Polio, Global Development, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, USA.
Biostatistics Consultant, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Lancet Infect Dis. 2021 Apr;21(4):559-568. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30555-7. Epub 2020 Oct 23.
Following the global eradication of wild poliovirus, countries using live attenuated oral poliovirus vaccines will transition to exclusive use of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) or fractional doses of IPV (f-IPV; a f-IPV dose is one-fifth of a normal IPV dose), but IPV supply and cost constraints will necessitate dose-sparing strategies. We compared immunisation schedules of f-IPV and IPV to inform the choice of optimal post-eradication schedule.
This randomised open-label, multicentre, phase 3, non-inferiority trial was done at two centres in Panama and one in the Dominican Republic. Eligible participants were healthy 6-week-old infants with no signs of febrile illness or known allergy to vaccine components. Infants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1, 1:1:1:2, 2:1:1:1), using computer-generated blocks of four or five until the groups were full, to one of four groups and received: two doses of intradermal f-IPV (administered at 14 and 36 weeks; two f-IPV group); or three doses of intradermal f-IPV (administered at 10, 14, and 36 weeks; three f-IPV group); or two doses of intramuscular IPV (administered at 14 and 36 weeks; two IPV group); or three doses of intramuscular IPV (administered at 10, 14, and 36 weeks; three IPV group). The primary outcome was seroconversion rates based on neutralising antibodies for poliovirus type 1 and type 2 at baseline and at 40 weeks (4 weeks after the second or third vaccinations) in the per-protocol population to allow non-inferiority and eventually superiority comparisons between vaccines and regimens. Three co-primary outcomes concerning poliovirus types 1 and 2 were to determine if seroconversion rates at 40 weeks of age after a two-dose regimen (administered at weeks 14 and 36) of intradermally administered f-IPV were non-inferior to a corresponding two-dose regimen of intramuscular IPV; if seroconversion rates at 40 weeks of age after a two-dose IPV regimen (weeks 14 and 36) were non-inferior to those after a three-dose IPV regimen (weeks 10, 14, and 36); and if seroconversion rates after a two-dose f-IPV regimen (weeks 14 and 36) were non-inferior to those after a three-dose f-IPV regimen (weeks 10, 14, and 36). The non-inferiority boundary was set at -10% for the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the seroconversion rate difference.. Safety was assessed as serious adverse events and important medical events. This study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03239496.
From Oct 23, 2017, to Nov 13, 2018, we enrolled 773 infants (372 [48%] girls) in Panama and the Dominican Republic (two f-IPV group n=217, three f-IPV group n=178, two IPV group n=178, and three IPV group n=200). 686 infants received all scheduled vaccine doses and were included in the per-protocol analysis. We observed non-inferiority for poliovirus type 1 seroconversion rate at 40 weeks for the two f-IPV dose schedule (95·9% [95% CI 92·0-98·2]) versus the two IPV dose schedule (98·7% [95·4-99·8]), and for the three f-IPV dose schedule (98·8% [95·6-99·8]) versus the three IPV dose schedule (100% [97·9-100]). Similarly, poliovirus type 2 seroconversion rate at 40 weeks for the two f-IPV dose schedule (97·9% [94·8-99·4]) versus the two IPV dose schedule (99·4% [96·4-100]), and for the three f-IPV dose schedule (100% [97·7-100]) versus the three IPV dose schedule (100% [97·9-100]) were non-inferior. Seroconversion rate for the two f-IPV regimen was statistically superior 4 weeks after the last vaccine dose in the 14 and 36 week schedule (95·9% [92·0-98·2]) compared with the 10 and 14 week schedule (83·2% [76·5-88·6]; p=0·0062) for poliovirus type 1. Statistical superiority of the 14 and 36 week schedule was also found for poliovirus type 2 (14 and 36 week schedule 97·9% [94·8-99·4] vs 10 and 14 week schedule 83·9% [77·2-89·2]; p=0·0062), and poliovirus type 3 (14 and 36 week schedule 84·5% [78·7-89·3] vs 10 and 14 week schedule 73·3% [65·8-79·9]; p=0·0062). For IPV, a two dose regimen administered at 14 and 36 weeks (99·4% [96·4-100]) was superior a 10 and 14 week schedule (88·9% [83·4-93·1]; p<0·0001) for poliovirus type 2, but not for type 1 (14 and 36 week schedule 98·7% [95·4-99·8] vs 10 and 14 week schedule 95·6% [91·4-98·1]), or type 3 (14 and 36 week schedule 97·4% [93·5-99·3] vs 10 and 14 week schedule 93·9% [89·3-96·9]). There were no related serious adverse events or important medical events reported in any group showing safety was unaffected by administration route or schedule.
Our observations suggest that adequate immunity against poliovirus type 1 and type 2 is provided by two doses of either IPV or f-IPV at 14 and 36 weeks of age, and broad immunity is provided with three doses of f-IPV, enabling substantial savings in cost and supply. These novel clinical data will inform global polio immunisation policy for the post-eradication era.
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
在全球消灭野生脊灰病毒后,使用口服脊灰减毒活疫苗的国家将过渡到仅使用灭活脊灰病毒疫苗(IPV)或脊灰病毒单价疫苗(f-IPV,f-IPV 剂量为正常 IPV 剂量的五分之一),但 IPV 的供应和成本限制将需要采取节省剂量的策略。我们比较了 f-IPV 和 IPV 的免疫接种方案,以了解最佳的消灭脊灰病毒后方案选择。
这是一项在巴拿马的两个中心和多米尼加共和国的一个中心进行的随机、开放标签、多中心、3 期、非劣效性试验。合格的参与者是 6 周龄的健康婴儿,没有发热性疾病或已知的疫苗成分过敏迹象。婴儿以 1:1:1:1、1:1:1:2、2:1:1:1 的比例随机分配(每组 4 或 5 个计算机生成的块,直到小组满员),共分为四组,分别接受:(1)皮内注射 f-IPV 两次(分别在 14 和 36 周进行;f-IPV 两组);(2)皮内注射 f-IPV 三次(分别在 10、14 和 36 周进行;f-IPV 三组);(3)肌内注射 IPV 两次(分别在 14 和 36 周进行;IPV 两组);或(4)肌内注射 IPV 三次(分别在 10、14 和 36 周进行;IPV 三组)。主要结局是基于脊灰病毒 1 型和 2 型的中和抗体在基线和第 40 周(第 2 或第 3 次接种后 4 周)的血清转化率,以允许疫苗和方案之间进行非劣效性和最终的优越性比较。三个主要的与脊灰病毒 1 型和 2 型有关的结局是确定在 14 和 36 周(周 14 和 36)进行皮内注射 f-IPV 的两剂方案后 40 周的血清转化率是否不劣于相应的肌内注射 IPV 的两剂方案;在 14 和 36 周(周 14 和 36)进行 IPV 两剂方案后 40 周的血清转化率是否不劣于在 10、14 和 36 周(周 10、14 和 36)进行的 IPV 三剂方案;以及在 14 和 36 周(周 14 和 36)进行 f-IPV 两剂方案后 40 周的血清转化率是否不劣于在 10、14 和 36 周(周 10、14 和 36)进行的 f-IPV 三剂方案。非劣效性边界设定为下边界为双侧 95%置信区间(CI)血清转化率差异的-10%。安全性评估为严重不良事件和重要医疗事件。本研究在 ClinicalTrials.gov 上注册,编号为 NCT03239496。
从 2017 年 10 月 23 日至 2018 年 11 月 13 日,我们在巴拿马和多米尼加共和国招募了 773 名婴儿(女孩 372 名[48%])。(2 剂 f-IPV 组 n=217,3 剂 f-IPV 组 n=178,2 剂 IPV 组 n=178,3 剂 IPV 组 n=200)。686 名婴儿接受了所有计划疫苗剂量,并纳入了符合方案分析。我们观察到,在 40 周时,两剂 f-IPV 方案的脊灰病毒 1 型血清转化率(95.9%[95.0-98.2])与两剂 IPV 方案(98.7%[95.4-99.8])相比具有非劣效性,而三剂 f-IPV 方案(98.8%[95.6-99.8])与三剂 IPV 方案(100%[97.9-100])相比也具有非劣效性。同样,在 40 周时,两剂 f-IPV 方案的脊灰病毒 2 型血清转化率(97.9%[94.8-99.4])与两剂 IPV 方案(99.4%[96.4-100])相比具有非劣效性,而三剂 f-IPV 方案(100%[97.7-100])与三剂 IPV 方案(100%[97.9-100])相比也具有非劣效性。与 10 和 14 周的方案(83.2%[76.5-88.6];p=0.0062)相比,两剂 f-IPV 方案在最后一剂疫苗接种后 4 周的脊灰病毒 1 型血清转化率具有统计学优势(95.9%[92.0-98.2])。与 10 和 14 周的方案(83.9%[77.2-89.2];p=0.0062)相比,两剂 f-IPV 方案在脊灰病毒 2 型(14 和 36 周方案 97.9%[94.8-99.4],10 和 14 周方案 83.9%[77.2-89.2])和脊灰病毒 3 型(14 和 36 周方案 84.5%[78.7-89.3],10 和 14 周方案 73.3%[65.8-79.9])也有统计学优势。对于 IPV,14 和 36 周(99.4%[96.4-100])进行两剂方案与 10 和 14 周(88.9%[83.4-93.1])进行的方案相比,脊灰病毒 2 型的优势更大,但脊灰病毒 1 型(14 和 36 周方案 98.7%[95.4-99.8],10 和 14 周方案 95.6%[91.4-98.1])和脊灰病毒 3 型(14 和 36 周方案 97.4%[93.5-99.3],10 和 14 周方案 93.9%[89.3-96.9])则没有。任何一组均未报告与疫苗接种途径或方案相关的相关严重不良事件或重要医疗事件,表明安全性不受影响。
我们的观察表明,14 和 36 周(14 和 36)进行两剂 IPV 或 f-IPV 可提供针对脊灰病毒 1 型和 2 型的充分免疫力,三剂 f-IPV 可提供广泛的免疫力,可在成本和供应方面节省大量资金。这些新的临床数据将为消灭脊灰病毒后时代的全球脊灰免疫接种政策提供信息。
比尔和梅琳达·盖茨基金会。