Safety and immunogenicity of inactivated poliovirus vaccine schedules for the post-eradication era: a randomised open-label, multicentre, phase 3, non-inferiority trial
Authors: Ananda S Bandyopadhyay, Chris Gast, Luis Rivera, Xavier Sáez-Llorens, M Steven Oberste, William C Weldon, John Modlin, Ralf Clemens, Sue Ann Costa Clemens, Jose Jimeno, Ricardo Rüttimann
Journal: The Lancet Infectious Diseases (2020)

BackgroundFollowing 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.MethodsThis 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.FindingsFrom 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.InterpretationOur 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.FundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation.