Search

The emergence and international spread of neurovirulent circulating vaccine-derived polioviruses (cVDPVs) throughout many countries in Africa and Asia in recent years pose a major challenge to the goal of eradicating [...]

Since establishment of the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (1) in 1988, the number of polio cases worldwide has decreased by >99.9%. Extensive use of live attenuated oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) [...]

This was a follow-up study conducted in 2020 assessing changes in levels of type 2 poliovirus–neutralizing antibodies 2 years postimmunization in children who received inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) in Karachi, Pakistan. Unexpectedly, the findings revealed an increase in seroprevalence of type 2 antibodies from 73.1% to 81.6% 1 year and 2 years after IPV, respectively. The increase in type 2 immunity could result from the intensive transmission of circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus type 2 (cVDPV2) in Karachi during the second year of IPV administration. This study suggests that the cVDPV2 outbreak detected in Pakistan infected large proportions of children in Karachi. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT03286803. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To address the evolving risk of circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus type 2 (cVDPV2), Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) partners are working closely with countries to deploy an additional innovative tool for outbreak response – novel oral polio vaccine type 2 (nOPV2). The World Health Organization's (WHO) Prequalification program issued an Emergency Use Listing (EUL) recommendation for nOPV2 on 13 November 2020. The WHO's EUL procedure was created to assess and list unlicensed vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics to enable their use in response to a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). nOPV2 was the first vaccine to receive an EUL, paving the way for other emergency vaccines. In this report, we summarise the pathway for nOPV2 roll-out under EUL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The eradication of wild and vaccine-derived poliovirus requires the global withdrawal of oral poliovirus vaccines (OPVs) and replacement with inactivated poliovirus vaccines (IPVs). The first phase of this effort was the withdrawal of the serotype 2 vaccine in April 2016, with a switch from trivalent OPVs to bivalent OPVs. The aim of our study was to produce comparative estimates of humoral and intestinal mucosal immunity associated with different routine immunisation schedules.Methods: We did a random-effect meta-analysis with single proportions and a network meta-analysis in a Bayesian framework to synthesise direct and indirect data. We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomised controlled trials published from Jan 1, 1980, to Nov 1, 2018, comparing poliovirus immunisation schedules in a primary series. Only trials done outside western Europe or North America and without variation in age schedules (ie, age at administration of the vaccine) between study groups were included in the analyses, because trials in high-income settings differ in vaccine immunogenicity and schedules from other settings and to ensure consistency within the network of trials. Data were extracted directly from the published reports. We assessed seroconversion against poliovirus serotypes 1, 2, and 3, and intestinal immunity against serotype 2, measured by absence of shedding poliovirus after a challenge OPV dose.Findings: We identified 437 unique studies; of them, 17 studies with a maximum of 8279 evaluable infants were eligible for assessment of humoral immunity, and eight studies with 4254 infants were eligible for intestinal immunity. For serotype 2, there was low between-trial heterogeneity in the data (τ=0·05, 95% credible interval [CrI] 0·009-0·15) and the risk ratio (RR) of seroconversion after three doses of bivalent OPVs was 0·14 (95% CrI 0·11-0·17) compared with three doses of trivalent OPVs. The addition of one or two full doses of an IPV after a bivalent OPV schedule increased the RR to 0·85 (0·75-1·0) and 1·1 (0·98-1·4). However, the addition of an IPV to bivalent OPV schedules did not significantly increase intestinal immunity (0·33, 0·18-0·61), compared with trivalent OPVs alone. For serotypes 1 and 3, there was susbstantial inconsistency and between-trial heterogeneity between direct and indirect effects, so we only present pooled estmates on seroconversion, which were at least 80% for serotype 1 and at least 88% for serotype 3 for all vaccine schedules.Interpretation: For WHO's polio eradication programme, the addition of one IPV dose for all birth cohorts should be prioritised to protect against paralysis caused by type 2 poliovirus; however, this inclusion will not prevent transmission or circulation in areas with faecal-oral transmission.Funding: UK Medical Research Council. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With continued wild poliovirus transmission in Afghanistan and Pakistan and circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus in certain countries, there exists an ongoing risk of importation of polioviruses into other countries, including those that have been polio-free for decades. Diversifying the poliovirus outbreak response toolkit is essential to account for different public health and epidemiological contexts. In this Personal View, we discuss data on intestinal and pharyngeal mucosal immunity induced by inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV), previous programmatic experience of poliovirus outbreak response with IPV, and outbreak response guidelines in countries that exclusively use IPV. With recent reports of poliovirus detection in polio-free countries such as the USA and the UK, it is important to assess the interplay of virus transmission dynamics, vaccine impact on preventing paralysis and virus spread, and regulatory complexities of using oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) and IPV options for outbreak response. As the global eradication programme navigates through cessation of routine OPV use with replacement by IPV and stockpiling of novel OPVs, clarity on the impact of IPV use will be important for informed decision making by global, regional, and national policy makers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]