quickly with rounds that achieve high coverage using any available OPV2, and plan to use nOPV2, if needed, once it becomes widely available based on evidence that it is as effective but safer in populations than mOPV2., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Trivalent oral poliovirus vaccine (tOPV) was globally replaced with bivalent oral poliovirus vaccine (bOPV) in April 2016 ("the switch"). Many outbreaks of paralytic poliomyelitis associated with type 2 circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus (cVDPV2) have been reported since this time. The Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) developed standard operating procedures (SOPs) to guide countries experiencing cVDPV2 outbreaks to implement timely and effective outbreak response (OBR). To assess the possible role of compliance with SOPs in successfully stopping cVDPV2 outbreaks, we analyzed data on critical timelines in the OBR process., Methods: Data were collected on all cVDPV2 outbreaks detected for the period April 1, 2016 and December 31, 2020 and all outbreak responses to those outbreaks between April 1, 2016 and December 31, 2021. We conducted secondary data analysis using the GPEI Polio Information System database, records from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Polio Laboratory, and meeting minutes of the monovalent OPV2 (mOPV2) Advisory Group. Date of notification of circulating virus was defined as Day 0 for this analysis. Extracted process variables were compared with indicators in the GPEI SOP version 3.1., Results: One hundred and eleven cVDPV2 outbreaks resulting from 67 distinct cVDPV2 emergences were reported during April 1, 2016-December 31, 2020, affecting 34 countries across four World Health Organization Regions. Out of 65 OBRs with the first large-scale campaign (R1) conducted after Day 0, only 12 (18.5%) R1s were conducted by the target of 28 days after Day 0. Of the 89 OBRs with the second large-scale campaign (R2) conducted after Day 0, 30 (33.7%) R2s were conducted by the target of 56 days after Day 0. Twenty-three (31.9%) of the 72 outbreaks with isolates dated after Day 0 were stopped within the 120-day target., Conclusion: Since "the switch", delays in OBR implementation were evident in many countries, which may be related to the persistence of cVDPV2 outbreaks >120 days. To achieve timely and effective response, countries should follow GPEI OBR guidelines., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

In early 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic led to substantial disruptions in global activities. The disruptions also included intentional and unintentional reductions in health services, including immunization campaigns against the transmission of wild poliovirus (WPV) and persistent serotype 2 circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus (cVDPV2). Building on a recently updated global poliovirus transmission and Sabin-strain oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) evolution model, we explored the implications of immunization disruption and restrictions of human interactions (i.e., population mixing) on the expected incidence of polio and on the resulting challenges faced by the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI). We demonstrate that with some resumption of activities in the fall of 2020 to respond to cVDPV2 outbreaks and full resumption on January 1, 2021 of all polio immunization activities to pre-COVID-19 levels, the GPEI could largely mitigate the impact of COVID-19 to the delays incurred. The relative importance of reduced mixing (leading to potentially decreased incidence) and reduced immunization (leading to potentially increased expected incidence) depends on the timing of the effects. Following resumption of immunization activities, the GPEI will likely face similar barriers to eradication of WPV and elimination of cVDPV2 as before COVID-19. The disruptions from the COVID-19 pandemic may further delay polio eradication due to indirect effects on vaccine and financial resources., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Despite exhaustive and fully-financed plans to manage the risks of globally coordinated cessation of oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) containing type 2 (OPV2) prior to 2016, as of 2022, extensive, continued transmission of circulating vaccine-derived polioviruses (cVDPVs) type 2 (cVDPV2) remains. Notably, cumulative cases caused by cVDPV2 since 2016 now exceed 2,500. Earlier analyses explored the implications of using different vaccine formulations to respond to cVDPV2 outbreaks and demonstrated how different properties of novel OPV2 (nOPV2) might affect its performance compared to Sabin monovalent OPV2 (mOPV2). These prior analyses used fixed assumptions for how outbreak response would occur, but outbreak response implementation can change. We update an existing global poliovirus transmission model to explore different options for responding with different vaccines and assumptions about scope, delays, immunization intensity, target age groups, and number of rounds. Our findings suggest that in order to successfully stop all cVDPV2 transmission globally, countries and the Global Polio Eradication Initiative need to address the deficiencies in emergency outbreak response policy and implementation. The polio program must urgently act to substantially reduce response time, target larger populations - particularly in high transmission areas - and achieve high coverage with improved access to under-vaccinated subpopulations. Given the limited supplies of nOPV2 at the present, using mOPV2 intensively immediately, followed by nOPV2 intensively if needed and when sufficient quantities become available, substantially increases the probability of ending cVDPV2 transmission globally., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

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., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

The use of the oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) in developing countries has reduced the incidence of poliomyelitis by >99% since 1988 and is the primary tool for global polio eradication. Spontaneous reversions of the vaccine virus to a neurovirulent form can impede this effort. In persons with primary B-cell immunodeficiencies, exposure to OPV can result in chronic infection, mutation, and excretion of immunodeficiency-associated vaccine-derived polioviruses, (iVDPVs). These iVDPVs may have the potential for transmission in a susceptible population and cause paralysis. The extent to which sera from OPV recipients are able to neutralize iVDPVs with varying degrees of antigenic site substitutions is investigated here. We tested sera from a population immunized with a combination vaccine schedule (both OPV and inactivated polio vaccine) against a panel of iVDPVs and found that increases in amino acid substitution in the P1 capsid protein resulted in a decrease in the neutralizing capacity of the sera. This study underscores the importance of maintaining high vaccine coverage in areas of OPV use as well as active surveillance of those known to be immunocompromised., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

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 10 5 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., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The polio eradication endgame strategic plan calls for the sequential removal of Sabin poliovirus serotypes from the trivalent oral poliovirus vaccine (tOPV), starting with type 2, and the introduction of ≥1 dose of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV), to maintain an immunity base against poliovirus type 2. The global removal of oral poliovirus type 2 was successfully implemented in May 2016. However, IPV supply constraints has prevented introduction in 21 countries and led to complete stock-out in >20 countries., Methods: We conducted a literature review and contacted corresponding authors of recent studies with fractional-dose IPV (fIPV), one-fifth of intramuscular dose administered intradermally, to conduct additional type 2 immunogenicity analyses of two fIPV doses compared with one full-dose IPV., Results: Four studies were identified that assessed immunogenicity of two fIPV doses compared to one full-dose IPV. Two fractional doses are more immunogenic than 1 full-dose, with type 2 seroconversion rates improving between absolute 19-42% (median: 37%, p<0.001) and relative increase of 53-125% (median: 82%), and antibody titer to type 2 increasing by 2-32-fold (median: 10-fold). Early age of administration and shorter intervals between doses were associated with lower immunogenicity., Discussion: Overall, two fIPV doses are more immunogenic than a single full-dose, associated with significantly increased seroconversion rates and antibody titers. Two fIPV doses together use two-fifth of the vaccine compared to one full-dose IPV. In response to the current IPV shortage, a schedule of two fIPV doses at ages 6 and 14weekshas been endorsed by technical oversight committees and has been introduced in some affected countries., (Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Introduction: Inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) introduction and phased oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) cessation are essential for eradication of polio., Methods: Healthy 6-week old infants in Bangladesh were randomized to one of five study arms: receipt of trivalent OPV (tOPV) or bivalent OPV (bOPV) at ages 6, 10 and 14 weeks, intramuscular IPV or intradermal one-fifth fractional dose IPV (f-IPV) at ages 6 and 14 weeks, or f-IPV at ages 6 and 14 weeks with bOPV at age 10 weeks (f-IPV/bOPV). All participants received tOPV at age 18 weeks., Results: Of 975 infants randomized, 95% (922) completed follow-up. Type 1 seroconversion after 3 doses at 6, 10 and 14 weeks was higher with bOPV compared with tOPV (99% vs 94%, p=0.019). Seroconversions to types 1 and 3 after 2 IPV doses at ages 6 and 14 weeks were no different than after 3 doses of tOPV or bOPV at ages 6, 10 and 14 weeks. A priming response, seroconversion 1 week after IPV at 14 weeks among those who did not seroconvert after IPV at 6 weeks, was observed against poliovirus types 1, 2 and 3 in 91%, 84% and 97%, respectively. Compared with IPV, f-IPV failed non-inferiority tests for seroconversion with 1 or 2 doses and priming after 1 dose., Discussion: The findings demonstrate considerable priming with IPV at age 6 weeks, comparable immunogenicity of tOPV and bOPV, and inferior immunogenicity of one-fifth f-IPV compared with IPV. If IPV induced priming at age 6 weeks is similar to that at age 14 weeks, IPV could be administered at a younger age and possibly with a higher coverage., (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: The provision of several doses of monovalent type 1 oral poliovirus vaccine (mOPV1) and bivalent OPV1 and 3 (bOPV) vaccines through campaigns is essential to stop the circulation of remaining wild polioviruses. Our study aimed to assess the shortening of intervals between campaigns with bOPV and mOPV1 and to assess the immunogenicity of bOPV in routine immunisation schedules., Methods: We did an open-label, non-inferiority, five-arm, randomised controlled trial in Bangladesh. We recruited healthy infants aged 6 weeks at 42 immunisation clinics and randomly assigned them (with blocks of 15, three per group) to receive a short three-dose schedule of bOPV (bOPV short) or mOPV1 (mOPV1 short) with the first dose given at age 6 weeks, the second at age 8 weeks, and the third at age 10 weeks; or to a standard three-dose schedule of bOPV (bOPV standard) or mOPV1 (mOPV1 standard) or trivalent OPV (tOPV standard) with the first dose given at age 6 weeks, the second at 10 weeks, and the third at age 14 weeks. The primary outcome was the proportion of infants with antibody seroconversion for type 1, type 2, and type 3 polioviruses. The primary, modified intention-to-treat analysis included all patients who had testable serum samples before and after receiving at least one OPV dose. We used a 10% margin to establish non-inferiority for bOPV groups versus mOPV1 groups in seroconversion for type 1 poliovirus, and for bOPV1 short versus bOPV1 standard for types 1 and 3. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01633216, and is closed to new participants., Findings: Between May 13, 2012, and Jan 21, 2013, we randomly assigned 1000 infants to our study groups. 927 completed all study visits and were included in the primary analysis. Seroconversion for type-1 poliovirus was recorded in 183 (98%, 95% CI 95-100) of 186 infants given bOPV short, 179 (97%, 94-99) of 184 given bOPV standard, 180 (96%, 92-98) of 188 given mOPV short, 178 (99%, 97-100) of 179 given mOPV1 standard, and 175 (92%, 87-96) of 190 given tOPV standard. Seroconversion for type 2 was noted in 16 infants (9%, 5-14) on bOPV short, 29 (16%, 11-22) on bOPV standard, 19 (10%, 7-15) on mOPV short, 33 (18%, 13-25) on mOPV1 standard, and 182 (96%, 92-98) on tOPV standard. Seroconversion for type 3 was noted in 175 infants (94%, 90-97) on bOPV short, 176 (96%, 92-98) on bOPV standard, 18 (10%, 6-15) on mOPV short, 25 (14%, 10-20) on mOPV1 standard, and 167 (88%, 83-92) on tOPV standard. The short schedules for mOPV1 and bOPV elicited a non-inferior antibody response compared with the bOPV standard schedule. 104 adverse events were reported in 100 infants during follow up. 36 of these events needed admission to hospital (32 were pneumonia, two were vomiting or feeding disorders, one was septicaemia, and one was diarrhoea with severe malnutrition). One of the infants admitted to hospital for pneumonia died 5 days after admission. No adverse event was attributed to the vaccines., Interpretation: Our trial showed that three doses of mOPV1 or bOPV with a short schedule of 2 week intervals between doses induces an immune response similar to that obtained with the standard schedule of giving doses at 4 week intervals. These findings support the use of these vaccines in campaigns done at short intervals to rapidly increase population immunity against polioviruses to control outbreaks or prevent transmission in high-risk areas., Funding: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and UNICEF., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Surveillance for acute flaccid paralysis with laboratory confirmation has been a key strategy in the global polio eradication initiative, and the laboratory platform established for polio testing has been expanded in many countries to include surveillance for cases of febrile rash illness to identify measles and rubella cases. Vaccine-preventable disease surveillance is essential to detect outbreaks, define disease burden, guide vaccination strategies and assess immunization impact. Vaccines now exist to prevent Japanese encephalitis (JE) and some etiologies of bacterial meningitis., Methods: We evaluated the feasibility of expanding polio-measles surveillance and laboratory networks to detect bacterial meningitis and JE, using surveillance for acute meningitis-encephalitis syndrome in Bangladesh and China and acute encephalitis syndrome in India. We developed nine syndromic surveillance performance indicators based on international surveillance guidelines and calculated scores using supervisory visit reports, annual reports, and case-based surveillance data., Results: Scores, variable by country and targeted disease, were highest for the presence of national guidelines, sustainability, training, availability of JE laboratory resources, and effectiveness of using polio-measles networks for JE surveillance. Scores for effectiveness of building on polio-measles networks for bacterial meningitis surveillance and specimen referral were the lowest, because of differences in specimens and techniques., Conclusions: Polio-measles surveillance and laboratory networks provided useful infrastructure for establishing syndromic surveillance and building capacity for JE diagnosis, but were less applicable for bacterial meningitis. Laboratory-supported surveillance for vaccine-preventable bacterial diseases will require substantial technical and financial support to enhance local diagnostic capacity., (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Introduction: In 1988, the World Health Assembly resolved to eradicate poliomyelitis. Since then, much progress towards this goal has been made, but three countries including Nigeria remain polio-endemic as of end 2012. To assess the immunity level against poliomyelitis in young children in Northern Nigeria, we conducted a seroprevalence survey in the Kano Metropolitan Area (KMA) in May 2011., Methods: Parents or guardians of infants aged 6-9months or children aged 36-47months presenting to the outpatient department of Murtala Mohammad Specialist Hospital were approached for participation, screened for eligibility and were asked to provide informed consent. After that, a questionnaire was administered and blood was collected for neutralization assay., Results: A total of 327 subjects were enrolled. Of these, 313 (96%) met the study requirements and were analyzed (161 [51%] aged 6-9months and 152 [49%] aged 36-47months). Among subjects aged 6-9months, seroprevalence was 81% (95% confidence interval [CI] 75-87%) to poliovirus type 1, 76% (95% CI 68-81%) to poliovirus type 2, and 73% (95% CI 67-80%) to poliovirus type 3. Among subjects aged 36-47months, the seroprevalence was 91% (95% CI 86-95%) to poliovirus type 1, 87% (95% CI 82-92%) for poliovirus type 2, and 86% (95% CI 80-91%) to poliovirus type 3. Seroprevalence was associated with history of oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) doses, maternal education and gender., Conclusions: Seroprevalence is lower than required levels for poliovirus interruption in the KMA. Persistence of immunity gaps in the 36-47months group is a big concern. Since higher number of vaccine doses is associated with higher seroprevalence, it implies that failure-to-vaccinate and not vaccine failure accounts for the suboptimal seroprevalence. Intensified efforts are necessary to administer polio vaccines to all target children and surpass the threshold levels for herd immunity., (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: A serosurvey to evaluate population immunity to polioviruses (PVs) in the context of the importation-related wild PV1 outbreak in Tajikistan in 2010 (461 confirmed cases among children and young adults) was conducted., Methods: Serum specimens from a nationwide sample of 1-24 year-old persons selected through stratified cluster sampling (n=2447) were tested for neutralizing antibodies to all three PV types. Samples with titers<1:8 were considered seronegative. The serosurvey was conducted during the interval after mOPV1 supplementary immunization activities (SIAs) and before tOPV SIAs (targeting ages ≤ 15 years) implemented to control the outbreak. In the absence of pre-outbreak specimens, results for PV3 were used as a proxy for pre-outbreak PV1 immunity patterns., Results: Overall, PV1 seroprevalence was 98.9%, PV2 seroprevalence was 98.8%, and PV3 seroprevalence was 86.9%. PV1 and PV2 seroprevalence exceeded 95% in all age groups and regions. PV3 seroprevalence was <90% in all age groups and regions, except 15-19 year-olds (91.7%) and Dushanbe (90.0%). PV3 seroprevalence was lowest among 1-4 (82.7%) and 5-9 (84.4%) year-olds, particularly among 1-4 year-olds in Kurgan-Tube (76.3%) and RRS (80.0%) regions. Birth cohorts immunized only through routine services (ages, 1-7 years) had lower PV3 seroprevalence than birth cohorts targeted by the SIAs during 1995-2002 (8-19 years): 82.5% versus 89.3%, p<0.001., Conclusions: Suboptimal (<90%) PV3 seroprevalence across wide age range suggests the outbreak resulted from accumulation of susceptibles due to suboptimal coverage over a long time period, particularly in the birth cohorts immunized only through routine services and in areas where the outbreak began (Kurgan-Tube and RRS). High PV1 seroprevalence indicates that mOPV1 SIAs with expanded target age (≤ 15 years) succeeded in closing the immunity gap and ongoing WPV1 transmission is unlikely. To accelerate outbreak control in areas which have been polio-free for long time, expanding SIA target age should be considered., (Copyright © 2013. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: The continued presence of polio in northern India poses challenges to the interruption of wild poliovirus transmission and the management of poliovirus risks in the post-eradication era. We aimed to assess the current immunity profile after routine doses of trivalent oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) and numerous supplemental doses of type-1 monovalent OPV (mOPV1), and compared the effect of five vaccine formulations and dosages on residual immunity gaps., Methods: We did a community-based, randomised controlled trial of healthy infants aged 6-9 months at ten sites in Moradabad, India. Serum neutralising antibody was measured before infants were randomly assigned to a study group and given standard-potency or higher-potency mOPV1, intradermal fractional-dose inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV, GlaxoSmithKline), or intramuscular full-dose IPV from two different manufacturers (GlaxoSmithKline or Panacea). Follow-up sera were taken at days 7 and 28. Our primary endpoint was an increase of more than four times in antibody titres. We did analyses by per-protocol in children with a blood sample available before, and 28 days after, receiving study vaccine (or who completed study procedures). This trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN90744784., Findings: Of 1002 children enrolled, 869 (87%) completed study procedures (ie, blood sample available at day 0 and day 28). At baseline, 862 (99%), 625 (72%), and 418 (48%) had detectable antibodies to poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3, respectively. In children who were type-1 seropositive, an increase of more than four times in antibody titre was detected 28 days after they were given standard-potency mOPV1 (5/13 [38%]), higher-potency mOPV1 (6/21 [29%]), intradermal IPV (9/16 [56%]), GlaxoSmithKline intramuscular IPV (19/22 [86%]), and Panacea intramuscular IPV (11/13 [85%]). In those who were type-2 seronegative, 42 (100%) of 42 seroconverted after GlaxoSmithKline intramuscular IPV, and 24 (59%) of 41 after intradermal IPV (p<0·0001). 87 (90%) of 97 infants who were type-3 seronegative seroconverted after intramuscular IPV, and 21 (36%) of 49 after intradermal IPV (p<0·0001)., Interpretation: Supplemental mOPV1 resulted in almost total seroprevalence against poliovirus type 1, which is consistent with recent absence of poliomyelitis cases; whereas seroprevalence against types 2 and 3 was expected for routine vaccination histories. The immunogenicity of IPV produced in India (Panacea) was similar to that of an internationally manufactured IPV (GSK). Intradermal IPV was less immunogenic., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: To provide the polio eradication initiative with more immunogenic oral poliovirus vaccines (OPVs), we evaluated newly developed monovalent type 1 OPV (mOPV1) among infants in India., Methods: Two double-blind randomized controlled clinical trials compared two mOPV1s (mOPV1 A and mOPV1 B) versus trivalent OPV (tOPV X) given at birth (trial I), or assessed two products of higher-potency mOPV1 (mOPV1 C and mOPV1 D) versus regular-potency mOPV1 (mOPV1 B) or tOPV Y given at birth and at 30 days (trial II)., Results: In trial I, 597 newborns were enrolled, 66 withdrawn or excluded, leaving 531 (88.9%) subjects for analysis. Seroconversion to poliovirus type 1 was 10.4% for mOPV1 A, 15.6% for mOPV1 B and 10.2% for tOPV X. In trial II, 718 newborns were enrolled, 135 withdrawn or excluded, leaving 583 (81.2%) subjects for analysis. Seroconversion to poliovirus type 1 following a birth dose was 15.1%, 19.7%, 18.0% and 10.6%, following the 30-day dose 87.1%, 89.2%, 84.4%, or 55.9%, and cumulative for both doses 90.4%, 90.3%, 89.5% and 61.9% for mOPV1s B, C, and D and tOPV Y, respectively., Conclusions: In both studies, seronconversion rates were unexpectedly low to poliovirus type 1 after mOPV1 or tOPV given at birth but high for all formulations of mOPV1 given at age 30 days. The cause for low immunogenicity of OPV at birth in India is not known., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The use of inactivated poliovirus vaccines (IPV) will be required to achieve, world-wide eradication of polio. The current expense of IPV is however prohibitive for, some countries, and therefore efforts to decrease the costs of the vaccine are a high, priority. Our results show that the addition of oil-in-water emulsion adjuvants to an, inactivated trivalent poliovirus vaccine are dose-sparing and are capable of enhancing, neutralizing antibody titers in the rat potency model., (Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The global polio eradication initiative (GPEI), which started in 1988, represents the single largest, internationally coordinated public health project to date. Completion remains within reach, with type 2 wild polioviruses apparently eradicated since 1999 and fewer than 2000 annual paralytic poliomyelitis cases of wild types 1 and 3 reported since then. This economic analysis of the GPEI reflects the status of the program as of February 2010, including full consideration of post-eradication policies. For the GPEI intervention, we consider the actual pre-eradication experience to date followed by two distinct potential future post-eradication vaccination policies. We estimate GPEI costs based on actual and projected expenditures and poliomyelitis incidence using reported numbers corrected for underreporting and model projections. For the comparator, which assumes only routine vaccination for polio historically and into the future (i.e., no GPEI), we estimate poliomyelitis incidence using a dynamic infection transmission model and costs based on numbers of vaccinated children. Cost-effectiveness ratios for the GPEI vs. only routine vaccination qualify as highly cost-effective based on standard criteria. We estimate incremental net benefits of the GPEI between 1988 and 2035 of approximately 40-50 billion dollars (2008 US dollars; 1988 net present values). Despite the high costs of achieving eradication in low-income countries, low-income countries account for approximately 85% of the total net benefits generated by the GPEI in the base case analysis. The total economic costs saved per prevented paralytic poliomyelitis case drive the incremental net benefits, which become positive even if we estimate the loss in productivity as a result of disability as below the recommended value of one year in average per-capita gross national income per disability-adjusted life year saved. Sensitivity analysis suggests that the finding of positive net benefits of the GPEI remains robust over a wide range of assumptions, and that consideration of the additional net benefits of externalities that occurred during polio campaigns to date, such as the mortality reduction associated with delivery of Vitamin A supplements, significantly increases the net benefits. This study finds a strong economic justification for the GPEI despite the rising costs of the initiative., (Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The Parechovirus genus (Picornaviridae) contains two known species, Human parechovirus (HPeV) and Ljungan virus (LV). HPeVs cause a wide spectrum of disease, including meningitis, gastroenteritis, encephalitis, respiratory illness, and neonatal sepsis-like disease. LVs are associated with diabetes and myocarditis in bank voles and have been proposed to cause disease in humans. The ability to rapidly and accurately type parechoviruses is critical to understanding their role in human disease., Objectives: For parechovirus molecular typing, we sought to develop reverse transcription, nested polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assays to amplify the sequence encoding the VP1 capsid protein from all known members of the Parechovirus genus., Study Design: The assays consist of a two-step RT-PCR with primers flanking VP1 (PCR1), followed by semi-nested PCR2A and PCR2B reactions that produce overlapping amplicons, encompassing the complete VP1 gene, as well as a nested PCR2C that amplifies a shorter internal VP1 amplicon., Results: All primer sets are 100% sensitive and 100% specific for the 77 parechovirus culture isolates tested. The semi-nested and nested PCR primer sets are 94% sensitive and 100% specific for detection of parechovirus in original specimens. Viral genotype can be deduced from analysis of amplicon sequences. Parechoviruses of the same type share>or=77% complete VP1 nucleotide sequence identity or >or=87% amino acid identity, while those of different types share

Eradication of a disease promises significant health and financial benefits. Preserving those benefits, hopefully in perpetuity, requires preparing for the possibility that the causal agent could re-emerge (unintentionally or intentionally). In the case of a vaccine-preventable disease, creation and planning for the use of a vaccine stockpile becomes a primary concern. Doing so requires consideration of the dynamics at different levels, including the stockpile supply chain and transmission of the causal agent. This paper develops a mathematical framework for determining the optimal management of a vaccine stockpile over time. We apply the framework to the polio vaccine stockpile for the post-eradication era and present examples of solutions to one possible framing of the optimization problem. We use the framework to discuss issues relevant to the development and use of the polio vaccine stockpile, including capacity constraints, production and filling delays, risks associated with the stockpile, dynamics and uncertainty of vaccine needs, issues of funding, location, and serotype dependent behavior, and the implications of likely changes over time that might occur. This framework serves as a helpful context for discussions and analyses related to the process of designing and maintaining a stockpile for an eradicated disease., ((c) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Molecular methods have enabled the rapid identification of new enterovirus (EV) serotypes that are untypeable using existing neutralizing antisera. As a result, sequencing of the VP1 capsid gene has been developed as a surrogate for antigenic typing to distinguish enterovirus types. In this study, 17 enterovirus isolates from four countries were identified as members of 13 new types within the species Human Enterovirus B (HEV-B) by complete genome sequencing. Members of each of these new types are at least 75% identical to one another (91% amino acid identity) in VP1, but members of different types differ from one another and from other enteroviruses by at least 27% in nucleotide sequence (26% amino acid sequence difference). The complete P1 (capsid) sequences of the new types are at least 17% different from those of all other enterovirus serotypes (14.5% amino acid sequence difference), but they are highly conserved within a type (<8% amino acid sequence difference). For both VP1 and P1, the 17 isolates are monophyletic by type with respect to all other EV serotypes. The P2 and P3 sequences are closely related to those of other HEV-B viruses (>93% amino acid identity), confirming that the 17 new strains belong to HEV-B. We propose that these 17 isolates be classified as members of 13 new human enterovirus types, enteroviruses 79-88, 97, and 100-101.

Background: Egypt provides ideal conditions for poliovirus (PV) transmission (high population density, high contact rates and low sanitation and hygiene in some areas). Despite excellent program performance, wild poliovirus type 1 (PV1) continue to circulate in 2004. To investigate potential causes for the persistence, we conducted a serological study., Methods: Seroprevalence surveys were conducted in "polio-endemic" regions (Greater Cairo and Upper Egypt) and in one control region (Lower Egypt) in December 2004. Sera collected from infants aged 6-11 months were tested for antibodies to poliovirus by neutralization assay., Results: A total of 973 subjects were tested. Seroprevalence to PV type 1 (PV1), PV type 2 (PV2) and PV type 3 (PV3) was 99, 99 and 91%, respectively. Significant variation in PV3 seroprevalence was found (range: 76-100%). Region, density, maternal education, socioeconomic status (SES), stunting and diarrhea were significant risk factors for lower seroprevalence in the univariate analysis., Conclusions: Our study suggested that uniformly high immunity levels (>96%) were required to interrupt PV1 transmission in the last remaining reservoirs (last PV1 was isolated in mid-January 2005 in Egypt). It further suggests substantial regional differences in OPV immunogenicity, with rural areas and low SES achieving the lowest seroprevalence to PV3.

Echovirus 11 (E11) is among the most commonly isolated human enteroviruses. To examine the range of genetic variation within the E11 serotype, we determined the complete VP1 sequences for 53 geographically dispersed E11 strains isolated in 16 countries from 1953 to 2001. E11 sequences were monophyletic with respect to all other enterovirus serotypes. The sequences clustered into four monophyletic genogroups, A-D; members of each genogroup differed from one another by <20%. Isolates in different genogroups differed from one another by 19-28%. The E11 prototype strain, USA/CA53-Gregory, was the sole member of genogroup B. All recent US isolates were members of one of two discrete lineages within genogroup D. The well-characterized E11 antigenic variant, USA/CA63-Silva, was also a member of genogroup D. Members of genogroups A and C were antigenically similar to USA/CA53-Gregory, as measured by neutralization with anti-Gregory and anti-Silva antisera. Only USA/CA63-Silva was neutralized more efficiently by the anti-Silva antiserum; other genogroup D viruses were Gregory-like or intermediate in their neutralization phenotype. Recent non-US isolates were distributed in genogroups A, C and D. Sequence similarities among genogroup D isolates from North America, Europe, Asia, Australia and North Africa demonstrate that an E11 strain can spread rapidly over a wide geographic area. The aligned sequences were used to develop an E11-specific RT-PCR assay, using degenerate, inosine-containing primers, to amplify all members of all genogroups.