Trivalent Oral Poliomyelitis vaccine(GlaxoSmithKline Plc)

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.