-
Expert Review of Vaccines 2024Despite multiple revisions of targets and timelines in polio eradication plans since 1988, including changes in supplemental immunization activities (SIAs) that increase... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Despite multiple revisions of targets and timelines in polio eradication plans since 1988, including changes in supplemental immunization activities (SIAs) that increase immunity above routine immunization (RI) coverage, poliovirus transmission continues as of 2024.
METHODS
We reviewed polio eradication plans and Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) annual reports and budgets to characterize key phases of polio eradication, the evolution of poliovirus vaccines, and the role of SIAs. We used polio epidemiology to provide context for successes and failures and updated prior modeling to show the contribution of SIAs in achieving and maintaining low polio incidence compared to expected incidence for the counterfactual of RI only.
RESULTS
We identified multiple phases of polio eradication that included shifts in targets and timelines and the introduction of different poliovirus vaccines, which influenced polio epidemiology. Notable shifts occurred in GPEI investments in SIAs since 2001, particularly since 2016. Modeling results suggest that SIAs play(ed) a key role in increasing (and maintaining) high population immunity to levels required to eradicate poliovirus transmission globally.
CONCLUSIONS
Shifts in polio eradication strategy and poliovirus vaccine usage in SIAs provide important context for understanding polio epidemiology, delayed achievement of polio eradication milestones, and complexity of the polio endgame.
Topics: Poliomyelitis; Humans; Disease Eradication; Global Health; Poliovirus Vaccines; Immunization Programs; Incidence; Poliovirus
PubMed: 38813792
DOI: 10.1080/14760584.2024.2361060 -
The Journal of Infectious Diseases Aug 2022We conducted a trial in Nigeria to assess the immunogenicity of the new bivalent oral poliovirus vaccine + inactivated poliovirus vaccine (bOPV+IPV) immunization... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
We conducted a trial in Nigeria to assess the immunogenicity of the new bivalent oral poliovirus vaccine + inactivated poliovirus vaccine (bOPV+IPV) immunization schedule and gains in type 2 immunity with addition of second dose of IPV. The trial was conducted in August 2016-March 2017, well past the trivalent OPV-bOPV switch in April 2016.
METHODS
This was an open-label, 2-arm, noninferiority, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. We enrolled 572 infants aged ≤14 days and randomized them into 2 arms. Arm A received bOPV at birth, 6, and 10 weeks, bOPV+IPV at week 14, and IPV at week 18. Arm B received IPV each at 6, 10, and 14 weeks and bOPV at 18 weeks of age.
RESULTS
Seroconversion rates for poliovirus types 1 and 3, respectively, were 98.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 96.7-99.8) and 98.1% (95% CI, 88.2-94.8) in Arm A and 89.6% (95% CI, 85.4-93.0) and 98.5% (95% CI, 96.3-99.6) in Arm B. Type 2 seroconversion with 1 dose IPV in Arm A was 72.0% (95% CI, 66.2-77.3), which increased significantly with addition of second dose to 95.9% (95% CI, 92.8-97.9).
CONCLUSIONS
This first trial on the new Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI) schedule in a sub-Saharan African country demonstrated excellent immunogenicity against poliovirus types 1 and 3 and substantial/enhanced immunogenicity against poliovirus type 2 after 1 to 2 doses of IPV, respectively.
Topics: Antibodies, Viral; Child; Humans; Immunization Schedule; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Nigeria; Poliomyelitis; Poliovirus; Poliovirus Vaccine, Inactivated; Poliovirus Vaccine, Oral; Vaccines, Combined
PubMed: 33230550
DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jiaa726 -
MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly... May 2022In 1988, the World Health Assembly established the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI). Since then, wild poliovirus (WPV) cases have decreased approximately...
In 1988, the World Health Assembly established the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI). Since then, wild poliovirus (WPV) cases have decreased approximately 99.99%, and WPV types 2 and 3 have been declared eradicated. Only Afghanistan and Pakistan have never interrupted WPV type 1 (WPV1) transmission. This report describes global progress toward polio eradication during January 1, 2020-April 30, 2022, and updates previous reports (1,2). This activity was reviewed by CDC and was conducted consistent with applicable federal law and CDC policy.* Five WPV1 cases were reported from Afghanistan and Pakistan in 2021, compared with 140 in 2020. In 2022 (as of May 5), three WPV1 cases had been reported: one from Afghanistan and two from Pakistan. WPV1 genetically linked to virus circulating in Pakistan was identified in Malawi in a child with paralysis onset in November 2021. Circulating vaccine-derived polioviruses (cVDPVs), with neurovirulence and transmissibility similar to that of WPV, emerge in populations with low immunity following prolonged circulation of Sabin strain oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) (3). During January 2020-April 30, 2022, a total of 1,856 paralytic cVDPV cases were reported globally: 1,113 in 2020 and 688 in 2021, including cases in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In 2022 (as of May 5), 55 cVDPV cases had been reported. Intensified programmatic actions leading to more effective outbreak responses are needed to stop cVDPV transmission. The 2022-2026 GPEI Strategic Plan objective of ending WPV1 transmission by the end of 2023 is attainable (4). However, the risk for children being paralyzed by polio remains until all polioviruses, including WPV and cVDPV, are eradicated.
Topics: Child; Disease Eradication; Humans; Immunization Programs; Poliomyelitis; Poliovirus; Poliovirus Vaccine, Oral; Population Surveillance
PubMed: 35552352
DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7119a2 -
The Lancet. Microbe Jan 2022
Topics: Afghanistan; Humans; Poliomyelitis; Poliovirus; Vaccination
PubMed: 35544112
DOI: 10.1016/S2666-5247(21)00336-0 -
Risk Analysis : An Official Publication... Feb 2021This introduction for the third special issue on modeling poliovirus risks provides context for the current status of global polio eradication efforts and gives an...
This introduction for the third special issue on modeling poliovirus risks provides context for the current status of global polio eradication efforts and gives an overview of the individual papers included in the issue. Although risk analysis continues to support the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI), efforts to finish the job remained off track at the beginning of 2020 and prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, as discussed in the special issue. The disruptions associated with COVID-19 occurring now will inevitably change the polio eradication trajectory, and future studies will need to characterize the impacts of these disruptions on the polio endgame.
Topics: COVID-19; Disease Eradication; Global Health; Humans; Immunization Programs; Models, Theoretical; Pandemics; Poliomyelitis; Poliovirus; Poliovirus Vaccines; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 33590520
DOI: 10.1111/risa.13668 -
Vaccine Jun 2023Prior modeling studies showed that current outbreak management strategies are unlikely to stop outbreaks caused by type 1 wild polioviruses (WPV1) or circulating...
Prior modeling studies showed that current outbreak management strategies are unlikely to stop outbreaks caused by type 1 wild polioviruses (WPV1) or circulating vaccine-derived polioviruses (cVDPVs) in many areas, and suggested increased risks of outbreaks with cocirculation of more than one type of poliovirus. The surge of type 2 poliovirus transmission that began in 2019 and continues to date, in conjunction with decreases in preventive supplemental immunization activities (SIAs) for poliovirus types 1 and 3, has led to the emergence of several countries with cocirculation of more than one type of poliovirus. Response to these emerging cocirculation events is theoretically straightforward, but the different formulations, types, and inventories of oral poliovirus vaccines (OPVs) available for outbreak response present challenging practical questions. In order to demonstrate the implications of using different vaccine options and outbreak campaign strategies, we applied a transmission model to a hypothetical population with conditions similar to populations currently experiencing outbreaks of cVDPVs of both types 1 and 2. Our results suggest prevention of the largest number of paralytic cases occurs when using (1) trivalent OPV (tOPV) (or coadministering OPV formulations for all three types) until one poliovirus outbreak type dies out, followed by (2) using a type-specific OPV until the remaining poliovirus outbreak type also dies out. Using tOPV first offers a lower overall expected cost, but this option may be limited by the willingness to expose populations to type 2 Sabin OPV strains. For strategies that use type 2 novel OPV (nOPV2) concurrently administered with bivalent OPV (bOPV, containing types 1 and 3 OPV) emerges as a leading option, but questions remain about feasibility, logistics, type-specific take rates, and coadministration costs.
Topics: Humans; Disease Outbreaks; Global Health; Poliomyelitis; Poliovirus; Poliovirus Vaccine, Inactivated; Poliovirus Vaccine, Oral
PubMed: 37121801
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2023.04.037 -
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Aug 2020Global poliovirus surveillance involves virus isolation from stool and environmental samples, intratypic differential (ITD) by PCR, and sequencing of the VP1 region to...
Global poliovirus surveillance involves virus isolation from stool and environmental samples, intratypic differential (ITD) by PCR, and sequencing of the VP1 region to distinguish vaccine (Sabin), vaccine-derived, and wild-type polioviruses and to ensure an appropriate response. This cell culture algorithm takes 2 to 3 weeks on average between sample receipt and sequencing. Direct detection of viral RNA using PCR allows faster detection but has traditionally faced challenges related to poor sensitivity and difficulties in sequencing common samples containing poliovirus and enterovirus mixtures. We present a nested PCR and nanopore sequencing protocol that allows rapid (<3 days) and sensitive direct detection and sequencing of polioviruses in stool and environmental samples. We developed barcoded primers and a real-time analysis platform that generate accurate VP1 consensus sequences from multiplexed samples. The sensitivity and specificity of our protocol compared with those of cell culture were 90.9% (95% confidence interval, 75.7% to 98.1%) and 99.2% (95.5% to 100.0%) for wild-type 1 poliovirus, 92.5% (79.6% to 98.4%) and 98.7% (95.4% to 99.8%) for vaccine and vaccine-derived serotype 2 poliovirus, and 88.3% (81.2% to 93.5%) and 93.2% (88.6% to 96.3%) for Sabin 1 and 3 poliovirus alone or in mixtures when tested on 155 stool samples in Pakistan. Variant analysis of sequencing reads also allowed the identification of polioviruses and enteroviruses in artificial mixtures and was able to distinguish complex mixtures of polioviruses in environmental samples. The median identity of consensus nanopore sequences with Sanger or Illumina sequences from the same samples was >99.9%. This novel method shows promise as a faster and safer alternative to cell culture for the detection and real-time sequencing of polioviruses in stool and environmental samples.
Topics: Environmental Monitoring; Feces; Humans; Nanopore Sequencing; Poliomyelitis; Poliovirus; Poliovirus Vaccine, Oral
PubMed: 32611795
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00920-20 -
The Pan African Medical Journal 2023Nigeria made a coordinated effort to be certified by the World Health Organization's African Region for interrupting endemic transmission of wild poliovirus type-1... (Review)
Review
Nigeria made a coordinated effort to be certified by the World Health Organization's African Region for interrupting endemic transmission of wild poliovirus type-1 (WPV1) in August 2020 as a response to the resurgence of WPV1 cases in August 2016 after going two years without a case. The NEOC Data Working Group (DWG) was instrumental in providing quality and timely surveillance and campaign information for decision-making in order to interrupt WPV1 transmission and provide data toward documentation of its elimination for regional certification. The polio pre-campaign dashboard was used to assess the level of preparedness for Oral Poliovirus Vaccine (OPV) polio supplementary immunization activities (SIA) at three weeks, two weeks, one week, and three days to the start of each campaign implemented during 2016-2020. The administrative tally sheet, independent monitoring survey, and Lot Quality Assurance Sampling (LQAS) survey data collected and shared from the implementation level were analyzed by the EOC DWG to provide information by person, place, and time. Using a 90% threshold in LQAS surveys defining quality SIAs, the proportion of Local Government Areas (LGAs) in Nigeria's states in which post-SIA LQAS surveys were conducted that met this threshold were assessed over time. The highest level of preparedness attained by 3 days to a polio campaign during August 2016-February 2020 was 95% and the lowest attained was 77%. The admin, independent monitoring, and LQAS data analysis results were given to EOC working groups for assessing the performance and quality of each campaign. Twenty-twenty five percent of LGAs that failed LQAS were identified for repeat vaccination. Further, acute flaccid paralysis and environmental surveillance data and laboratory results were analyzed and shared with NEOC and partners. The government and partners used the information generated by the Data Working Group to take evidence-based action including determining the scope of the polio campaign, intensification of surveillance and routine immunization activities, and special intervention activities. On average, 12% of the 774 LGAs were identified as polio high risk LGAs for intervention using selected surveillance, routine immunization (RI), SIAs, and other relevant data sets. National Emergency Operation Centre Data Working Group provided quality and timely information that supported decision-making processes for the polio program in Nigeria. The quality and timely information enabled the NEOC to make evidence-based and timely decisions that contributed to gap identification and decision-making.
Topics: Humans; Lot Quality Assurance Sampling; Disease Eradication; Poliomyelitis; Poliovirus; Poliovirus Vaccine, Oral; Nigeria; Immunization Programs
PubMed: 38370106
DOI: 10.11604/pamj.supp.2023.45.2.39489 -
MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly... Apr 2023Circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus (cVDPV) outbreaks* can occur when oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV, containing one or more Sabin-strain serotypes 1, 2, and 3) strains...
Circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus (cVDPV) outbreaks* can occur when oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV, containing one or more Sabin-strain serotypes 1, 2, and 3) strains undergo prolonged circulation in under-vaccinated populations, resulting in genetically reverted neurovirulent virus (1,2). Following declaration of the eradication of wild poliovirus type 2 in 2015 and the global synchronized switch from trivalent OPV (tOPV, containing Sabin-strain types 1, 2, and 3) to bivalent OPV (bOPV, containing types 1 and 3 only) for routine immunization activities in April 2016 (3), cVDPV type 2 (cVDPV2) outbreaks have been reported worldwide (4). During 2016-2020, immunization responses to cVDPV2 outbreaks required use of Sabin-strain monovalent OPV2, but new VDPV2 emergences could occur if campaigns did not reach a sufficiently high proportion of children. Novel oral poliovirus vaccine type 2 (nOPV2), a more genetically stable vaccine than Sabin OPV2, was developed to address the risk for reversion to neurovirulence and became available in 2021. Because of the predominant use of nOPV2 during the reporting period, supply replenishment has frequently been insufficient for prompt response campaigns (5). This report describes global cVDPV outbreaks during January 2021-December 2022 (as of February 14, 2023) and updates previous reports (4). During 2021-2022, there were 88 active cVDPV outbreaks, including 76 (86%) caused by cVDPV2. cVDPV outbreaks affected 46 countries, 17 (37%) of which reported their first post-switch cVDPV2 outbreak. The total number of paralytic cVDPV cases during 2020-2022 decreased by 36%, from 1,117 to 715; however, the proportion of all cVDPV cases that were caused by cVDPV type 1 (cVDPV1) increased from 3% in 2020 to 18% in 2022, including the occurrence of cocirculating cVDPV1 and cVDPV2 outbreaks in two countries. The increased proportion of cVDPV1 cases follows a substantial decrease in global routine immunization coverage and suspension of preventive immunization campaigns during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2022) (6); outbreak responses in some countries were also suboptimal. Improving routine immunization coverage, strengthening poliovirus surveillance, and conducting timely and high-quality supplementary immunization activities (SIAs) in response to cVDPV outbreaks are needed to interrupt cVDPV transmission and reach the goal of no cVDPV isolations in 2024.
Topics: Child; Humans; Disease Outbreaks; Poliomyelitis; Poliovirus; Poliovirus Vaccine, Oral
PubMed: 37022974
DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7214a3 -
Vaccine Feb 2024Delays 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...
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.
Topics: Humans; United States; Poliovirus Vaccine, Inactivated; Poliovirus; Poliovirus Vaccine, Oral; Poliomyelitis; Disease Outbreaks; Vaccination; New York
PubMed: 38218668
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2023.12.081