UNASSIGNED: The route of transmission of wild and circulating vaccine-derived polioviruses remains controversial, between respiratory and faecal-oral, and we aim to identify the most plausible one to settle the controversy.
UNASSIGNED: We explored available epidemiological clues and evidence in support of either route in order to arrive at an evidence-based conclusion.
UNASSIGNED: Historically the original concept was respiratory transmission based on epidemiological features of age distribution, which was later revised to faecal-oral as the rationale for popularising the live attenuated oral polio vaccine in preference to the inactivated poliovirus vaccine. Through epidemiological logic, we find no evidence for the faecal-oral route from available studies and observations, but all available information supports the respiratory route.
UNASSIGNED: The route is respiratory, not faecal-oral. The global polio eradication initiative assumed it was faecal-oral - and its gargantuan efforts based on this assumption have failed in two ways: eradication remains pending and circulating vaccine-derived polioviruses have seeded widely. With clarity on the route of transmission the choice of vaccine is also clear - it can only be the inactivated poliovirus vaccine.

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.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the safety of a new inactivated poliomyelitis vaccine (Sabin strains) (sIPV) for large-scale use in primary and booster immunizations, whether simultaneously administered with other vaccines or not and to explore the persistence of all vaccines at approximately six months after vaccination.
METHODS: A total of 3200 infants were recruited into this study, including 2000 infants aged 2-3 months randomly assigned (1:1) into the \"sIPV basic\" or the \"sIPV+DTaP\" group for primary immunization of sIPV. Another 1200 children aged 18 months old and above were randomly assigned (2:2:1:1) into the \"sIPV booster,\" \"sIPV+HepA-I,\" \"sIPV+MMR\", or \"sIPV+HepA-L\" group for booster immunization of sIPV. Adverse events within 30 days of each vaccination dose in all participants were self-reported by guardians using a WeChat mini-program. Approximately 200 blood samples were collected at 5-7 months after the final vaccination to test for antibodies against poliovirus and other viruses.
RESULTS: 3198 participants in total were included in the safety study, including 1999 infants aged 2-3 months old and 1199 children aged 18-26 months old. For primary immunization, the incidence of adverse reactions in the \"sIPV basic\" and the \"sIPV+DTaP\" group were 3.19 and 6.21% (P = 0.001), respectively. For booster immunization, the incidences of adverse reaction for the \"sIPV booster\" group were 2.25%, while the incidence for the \"sIPV +others\" group in total was 2.50% (P = 0.788). Most adverse reactions were mild. Fever was the most common symptom in all groups. No vaccine-related serious adverse events (SAEs) were observed in this study. The seropositivity rates of antibodies in the \"sIPV basic\" and the \"sIPV+DTaP\" group were 92.31 and 100% against type 1 poliovirus (P = 0.031); 96.15% and 98.57% against type 2 poliovirus (P = 0.575); 98.08% and 91.43% against type 3 poliovirus (P = 0.237), respectively. Regarding booster vaccination with sIPV, whether co-administered with other vaccines or not, the seropositivity rates of antibodies against the three types of polioviruses were all 100%. Seropositivity rates of antibodies against hepatitis A, measles, mumps, and rubella were all no <77%, except for pertussis, which was <30%.
CONCLUSIONS: sIPV demonstrated good safety and immune persistence for primary and booster vaccinations, whether administered singly or simultaneously. Antibodies against hepatitis A, measles, mumps and rubella were not disrupted by the co-vaccination. However, the seropositivity rates and geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) of antibodies against pertussis indicate the necessity for a booster dose.

UNASSIGNED: To explore if intestinal immunity induced by infection with live viruses in the oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) is essential, necessary or even helpful in interrupting transmission of wild poliovirus (WPV) for global polio eradication.
UNASSIGNED: We reviewed the biology of virus-host interactions in WPV infection and its alterations by OPV-induced immunity for direct evidence of the usefulness of intestinal immunity. We also explored indirect evidence by way of the effect of the inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) on the biology and on transmission dynamics of WPV.
UNASSIGNED: Immunity, systemic and intestinal, induced by infection with WPV or vaccine viruses, does not prevent re-infection with WPV or vaccine viruses respectively, when exposed. Such re-infected hosts shed virus in the throat and in faeces and are sources of further transmission. Immunity protects against polio paralysis-hence reinfection always remain asymptommatic and silent.
UNASSIGNED: Vaccine virus-induced intestinal immunity is not necessary for polio eradication. The continued and intensive vaccination efforts using OPV under the assumption of its superiority over IPV have resulted in the well-known undesirable effects, namely vaccine associated paralytic polio and the emergence of de-attenuated circulating vaccine-derived polioviruses, in addition to the delay in completing global WPV eradication.

BACKGROUND: In 2016, the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) recommended the cessation of using type 2 oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) and OPV, with countries having to switch from the trivalent to bivalent OPV (bOPV) with the addition of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) in their routine immunization schedule. The current GPEI strategy 2022-2026 includes a bOPV cessation plan and a switch to IPV alone or a combination of vaccine schedules in the future. The focus of our study was to evaluate the immunogenicity of monovalent OPV type 1 (mOPV1) with IPV and IPV-only schedules.
METHODS: This was a three-arm, multi-center randomized-controlled trial conducted in 2016-2017 in India. Participants, at birth, were randomly assigned to the bOPV-IPV (Arm A) or mOPV1-IPV (Arm B) or IPV (Arm C) schedules. Serum specimens collected at birth and at 14, 18, and 22 weeks old were analyzed with a standard microneutralization assay for all the three poliovirus serotypes.
RESULTS: The results of 598 participants were analyzed. The type 1 cumulative seroconversion rates four weeks after the completion of the schedule at 18 weeks were 99.5% (97.0-99.9), 100.0% (97.9-100.0), and 96.0% (92.0-98.1) in Arms A (4bOPV + IPV), B (4mOPV1 + IPV), and C (3IPV), respectively. Type 2 and type 3 seroconversions at 18 weeks were 80.0% (73.7-85.1), 76.9% (70.3-82.4); 93.2% (88.5-96.1), 100.0% (98.0-100.0); and 81.9% (75.6-86.8), 99.4% (96.9-99.9), respectively, in the three arms.
CONCLUSIONS: This study shows the high efficacy of different polio vaccines for serotype 1 in all three schedules. The type 1 seroconversion rate of mOPV1 is non-inferior to bOPV. All the vaccines provide high type-specific immunogenicity. The program can adopt the use of different vaccines or schedules depending on the epidemiology from time to time.

BACKGROUND: An inactivated poliomyelitis vaccine made from Sabin strains (sIPVs) has widely been used in China since 2015. However, the quantitative data on the instant and persistent inhibition effects of maternal poliovirus antibodies on the immune response to sIPV priming and booster vaccination have not been available yet.
OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aim to explore and quantify the instant and persistent inhibition effect of maternal poliovirus antibodies on the immune response elicited by sIPV primary and booster vaccination.
METHODS: The immunogenicity data consisting of the days 0 and 30 after the prime and booster vaccination of the sIPV in a phase IV trial were pooled for a quantitative analysis of the inhibition effect of maternal poliovirus antibody. The geometric mean ratio (GMR) was calculated using linear regression models, representing that every 2-fold higher maternal poliovirus antibody titer may result in a (1-GMR) lower postimmunization antibody titer.
RESULTS: The GMRs for poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3 were 0.79 (0.77-0.82), 0.85 (0.81-0.89), and 0.87 (0.83-0.91) at 30 days after the priming series, 0.86 (0.83-0.89), 0.81 (0.76-0.85), and 0.86 (0.80-0.93) at one year after the priming series, and 0.96 (0.94-0.99), 0.89 (0.86-0.93), and 0.98 (0.93-1.03) at 30 days after the booster dose. The inhibition effect continued to exist until the booster dose 1 year later, and such a persistent inhibition effect was almost attenuated for poliovirus types 1 and 3, and partly reduced for type 2 at 30 days after the booster dose.
CONCLUSIONS: A wider interval between the four sIPV doses might be a consideration for reducing the effect of maternal antibodies and subsequently eliciting and maintaining higher antibody levels to protect against poliovirus transmission and infection at the final stage of polio eradication in the global world. This study\'s clinical trial registry number is NCT04224519.

BACKGROUND: The multidose Sabin-strain inactivated poliovirus vaccine (sIPV) has the potential to significantly aid in the eradication of poliomyelitis, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. As part of a phase III clinical trial in which infants were given three doses of primary immunization at 2, 3, and 4 months of age, this study aimed to evaluate immune persistence following primary immunization, as well as the safety and immunogenicity of a booster of the 5-dose sIPV in infants aged 18 months.
METHODS: Infants aged 18 months were given one booster dose of 5-dose sIPV in stage one, which was open-label. Unblinding was performed for stage two after completing primary immunization, which was randomized, blinded, and controlled; infants aged 18 months in the test group I-III, IPV group, and single-dose sIPV group were given one booster dose of 5-dose sIPV, conventional IPV, and single-dose sIPV, respectively, in stage two.
RESULTS: This study included 1438 infants in the immune persistence and safety set and 1387 infants in the booster per-protocol set. Fourteen months after primary immunization, the seropositivity rates (≥1:8) for types 1-3 were 100%, 99.88%, and 99.53% in the 5-dose sIPV groups; 100%, 98.97%, and 97.23% in the IPV group; and 99.66%, 100%, and 99.66% in the single-dose sIPV group. A total of 30 days after booster immunization, the seropositivity rates (≥1:8) of 3 serotypes in all the groups reached 100%. The geometric mean titers of neutralizing antibodies for types 1-3 in the 5-dose sIPV group were 9962.89, 10273, and 7870.21, with geometric mean increases of 15.76, 33.15, and 24.5, compared to the pre-booster level. The overall incidence of adverse reactions was 8.97%, with fever being the most common, observed at rates of 7.1%, 5.52%, and 7.96% in the 5-dose sIPV, IPV, and single-dose groups, respectively (p = 0.4845).
CONCLUSIONS: The 5-dose sIPV has shown promising immune persistence and robust immune response following a booster immunization, coupled with an acceptable safety profile.

BACKGROUND: There has been no data on the immunogenicity and safety of the 4th booster dose of the sIPV immunization in 18-24 months old children in post-marketing studies of large cohort providing with robust results.
METHODS: In a phase Ⅳ randomized, double-blinded clinical trial, 1200 participants aged 2 months were immunized with three consecutive doses of sIPV at 2, 3, and 4 months old to complete primary immunization. Out of the 1200 participants, 1129 received the 4th dose of sIPV as booster immunization. Immunogenicity was evaluated in 1100 participants.
RESULTS: Seropositive rates of the anti-poliovirus type 1, 2, and 3 neutralizing antibodies were 99.9 %, 98.0 %, 98.2 %, respectively, with GMTs of 557.0, 146.1, 362.0 one year after primary vaccination. After booster vaccination between 18 and 24 months old, the seropositive rates for 3 types all reached 100.0 %, with GMTs of 8343.6, 5039.6, 5492.0, respectively. Particularly for the anti-poliovirus type 2 antibody, the GMT was 230.4 after primary immunization, maintained to 146.1 one year after primary immunization, and increased to as high as 5039.6 after booster vaccination. The GMT ratios between each batch groups after booster immunization were between 0.67 and 1.50, meeting the immunological equivalence criteria. The incidence rate of adverse reaction was 23.0 %, which was comparable to those in the phase Ⅲ trial but had a lower incidence. Furthermore, no SUSAR was reported in this study.
CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, as the anti-poliovirus antibodies gradually waned one year post sIPV primary vaccination, especially the type 2 antibody waned to a very low level, suggesting the importance of the booster immunization for children at the age of 18-24 months old. The booster shot can greatly enhance the antibody level and protect children from the potential risk of infection with WPV and VDPV by supplementing the anti-poliovirus type 2 immunity gap in the current real world. Clinic Trial Registration. NCT04224519.

OBJECTIVE: During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a decline in vaccine coverage, and the implementation of combined vaccines and co-administration strategies emerged as potential solutions to alleviate this predicament. Our objective is to delve into the concurrent administration of the sabin-strain-based inactivated poliovirus vaccine (sIPV), the diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis vaccine (DTaP), and measles-mumps-rubella vaccine (MMR), with the intention of bridging the evidentiary gap pertaining to vaccine co-administration in Chinese infants, and to ensure a safe and effective vaccination strategy, ultimately leading to an augmentation in immunization coverage.
METHODS: This study was a follow-up trial of the \"Immunogenicity and safety of concomitant administration of the sIPV with the DTaP vaccine in children: a multicenter, randomized, non-inferiority, controlled trial.\" Blood samples were collected on day 0 and day 30, and serum antibody levels were detected to measure antibody responses to each of the antigens. Local and systemic adverse events were monitored and compared among groups. This study is the first to fill the knowledge gap in China regarding the safe and effective combined vaccination of sIPV, DTaP, and MMR vaccines.
RESULTS: The geometric mean titer of the poliovirus types I, II, and III neutralizing antibodies were 1060.22 (95% CI: 865.73-1298.39), 1537.06 (95% CI: 1324.27-1784.05), and 1539.10 (95% CI: 1296.37-1827.29) in group I on day 30; geometric mean titer of antibodies against DTaP and MMR in the simultaneous vaccination group was non-inferior to those in the DTaP alone and MMR alone group. Reporting rates of local and systemic adverse reactions were similar between groups and no serious adverse events were reported throughout the clinical study period.
CONCLUSIONS: Co-administration of the sIPV, DTaP, and MMR was safe and did not impact immunogenicity, which would help to mitigate administrative costs and enhance vaccine coverage rates.

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.