Ilse De Coster1, Isabel Leroux-Roels2, Ananda S Bandyopadhyay3, Christopher Gast4, Kanchanamala Withanage1, Katie Steenackers1, Philippe De Smedt1, Annelies Aerssens2, Geert Leroux-Roels2, M Steven Oberste5, Jennifer L Konopka-Anstadt5, William C Weldon5, Alan Fix4, John Konz4, Rahnuma Wahid4, John Modlin6, Ralf Clemens7, Sue Ann Costa Clemens8, Novilia S Bachtiar9, Pierre Van Damme10. 1. Centre for the Evaluation of Vaccination, Vaccine and Infectious Disease Institute, University of Antwerp, Wilrijk, Belgium. 2. Center for Vaccinology, Ghent University and Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium. 3. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, WA, USA. 4. PATH, Washington DC, USA. 5. Division of Viral Diseases, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA. 6. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, WA, USA; PATH, Washington DC, USA; Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine, Hanover, NH, USA. 7. Global Research in Infectious Diseases, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 8. Institute for Global Health, Siena University, Siena, Italy. 9. PT Bio Farma, Bandung, Indonesia. 10. Centre for the Evaluation of Vaccination, Vaccine and Infectious Disease Institute, University of Antwerp, Wilrijk, Belgium. Electronic address: pierre.vandamme@uantwerpen.be.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Two novel type 2 oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV2) candidates, novel OPV2-c1 and novel OPV2-c2, designed to be more genetically stable than the licensed Sabin monovalent OPV2, have been developed to respond to ongoing polio outbreaks due to circulating vaccine-derived type 2 polioviruses. METHODS: We did two randomised studies at two centres in Belgium. The first was a phase 4 historical control study of monovalent OPV2 in Antwerp, done before global withdrawal of OPV2, and the second was a phase 2 study in Antwerp and Ghent with novel OPV2-c1 and novel OPV2-c2. Eligible participants were healthy adults aged 18-50 years with documented history of at least three polio vaccinations, including OPV in the phase 4 study and either OPV or inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) in the novel OPV2 phase 2 study, with no dose within 12 months of study start. In the historical control trial, participants were randomly assigned to either one dose or two doses of monovalent OPV2. In the novel OPV2 trial, participants with previous OPV vaccinations were randomly assigned to either one or two doses of novel OPV2-c1 or to one or two doses of novel OPV2-c2. IPV-vaccinated participants were randomly assigned to receive two doses of either novel OPV2-c1, novel OPV2-c2, or placebo. Vaccine administrators were unmasked to treatment; medical staff performing safety and reactogenicity assessments or blood draws for immunogenicity assessments were masked. Participants received the first vaccine dose on day 0, and a second dose on day 28 if assigned to receive a second dose. Primary objectives were assessments and comparisons of safety up to 28 days after each dose, including solicited adverse events and serious adverse events, and immunogenicity (seroprotection rates on day 28 after the first vaccine dose) between monovalent OPV2 and the two novel OPV2 candidates. Primary immunogenicity analyses were done in the per-protocol population. Safety was assessed in the total vaccinated population-ie, all participants who received at least one dose of their assigned vaccine. The phase 4 control study is registered with EudraCT (2015-003325-33) and the phase 2 novel OPV2 study is registered withEudraCT (2018-001684-22) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04544787). FINDINGS: In the historical control study, between Jan 25 and March 18, 2016, 100 volunteers were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive one or two doses of monovalent OPV2 (n=50 in each group). In the novel OPV2 study, between Oct 15, 2018, and Feb 27, 2019, 200 previously OPV-vaccinated volunteers were assigned to the four groups to receive one or two doses of novel OPV2-c1 or novel OPV2-c2 (n=50 per group); a further 50 participants, previously vaccinated with IPV, were assigned to novel OPV2-c1 (n=17), novel OPV2-c2 (n=16), or placebo (n=17). All participants received the first dose of assigned vaccine or placebo and were included in the total vaccinated population. All vaccines appeared safe; no definitely vaccine-related withdrawals or serious adverse events were reported. After first doses in previously OPV-vaccinated participants, 62 (62%) of 100 monovalent OPV2 recipients, 71 (71%) of 100 recipients of novel OPV2-c1, and 74 (74%) of 100 recipients of novel OPV2-c2 reported solicited systemic adverse events, four (monovalent OPV2), three (novel OPV2-c1), and two (novel OPV2-c2) of which were considered severe. In IPV-vaccinated participants, solicited adverse events occurred in 16 (94%) of 17 who received novel OPV2-c1 (including one severe) and 13 (81%) of 16 who received novel OPV2-c2 (including one severe), compared with 15 (88%) of 17 placebo recipients (including two severe). In previously OPV-vaccinated participants, 286 (97%) of 296 were seropositive at baseline; after one dose, 100% of novel OPV2 vaccinees and 97 (97%) of monovalent OPV2 vaccinees were seropositive. INTERPRETATION: Novel OPV2 candidates were as safe, well tolerated, and immunogenic as monovalent OPV2 in previously OPV-vaccinated and IPV-vaccinated adults. These data supported the further assessment of the vaccine candidates in children and infants. FUNDING: University of Antwerp and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Two novel type 2 oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV2) candidates, novel OPV2-c1 and novel OPV2-c2, designed to be more genetically stable than the licensed Sabin monovalent OPV2, have been developed to respond to ongoing polio outbreaks due to circulating vaccine-derived type 2 polioviruses. METHODS: We did two randomised studies at two centres in Belgium. The first was a phase 4 historical control study of monovalent OPV2 in Antwerp, done before global withdrawal of OPV2, and the second was a phase 2 study in Antwerp and Ghent with novel OPV2-c1 and novel OPV2-c2. Eligible participants were healthy adults aged 18-50 years with documented history of at least three polio vaccinations, including OPV in the phase 4 study and either OPV or inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) in the novel OPV2 phase 2 study, with no dose within 12 months of study start. In the historical control trial, participants were randomly assigned to either one dose or two doses of monovalent OPV2. In the novel OPV2 trial, participants with previous OPV vaccinations were randomly assigned to either one or two doses of novel OPV2-c1 or to one or two doses of novel OPV2-c2. IPV-vaccinated participants were randomly assigned to receive two doses of either novel OPV2-c1, novel OPV2-c2, or placebo. Vaccine administrators were unmasked to treatment; medical staff performing safety and reactogenicity assessments or blood draws for immunogenicity assessments were masked. Participants received the first vaccine dose on day 0, and a second dose on day 28 if assigned to receive a second dose. Primary objectives were assessments and comparisons of safety up to 28 days after each dose, including solicited adverse events and serious adverse events, and immunogenicity (seroprotection rates on day 28 after the first vaccine dose) between monovalent OPV2 and the two novel OPV2 candidates. Primary immunogenicity analyses were done in the per-protocol population. Safety was assessed in the total vaccinated population-ie, all participants who received at least one dose of their assigned vaccine. The phase 4 control study is registered with EudraCT (2015-003325-33) and the phase 2 novel OPV2 study is registered with EudraCT (2018-001684-22) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04544787). FINDINGS: In the historical control study, between Jan 25 and March 18, 2016, 100 volunteers were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive one or two doses of monovalent OPV2 (n=50 in each group). In the novel OPV2 study, between Oct 15, 2018, and Feb 27, 2019, 200 previously OPV-vaccinated volunteers were assigned to the four groups to receive one or two doses of novel OPV2-c1 or novel OPV2-c2 (n=50 per group); a further 50 participants, previously vaccinated with IPV, were assigned to novel OPV2-c1 (n=17), novel OPV2-c2 (n=16), or placebo (n=17). All participants received the first dose of assigned vaccine or placebo and were included in the total vaccinated population. All vaccines appeared safe; no definitely vaccine-related withdrawals or serious adverse events were reported. After first doses in previously OPV-vaccinated participants, 62 (62%) of 100 monovalent OPV2 recipients, 71 (71%) of 100 recipients of novel OPV2-c1, and 74 (74%) of 100 recipients of novel OPV2-c2 reported solicited systemic adverse events, four (monovalent OPV2), three (novel OPV2-c1), and two (novel OPV2-c2) of which were considered severe. In IPV-vaccinated participants, solicited adverse events occurred in 16 (94%) of 17 who received novel OPV2-c1 (including one severe) and 13 (81%) of 16 who received novel OPV2-c2 (including one severe), compared with 15 (88%) of 17 placebo recipients (including two severe). In previously OPV-vaccinated participants, 286 (97%) of 296 were seropositive at baseline; after one dose, 100% of novel OPV2 vaccinees and 97 (97%) of monovalent OPV2 vaccinees were seropositive. INTERPRETATION: Novel OPV2 candidates were as safe, well tolerated, and immunogenic as monovalent OPV2 in previously OPV-vaccinated and IPV-vaccinated adults. These data supported the further assessment of the vaccine candidates in children and infants. FUNDING: University of Antwerp and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Authors: Jaume Jorba; Ousmane M Diop; Jane Iber; Roland W Sutter; Steven G Wassilak; Cara C Burns Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2016-08-05 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Adi Stern; Ming Te Yeh; Tal Zinger; Matt Smith; Caroline Wright; Guy Ling; Rasmus Nielsen; Andrew Macadam; Raul Andino Journal: Cell Date: 2017-03-23 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Pierre Van Damme; Ilse De Coster; Ananda S Bandyopadhyay; Hilde Revets; Kanchanamala Withanage; Philippe De Smedt; Leen Suykens; M Steven Oberste; William C Weldon; Sue Ann Costa-Clemens; Ralf Clemens; John Modlin; Amy J Weiner; Andrew J Macadam; Raul Andino; Olen M Kew; Jennifer L Konopka-Anstadt; Cara C Burns; John Konz; Rahnuma Wahid; Christopher Gast Journal: Lancet Date: 2019-06-04 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Mary M Alleman; Jaume Jorba; Sharon A Greene; Ousmane M Diop; Jane Iber; Graham Tallis; Ajay Goel; Eric Wiesen; Steven G F Wassilak; Cara C Burns Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2020-04-24 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Ananda S Bandyopadhyay; Chris Gast; Elizabeth B Brickley; Ricardo Rüttimann; Ralf Clemens; M Steven Oberste; William C Weldon; Margaret E Ackerman; Ruth I Connor; Wendy F Wieland-Alter; Peter Wright; Vytautas Usonis Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2021-01-04 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Xavier Sáez-Llorens; Ananda S Bandyopadhyay; Christopher Gast; Tirza De Leon; Rodrigo DeAntonio; Jose Jimeno; Maria Isabel Caballero; Gabriela Aguirre; M Steven Oberste; William C Weldon; Jennifer L Konopka-Anstadt; John Modlin; Novilia S Bachtiar; Alan Fix; John Konz; Ralf Clemens; Sue Ann Costa Clemens; Ricardo Rüttimann Journal: Lancet Date: 2020-12-09 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Ming Te Yeh; Erika Bujaki; Patrick T Dolan; Matthew Smith; Rahnuma Wahid; John Konz; Amy J Weiner; Ananda S Bandyopadhyay; Pierre Van Damme; Ilse De Coster; Hilde Revets; Andrew Macadam; Raul Andino Journal: Cell Host Microbe Date: 2020-04-23 Impact factor: 21.023
Authors: Robert K M Choy; A Louis Bourgeois; Christian F Ockenhouse; Richard I Walker; Rebecca L Sheets; Jorge Flores Journal: Clin Microbiol Rev Date: 2022-07-06 Impact factor: 50.129
Authors: Nadezhda V Yagovkina; Lev M Zheleznov; Ksenia A Subbotina; Andrey A Tsaan; Liubov I Kozlovskaya; Ilya V Gordeychuk; Anastasia K Korduban; Yury Y Ivin; Anastasia A Kovpak; Anastasia N Piniaeva; Anna A Shishova; Elena Y Shustova; Yusuf K Khapchaev; Galina G Karganova; Alexandra A Siniugina; Tatiana V Pomaskina; Aleksandr A Erovichenkov; Konstantin Chumakov; Aydar A Ishmukhametov Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2022-05-30 Impact factor: 8.786
Authors: Rahnuma Wahid; Laina Mercer; Chris Gast; Tirza De Leon; Xavier Sáez-Llorens; Alan Fix; Andrew Macadam; Laura Stephens; Konstantin Chumakov; Saskia L Smits; Marta Murreddu; Jennifer L Konopka-Anstadt; M Steven Oberste; Cara C Burns; Raul Andino; Novilia Sjafri Bachtiar; Erman Tritama; Ananda S Bandyopadhyay; Gabriela Aguirre; Ricardo Rüttimann; John O Konz Journal: NPJ Vaccines Date: 2022-02-11 Impact factor: 7.344
Authors: Farrokh Habibzadeh; Konstantin Chumakov; Mohammad M Sajadi; Mahboobeh Yadollahie; Kristen Stafford; Ashraf Simi; Shyamasundaran Kottilil; Iman Hafizi-Rastani; Robert C Gallo Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-03-17 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jessica W Crothers; Elizabeth Ross Colgate; Kelly J Cowan; Dorothy M Dickson; MaryClaire Walsh; Marya Carmolli; Peter F Wright; Elizabeth B Norton; Beth D Kirkpatrick Journal: Vaccine Date: 2022-03-30 Impact factor: 4.169
Authors: Christopher Gast; Ananda S Bandyopadhyay; Xavier Sáez-Llorens; Tirza De Leon; Rodrigo DeAntonio; José Jimeno; Gabriela Aguirre; Larin M McDuffie; Elizabeth Coffee; Demetrius L Mathis; M Steven Oberste; William C Weldon; Jennifer L Konopka-Anstadt; John Modlin; Novilia S Bachtiar; Alan Fix; John Konz; Ralf Clemens; Sue Ann Costa Clemens; Ricardo Rüttimann Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2022-09-13 Impact factor: 7.759
Authors: John O Konz; Tim Schofield; Sarah Carlyle; Rahnuma Wahid; Azeem Ansari; Jeroen R P M Strating; Ming Te Yeh; Hasmik Manukyan; Saskia L Smits; Erman Tritama; Latri Rahmah; Dori Ugiyadi; Raul Andino; Majid Laassri; Konstantin Chumakov; Andrew Macadam Journal: Vaccine X Date: 2021-06-11
Authors: Ruth I Connor; Elizabeth B Brickley; Wendy F Wieland-Alter; Margaret E Ackerman; Joshua A Weiner; John F Modlin; Ananda S Bandyopadhyay; Peter F Wright Journal: Mucosal Immunol Date: 2021-07-08 Impact factor: 7.313