The cost-effectiveness of alternative polio immunization policies in South Africa

AIMS: To assess the cost-effectiveness of switching from oral polio vaccine (OPV) to inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV), or to cease polio vaccination in routine immunization services in South Africa at the time of OPV cessation globally following polio eradication. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness of nine different polio immunization alternatives were evaluated. The costs of introducing IPV in a separate vial as well as in different combination vaccines were estimated, and IPV schedules with 2, 3 and 4 doses were compared with the current 6-dose OPV schedule. Assumptions about IPV prices were based on indications from vaccine manufacturers. The health impact of OPV cessation was measured in terms of vaccine associated paralytic paralysis (VAPP) cases and disability adjusted life years (DALYs) averted. CONCLUSIONS: The use of OPV in routine immunization services is predicted to result in 2.96 VAPP cases in the 2005 cohort. The cost-effectiveness of the different IPV alternatives varies between US$ 740,000 and US$ 7.2 million per VAPP case averted. The costs per discounted DALY averted amount to between US$ 61,000 and US$ 594,000. Among the IPV strategies evaluated, the 2-dose schedule in a 10-dose vial is the most cost-effective option. At the assumed vaccine prices, all IPV options do not appear to be cost-effective in the South African situation. OPV cessation without IPV replacement would result in cost savings of US$ 1.6 million per year compared to the current situation. This is approximately a 9% decrease in the budget for vaccine delivery in South Africa. However, with this option there is a risk (albeit small) of vaccine-derived poliovirus circulating in a progressively susceptible population. For IPV in a single dose vial, the break-even price, at which the costs of IPV delivery equal the current OPV delivery costs, is US$ 0.39.     

Co-administration study in South African infants of a live-attenuated oral human rotavirus vaccine (RIX4414) and poliovirus vaccines

A double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II trial (e-Track 444563-014/NCT00346892) was conducted in South Africa to evaluate the co-administration of RIX4414 (live-attenuated human G1P[8] rotavirus vaccine) and oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) administered simultaneously. Healthy infants (n=450) were randomized into three groups (RIX4414+OPV, RIX4414+IPV or Placebo+OPV) to receive two oral doses of RIX4414/placebo with OPV or IPV using two vaccination schedules (6-10 weeks and 10-14 weeks). Serum anti-rotavirus IgA antibodies (ELISA) and neutralizing antibodies (micro-neutralization assay) to poliovirus serotypes 1, 2 and 3 were measured. Co-administration of RIX4414 with OPV did not result in a decrease in the high sero-protection rates against poliovirus serotypes 1, 2 and 3 detected after the third OPV dose (98-100%). The anti-rotavirus IgA antibody sero-conversion rates were higher for the 10-14 weeks schedule (55-61%) compared to the 6-10 weeks schedule (36-43%). Solicited symptoms were reported at similar rates between RIX4414 and placebo groups and no serious adverse events related to RIX4414 were reported. This study provided evidence that RIX4414 can be co-administered with routine EPI immunizations including OPV and that two doses of RIX4414 were well tolerated and immunogenic in South African infants.     

Serological response and poliovirus excretion following different combined oral and inactivated poliovirus vaccines immunization schedules

A controlled study was conducted in Karachi, Pakistan to compare humoral and mucosal immune responses against polioviruses in infants who received oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) at birth and at 6, 10, and 14 weeks according to the Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI) with infants who received either three doses of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) at 6, 10, and 14 weeks together with OPV or one additional dose of IPV at 14 weeks together, with the last dose of OPV. A total of 1429 infants were enrolled; 24-week serum specimens were available for 898 infants (63%). They all received a challenge dose of OPV type 3 at 24 weeks of age. The addition of three doses of IPV to three doses of OPV induced a significantly higher percentage of seropositive children at 24 weeks of age for polio 1 (97% versus 89%, P<0.001) and polio 3 (98% versus 92%) compared to the EPI schedule. However, the one supplemental dose of IPV at 14 weeks did not increase the serological response at 24 weeks. Intestinal immunity against the challenge dose was similar in the three groups. Combined schedules of OPV and IPV in the form of diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus-IPV vaccine (DPT-IPV) may be useful to accelerate eradication of polio in developing countries.     

Lack of immune interference between inactivated polio vaccine and inactivated rotavirus vaccine co-administered by intramuscular injection in two animal species

A parenteral inactivated rotavirus vaccine (IRV) in development could address three problems with current live oral rotavirus vaccines (ORV): their lower efficacy in low and middle-income countries (LMICs), lingering concerns about their association with intussusception, and their requirement for a separate supply chain with large volume cold storage. Adding a new parenteral IRV to the current schedule of childhood immunizations would be more acceptable if it could be combined with another injectable vaccine such as inactivated polio vaccine (IPV). Current plans for polio eradication call for phasing out oral polio vaccine (OPV) and transitioning to IPV, initially in LMICs as a single dose booster after two doses of OPV and ultimately as a two dose schedule. Today in many LMICs, IPV is administered as a standalone vaccine, which involves a separate cold chain and is relatively costly. We therefore tested in two animal models formulations of IPV with IRV to determine whether co-administration might interfere with the immune response to each product and spare antigen dose for both vaccines. Our results demonstrate that IRV when adjuvanted with alum and administered alone or in combination with IPV did not impair the immune responses to either rotavirus or poliovirus serotypes 1, 2 and 3. Similarly, IPV when formulated and administered alone or together with IRV induced comparable levels of neutralizing antibody to poliovirus type 1, 2 and 3. Furthermore, comparable antibody titers were observed in animals vaccinated with low, middle or high dose of IPV or IRV in combination. This dose sparing and the lack of interference between IPV and IRV administered together represent another step to support the further development of this novel combination vaccine for children.     

Immunogenicity of four doses of oral poliovirus vaccine when co-administered with the human neonatal rotavirus vaccine (RV3-BB)

BackgroundThe RV3-BB human neonatal rotavirus vaccine was developed to provide protection from severe rotavirus disease from birth. The aim of this study was to investigate the potential for mutual interference in the immunogenicity of oral polio vaccine (OPV) and RV3-BB.MethodsA randomized, placebo-controlled trial involving 1649 participants was conducted from January 2013 to July 2016 in Central Java and Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Participants received three doses of oral RV3-BB, with the first dose given at 0–5 days (neonatal schedule) or ~8 weeks (infant schedule), or placebo. Two sub-studies assessed the immunogenicity of RV3-BB when co-administered with either trivalent OPV (OPV group, n = 282) or inactivated polio vaccine (IPV group, n = 333). Serum samples were tested for antibodies to poliovirus strains 1, 2 and 3 by neutralization assays following doses 1 and 4 of OPV.ResultsSero-protective rates to poliovirus type 1, 2 or 3 were similar (range 0.96–1.00) after four doses of OPV co-administered with RV3-BB compared with placebo. Serum IgA responses to RV3-BB were similar when co-administered with either OPV or IPV (difference in proportions OPV vs IPV: sIgA responses; neonatal schedule 0.01, 95% CI −0.12 to 0.14; p = 0.847; infant schedule −0.10, 95% CI −0.21 to −0.001; p = 0.046: sIgA GMT ratio: neonatal schedule 1.23, 95% CI 0.71–2.14, p = 0.463 or infant schedule 1.20, 95% CI 0.74–1.96, p = 0.448).ConclusionsThe co-administration of OPV with RV3-BB rotavirus vaccine in a birth dose strategy did not reduce the immunogenicity of either vaccine. These findings support the use of a neonatal RV3-BB vaccine where either OPV or IPV is used in the routine vaccination schedule.     

Poliomyelitis prevention in the United States. Updated recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

These recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) for poliomyelitis prevention replace those issued in 1997. As of January 1, 2000, ACIP recommends exclusive use of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) for routine childhood polio vaccination in the United States. All children should receive four doses of IPV at ages 2, 4, and 6-18 months and 4-6 years. Oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) should be used only in certain circumstances, which are detailed in these recommendations. Since 1979, the only indigenous cases of polio reported in the United States have been associated with the use of the live OPV. Until recently, the benefits of OPV use (i.e., intestinal immunity, secondary spread) outweighed the risk for vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP) (i.e., one case among 2.4 million vaccine doses distributed). In 1997, to decrease the risk for VAPP but maintain the benefits of OPV, ACIP recommended replacing the all-OPV schedule with a sequential schedule of IPV followed by OPV. Since 1997, the global polio eradication initiative has progressed rapidly, and the likelihood of poliovirus importation into the United States has decreased substantially. In addition, the sequential schedule has been well accepted. No declines in childhood immunization coverage were observed, despite the need for additional injections. On the basis of these data, ACIP recommended on June 17, 1999, an all-IPV schedule for routine childhood polio vaccination in the United States to eliminate the risk for VAPP. ACIP reaffirms its support for the global polio eradication initiative and the use of OPV as the only vaccine recommended to eradicate polio from the remaining countries where polio is endemic.     

The perspective of global eradication of poliomyelitis

In recent years, Germany and Switzerland have changed national policies to recommend vaccination with IPV (inactivated polio vaccine) instead of OPV (oral polio vaccine) for protection against poliomyelitis. An all IPV-schedule in routine childhood polio vaccination eliminates the - albeit minimal - risk of OPV-associated paralytic poliomyelitis. However, the impact of such a vaccination scheme on the goal to eventually eradicate poliomyelitis on a global level remains debatable. Published studies indicate that vaccine-derived poliovirus may persist in the environment for prolonged periods of time even after completion of a global eradication programme that relies on the near-exclusive use of OPV in the developing countries. Travellers vaccinated with IPV only might become silently infected with vaccine-derived virus, shedding it in large quantities. We therefore plead for a vaccination schedule that includes at least one last dose of OPV to induce strong mucosal immunity.     

Polio immunization policy in Mexico: economic assessment of current practice and future alternatives

The World Health Organization recommends that all children aged less than 5 years should be vaccinated against polio through intensive immunization programmes as well as routine immunization. A national immunization week (NIW) was held in February 2002 in the Monterrey district of Mexico. A prospective micro-costing study was conducted to measure the total cost to the state of the NIW, the cost profile, and the ratio of cost per immunization contact to cost per dose of oral polio vaccine (OPV), and to compare OPV and inactive polio vaccine (IPV) in economic terms. Two scenarios were used as the basis for calculation. The cost of volunteers was excluded from the "lower-cost scenario" and included in the "upper-cost scenario". The total cost of the NIW was USD 100,454 for the lower-cost scenario and USD 156,614 for the upper-cost scenario. The major part of the costs was personnel costs (67.30 and 77.53% of the total costs in the lower- and upper-cost scenario, respectively). The ratio of cost per immunization contact to cost per dose of OPV was 6.45 for the lower-cost scenario and 10.05 for the upper-cost scenario. Changing from the current OPV-based intensive and routine schedule to a sequential IPV-OPV routine schedule would save USD 14.52 per vaccinated child, and changing to a full IPV routine schedule would save USD 9.41 per vaccinated child.     

The role of routine polio immunization in the post-certification era

The role of routine vaccination against poliomyelitis for the post-certification era remains an important area for policy decision-making. Two critical decisions need to be taken: first, to continue or discontinue vaccination with the live attenuated oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV); and second, if OPV is to be discontinued, whether vaccination with inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) is needed. Four potential vaccination scenarios can be constructed: stop all polio vaccination; continue with current vaccination policies (OPV, IPV, or sequential schedule); discontinue OPV, but continue IPV universally; or discontinue OPV, but continue IPV in selected countries. All possible scenarios require continued investments in a surveillance and response strategy, including a stockpile of polio vaccine. Continuing vaccination would limit the savings that could be applied to the control of other health priorities. This report reviews the key issues associated with each scenario, highlights the advantages and disadvantages of each scenario, and outlines the major challenges for policy decision-making.     

PER.C6 cells as a serum-free suspension cell platform for the production of high titer poliovirus: A potential low cost of goods option for world supply of inactivated poliovirus vaccine

There are two highly efficacious poliovirus vaccines: Sabin's live-attenuated oral polio vaccine (OPV) and Salk's inactivated polio vaccine (IPV). OPV can be made at low costs per dose and is easily administrated. However, the major drawback is the frequent reversion of the OPV vaccine strains to virulent poliovirus strains which can result in Vaccine Associated Paralytic Poliomyelitis (VAPP) in vaccinees. Furthermore, some OPV revertants with high transmissibility can circulate in the population as circulating Vaccine Derived Polioviruses (cVDPVs). IPV does not convey VAPP and cVDPVs but the high costs per dose and insufficient supply have rendered IPV an unfavorable option for low and middle-income countries.     

Intradermal fractional dose inactivated polio vaccine: a review of the literature

Oral polio vaccine (OPV) will likely be insufficient to completely eradicate polio due to its propensity to mutate into neurovirulent forms and its inability to produce adequate immunity in certain areas of the world. Inactivated polio vaccine (IPV), a killed vaccine which therefore cannot mutate, may be more effective than OPV in certain populations, and will likely be required for global polio eradication. However, the high cost of IPV is prohibitive in many areas of the world. Intradermal administration has the potential to lower the dose, and thus the cost, of IPV. This article reviews the clinical studies to date on intradermal fractional dose polio vaccination. We conclude that intradermal IPV vaccination shows potential as a means to reduce the cost and increase the ease of administration of IPV, but that additional research is needed to determine the optimal fractional dose, timing, and role of adjuvants in intradermal IPV vaccination as well as the clinical significance of different antibody titers above the threshold for seroconversion.     

Inactivated polio vaccination using a microneedle patch is immunogenic in the rhesus macaque

The phased replacement of oral polio vaccine (OPV) with inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) is expected to significantly complicate mass vaccination campaigns, which are an important component of the global polio eradication endgame strategy. To simplify mass vaccination with IPV, we developed microneedle patches that are easy to administer, have a small package size, generate no sharps waste and are inexpensive to manufacture. When administered to rhesus macaques, neutralizing antibody titers were equivalent among monkeys vaccinated using microneedle patches and conventional intramuscular injection for IPV types 1 and 2. Serologic response to IPV type 3 vaccination was weaker after microneedle patch vaccination compared to intramuscular injection; however, we suspect the administered type 3 dose was lower due to a flawed pre-production IPV type 3 analytical method. IPV vaccination using microneedle patches was well tolerated by the monkeys. We conclude that IPV vaccination using a microneedle patch is immunogenic in rhesus macaques and may offer a simpler method of IPV vaccination of people to facilitate polio eradication.     

中国脊髓灰质炎疫苗使用历史回顾及免疫策略调整建议

在消灭脊髓灰质炎（脊灰）过程中,脊灰疫苗发挥了重要作用。口服脊灰减毒活疫苗（Oral Poliomyelitis Attenuated Live Vaccine,OPV）是一种安全有效的疫苗,中国于20世纪60年代推广使用OPV,常规免疫接种率逐步提高到〉90％。从1990年开始,部分省（自治区、直辖市）开展了OPV补充免疫活动（Supplementary Immunization Activity,SIA）;1993～2000年,开展消灭脊灰的国家免疫日活动,中国所在的世界卫生组织（World Health Organization,WHO）西太平洋区于2000年实现无脊灰的目标,继续在适龄儿童中加强OPV常规免疫和开展SIA。根据WHO制定的（（2013—2018年消灭脊灰终结战略计划》,2015年所有国家要引进至少1剂灭活脊灰病毒疫苗（Inactivated Poliovirus Vaccine,IPV）,2016年中期使用二价OPV（I＋Ⅲ型）,2018年停用OPV。为确保OPV成功转换IPV,中国应建立部门间协作机制,加快国产IPV研发生产进程,组织开展OPV和IPV转换的相关研究。     

Polio vaccines: WHO position paper,January 2014 – Recommendations

This article presents the World Health Organizations (WHO) evidence and recommendations for the use of polio vaccination from the WHO position paper on polio vaccines – January 2014 recently published in the Weekly Epidemiological Record [1]. This position paper summarizes the WHO position on the introduction of at least one dose of inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) into routine immunization schedules as a strategy to mitigate the potential risk of re-emergence of type 2 polio following the withdrawal of Sabin type 2 strains from oral polio vaccine (OPV). The current document replaces the position paper on the use of polio vaccines published in 2010 [2].     

Long-term evaluation of mucosal and systemic immunity and protection conferred by different polio booster vaccines

Oral polio vaccine (OPV) and Inactivated Polio Vaccine (IPV) have distinct advantages and limitations. IPV does not provide mucosal immunity and introduction of IPV to mitigate consequences of circulating vaccine-derived polio virus from OPV has very limited effect on transmission and OPV campaigns are essential for interrupting wild polio virus transmission, even in developed countries with a high coverage of IPV and protected sewer systems. The problem is magnified in many countries with limited resources. Requirement of refrigeration for storage and transportation for both IPV and OPV is also a major challenge in developing countries. Therefore, we present here long-term studies on comparison of a plant-based booster vaccine, which is free of virus and cold chain with IPV boosters and provide data on mucosal and systemic immunity and protection conferred by neutralizing antibodies.Mice were primed subcutaneously with IPV and boosted orally with lyophilized plant cells containing 1 μg or 25 μg polio viral protein 1 (VP1), once a month for three months or a single booster one year after the first prime. Our results show that VP1-IgG1 titers in single or double dose IPV dropped to background levels after one year of immunization. This decrease correlated with >50% reduction in seropositivity in double dose and <10% seropositivity in single dose IPV against serotype 1. Single dose IPV offered no or minimal protection against serotype 1 and 2 but conferred protection against serotype 3. VP1-IgA titers were negligible in IPV single or double dose vaccinated mice. VP1 antigen with two plant-derived adjuvants induced significantly high level and long lasting VP1-IgG1, IgA and neutralizing antibody titers (average 4.3–6.8 log2 titers). Plant boosters with VP1 and plant derived adjuvants maintained the same level titers from 29 to 400 days and conferred the same level of protection against all three serotypes throughout the duration of this study. Even during period, when no plant booster was given (∼260 days), VP1-IgG1 titers were maintained at high levels. Lyophilized plant cells expressing VP1 can be stored without losing efficacy, eliminating cold chain. Virus-free, cold-chain free vaccine is ready for further clinical development.     

World wide experience with inactivated poliovirus vaccine

As part of the global poliovirus eradication strategy, oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) has successfully contributed to reduce polio incidence rates globally. However, because of the OPV-related risks of vaccine associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP) and vaccine-derived polioviruses (VDPVs) OPV cessation is required in order to achieve complete eradication of polio. Inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) is a viable option for incorporation into existing vaccination schedules so as to avoid these risks. Furthermore, the continuation of vaccination with IPV will protect populations in case of re-emergence of wild-type poliovirus from remote locations, laboratory samples, or through bioterrorism. The ability of IPV to prevent poliovirus outbreaks and provide herd protection has been demonstrated in several circumstances and in various settings. This paper reviews clinical experiences with IPV administration and outcomes in various countries in Europe, the Americas, Africa and Asia.     

灭活脊髓灰质炎病毒疫苗在中国应用的咨询意见调查

目的从扩大免疫规划（Expanded Program on Immunization,EPI）专家认知,来探讨灭活脊髓灰质炎（脊灰）病毒疫苗（Inactivated Poliovirus Vaccine,IPV）在中国应用的相关问题,为制定脊灰疫苗免疫策略提供参考。方法以人口数多和疫苗需求量大为原则,在全国范围内选取7个省（自治区）,对30名EPI专家进行开放式问卷调查。结果50％的调查对象希望在2015年国家能将IPV纳入EPI,与世界卫生组织提出的{2013～2018年消灭脊灰终结战略计划》时间进度表同步,专家们一致认同在保证疫苗质量的前提下,应尽可能地降低疫苗成本,IPV可接受价格中位数为20元／剂（范围5～50元／剂）。实现IPV国产化势在必行,卫生行政等政府部门应尽快明确中国脊灰疫苗免疫策略和使用时间进度表,疾病预防控制中心依据卫生行政部门制定的免疫策略提供技术指导和支持,疫苗生产企业应加快IPV的研发、生产和上市。结论EPI专家一致赞同随着全球消灭脊灰的进程,中国逐步引入IPV是大势所趋。     

Immunogenicity and persistence from different 3-dose schedules of live and inactivated polio vaccines in Chinese infants

BackgroundOPV is the only poliovirus vaccine used in the China EPI system, although IPV is available in the private market. We compared immunigencity and persistence among different schedules of IPV and OPV.Methods536 Chinese infants were enrolled into 4 groups receiving different schedules administered at 2, 3, and 4 months of age: IPV–OPV–OPV, IPV–IPV–OPV, IPV–IPV–IPV, and OPV–OPV–OPV. The I–I–I group received an 18-month IPV booster dose. Blood samples were collected before the first dose, after the third dose, and at 18 months for all groups, and also after the booster dose for the I–I–I group. Polio neutralizing antibody titers were assessed, and seroprotection rates were calculated after primary immunization and at 18 months of age.ResultsBefore the first dose, GMTs of the 4 groups ranged from 2.96 to 6.89, and seroprotection rates ranged from 17.6% to 54.3%. After 3 doses, the GMT of the I–O–O and I–I–O groups ranged from 901.09 to 1,110.12, and the GMT of the I–I–I group range was 212.02 to 537.52, significantly lower than for the 2 sequential schedules (P < 0.001). Seroprotection rates were 98.1% to 100%, with no significant differences among groups. At 18 months of age, the GMTs declined to a range of 527.00 to 683.44 in the I–O–O and I–I–O groups, and declined to 150.04 to 239.89 in the I–I–I group, significantly lower than for the other 3 groups (P < 0.001).ConclusionsThe sequential schedules achieved high GMTs and seroprotection. The IPV-only schedule achieved high seroprotection but with lower GMTs. Sequential schedules are suitable for China. With the 2 sequential schedules, GMTs remained high at 18 months of age and were not inferior to the OPV-only schedule. Thus, with a sequential schedule, the booster dose could be given at 4 years of age, the same age as the current OPV booster dose.     

Adjuvants and inactivated polio vaccine: A systematic review

Poliomyelitis is nearing universal eradication; in 2011, there were 650 cases reported globally. When wild polio is eradicated, global oral polio vaccine (OPV) cessation followed by use of universal inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) is believed to be the safest vaccination strategy as IPV does not mutate or run the risk of vaccine derived outbreaks that OPV does. However, IPV is significantly more expensive than OPV. One strategy to make IPV more affordable is to reduce the dose by adding adjuvants, compounds that augment the immune response to the vaccine. No adjuvants are currently utilized in stand-alone IPV; however, several have been explored over the past six decades. From aluminum, used in many licensed vaccines, to newer and more experimental adjuvants such as synthetic DNA, a diverse group of compounds has been assessed with varying strengths and weaknesses. This review summarizes the studies to date evaluating the efficacy and safety of adjuvants used with IPV.