Hiromasa Okayasu

Progress in the Development of Poliovirus Antiviral Agents and Their Essential Role in Reducing Risks That Threaten Eradication

Chronic prolonged excretion of vaccine-derived polioviruses by immunodeficient persons (iVDPV) presents a personal risk of poliomyelitis to the patient as well as a programmatic risk of delayed global eradication. Poliovirus antiviral drugs offer the only mitigation of these risks. Antiviral agents may also have a potential role in the management of accidental exposures and in certain outbreak scenarios. Efforts to discover and develop poliovirus antiviral agents have been ongoing in earnest since the formation in 2007 of the Poliovirus Antivirals Initiative. The most advanced antiviral, pocapavir (V-073), is a capsid inhibitor that has recently demonstrated activity in an oral poliovirus vaccine human challenge model. Additional antiviral candidates with differing mechanisms of action continue to be profiled and evaluated preclinically with the goal of having 2 antivirals available for use in combination to treat iVDPV excreters.

Affordable Inactivated Poliovirus Vaccine: Strategies and Progress

After polio eradication is achieved, the use of live-attenuated oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) must be discontinued because of the inherent risk of the Sabin strains to revert to neurovirulence and reacquire greater transmissibility that could potentially result in the reestablishment of polio transmission. In 2008, the World Health Assembly mandated that the World Health Organization establish a strategy for developing more-affordable inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) options for low-income countries. In 2012, the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) on Immunization recommended universal IPV introduction as a risk-mitigation strategy before the phased cessation of OPV (starting with Sabin type 2) and emphasized the need for affordable IPV options. In 2013, SAGE reiterated the importance of attaining the long-term target price of IPV at approximately

Safety and immunogenicity of a primary series of Sabin-IPV with and without aluminum hydroxide in infants

0.5 per immunizing dose and encouraged accelerated efforts to develop lower-cost IPV options. This article outlines the 4-pronged approach that is being pursued to develop affordable options and provides an update on the current status and plans to make IPV affordable for developing-country use.

Mucosal immunity and poliovirus vaccines: Impact on wild poliovirus infection and transmission

BACKGROUND An inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) based on attenuated poliovirus strains (Sabin-1, -2 and -3) was developed for technology transfer to manufacturers in low- and middle-income countries in the context of the global polio eradication initiative. METHOD Safety and immunogenicity of Sabin-IPV (sIPV) was evaluated in a double-blind, randomized, controlled, dose-escalation trial in the target population. Healthy infants (n=20/group) aged 56-63 days, received a primary series of three intramuscular injections with low-, middle- or high-dose sIPV with or without aluminum hydroxide or with the conventional IPV based on wild poliovirus strains (wIPV). Virus-neutralizing titers against both Sabin and wild poliovirus strains were determined before and 28 days after three vaccinations. RESULTS The incidence of local and systemic reactions was comparable with the wIPV. Seroconversion rates after three vaccinations were 100% for type 2 and type 3 polioviruses (both Sabin and wild strains) and 95-100% for type 1 polioviruses. Median titers were high in all groups. Titers were well above the log2(titer) correlated with protection (=3) for all groups. Median titers for Sabin-2 were 9.3 (range 6.8-11.5) in the low-dose sIPV group, 9.2 (range 6.8-10.2) in the low-dose adjuvanted sIPV group and 9.8 (range 5.5-15.0) in the wIPV group, Median titers against MEF-1 (wild poliovirus type 2) were 8.2 (range 4.8-10.8) in the low-dose sIPV group, 7.3 (range 4.5-10.2) in the low-dose adjuvanted Sabin-IPV group and 10.3 (range 8.5-17.0) in the wIPV group. For all poliovirus types the median titers increased with increasing dose levels. CONCLUSION sIPV and sIPV adjuvanted with aluminum hydroxide were immunogenic and safe at all dose levels, and comparable with the wIPV. EudraCTnr: 2011-003792-11, NCT01709071.

Mucosal immunity to poliovirus

Since the resolution of the World Assembly in 1988 to eradicate polio globally, substantial progress toward this target has been achieved, but the final goal remains elusive. India and other tropical developing countries present a unique challenge because of the much lower oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) immunogenicity compared to industrialized countries, both in terms of humoral and mucosal immunity. To overcome this challenge, further research is needed to elucidate the causes for the suboptimal OPV immunogenicity, better defining the optimal vaccine schedules and delivery strategies, developing and evaluating adjuvants to boost OPV immunogenicity, and improving the methods for directly measuring mucosal immunity.

Lot Quality Assurance Sampling to Monitor Supplemental Immunization Activity Quality: An Essential Tool for Improving Performance in Polio Endemic Countries

The Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) currently based on use of oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) has identified suboptimal immunogenicity of this vaccine as a major impediment to eradication, with a failure to induce protection against paralytic poliomyelitis in certain population segments in some parts of the world. The Mucosal Immunity and Poliovirus Vaccines: Impact on Wild Poliovirus Infection, Transmission and Vaccine Failure conference was organized to obtain a better understanding of the current status of global control of poliomyelitis and identify approaches to improve the immune responsiveness and effectiveness of the orally administered poliovirus vaccines in order to accelerate the global eradication of paralytic poliomyelitis.

Reactogenicity and immunogenicity of inactivated poliovirus vaccine produced from Sabin strains: A phase I Trial in healthy adults in Cuba☆

Monitoring the quality of supplementary immunization activities (SIAs) is a key tool for polio eradication. Regular monitoring data, however, are often unreliable, showing high coverage levels in virtually all areas, including those with ongoing virus circulation. To address this challenge, lot quality assurance sampling (LQAS) was introduced in 2009 as an additional tool to monitor SIA quality. Now used in 8 countries, LQAS provides a number of programmatic benefits: identifying areas of weak coverage quality with statistical reliability, differentiating areas of varying coverage with greater precision, and allowing for trend analysis of campaign quality. LQAS also accommodates changes to survey format, interpretation thresholds, evaluations of sample size, and data collection through mobile phones to improve timeliness of reporting and allow for visualization of campaign quality. LQAS becomes increasingly important to address remaining gaps in SIA quality and help focus resources on high-risk areas to prevent the continued transmission of wild poliovirus.

Effect of Buffer on the Immune Response to Trivalent Oral Poliovirus Vaccine in Bangladesh: A Community Based Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND To ensure that developing countries have the option to produce inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV), the Global Polio Eradication Initiative has promoted the development of an IPV using Sabin poliovirus strains (Sabin IPV). This trial assessed the reactogenicity and immunogenicity of Sabin IPV and adjuvanted Sabin IPV in healthy adults in Cuba. METHODS This is a randomized, controlled phase I trial, enrolling 60 healthy (previously vaccinated) male human volunteers, aged 19-23 years to receive one dose of either Sabin IPV (20:32:64 DU/dose), adjuvanted Sabin IPV (10:16:32 DU/dose), or conventional Salk IPV (40:8:32 DU/dose). The primary endpoint for reactogenicity relied on monitoring of adverse events. The secondary endpoint measured boosting immune responses (i.e. seroconversion or 4-fold rise) of poliovirus antibody, assessed by neutralization assays. RESULTS Sixty subjects fulfilled the study requirements. No serious adverse events reported were attributed to trial interventions during the 6-month follow-up period. Twenty-eight days after vaccination, boosting immune responses against poliovirus types 1-3 were between 90% and 100% in all vaccination groups. There was a more than 6-fold increase in median antibody titers between pre- and post-vaccination titers in all vaccination groups. DISCUSSION Both Sabin IPV and adjuvanted Sabin IPV were well tolerated and immunogenic against all poliovirus serotypes. This result suggests that the aluminum adjuvant may allow a 50% (or higher) dose reduction.

Boosting Immune Responses Following Fractional-Dose Inactivated Poliovirus Vaccine: A Randomized, Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND Polio eradication efforts have been hampered by low responses to trivalent oral poliovirus vaccine (tOPV) in some developing countries. Since stomach acidity may neutralize vaccine viruses, we assessed whether administration of a buffer solution could improve the immunogenicity of tOPV. METHODS Healthy infants 4-6 weeks old in Sylhet, Bangladesh, were randomized to receive tOPV with or without a sodium bicarbonate and sodium citrate buffer at age 6, 10, and 14 weeks. Levels of serum neutralizing antibodies for poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3 were measured before and after vaccination, at 6 and 18 weeks of age, respectively. FINDINGS Serologic response rates following 3 doses of tOPV for buffer recipients and control infants were 95% and 88% (P=.065), respectively, for type 1 poliovirus; 95% and 97% (P=.543), respectively, for type 2 poliovirus; and 90% and 89% (P=.79), respectively, for type 3 poliovirus. CONCLUSIONS Administration of a buffer solution prior to vaccination was not associated with statistically significant increases in the immune response to tOPV; however, a marginal 7% increase (P=.065) in serologic response to poliovirus type 1 was observed. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION NCT01579825.

Intradermal Administration of Fractional Doses of Inactivated Poliovirus Vaccine: A Dose-Sparing Option for Polio Immunization

Background Fractional-dose administration of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (fIPV) could increase IPV affordability and stretch limited supplies. We assessed immune responses following fIPV administered intradermally, compared with full-dose IPV administered intramuscularly, among adults with a history of oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) receipt. Methods We conducted a randomized, controlled noninferiority trial in Cuba. fIPV or IPV were administered on days 0 and 28; serum was collected on days 0, 7, 28, and 56 for analysis by a neutralization assay. The primary end point was seroconversion or a ≥4-fold rise in antibody titer. The noninferiority limit was 10%. The secondary end point was safety, assessed by the number and intensity of adverse reactions. Results A total of 503 of 534 enrolled participants (94.2%) completed all study requirements. Twenty-eight days after the first dose, 94.8%, 98.0%, and 98.0% of fIPV recipients had an immune response to poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3, respectively, compared with 98.1% (P = .06), 98.0% (P = 1.00), and 99.2% (P = .45) in the IPV arm. Noninferiority was achieved on days 7, 28, and 56 for all serotypes. No serious adverse events were reported. Conclusion fIPV induced similar boosting immune responses, compared with full-dose IPV. This suggests that fIPV would be an effective strategy to boost population immunity in an outbreak situation. Clinical Trials Registration ACTRN12615000305527.