Abstract:This study aimed to evaluate the effect of maternally derived antibody on the immunogenicity of Sabin IPV. A total of 600 infants were randomized to receive one of the five different vaccines: the high-(group A), medium-(group B) or low-dose (group C) of investigational Sabin IPV, the control Salk IPV (group D) or the control Sabin IPV (group E), at 2, 3 and 4 months of age. The post-vaccination GMTs, GMIs and seroconversion rates of poliovirus type-specific neutralizing antibody were analyzed for different ma… Show more
“…This may indicate that candidate sIPV type-3 is sufficiently immunogenic to overcome interference with maternal antibodies, but it was notable that type-3 seropositivity due to maternal Abs was generally lower compared with types-1 and −2. This was most evident using Sabin viruses in the assay, and reflects the same observation made in the Puerto Rican study [28] for Salk vaccine and more recently by Tang et al [30] who also found that Sabin types 1 and 2 were most sensitive to this apparent interference, and the lower type-2 responses to a single dose of IPV at 16 weeks of age in seropositive infants [29] . The mothers of these infants would have been immunized with Sabin OPV, which was the standard of care in Panama until 2014 when the three infant primary doses were replaced by IPV.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 79%
“…Other recent studies in Panama found a similar profile of prevaccination seropositivity rates (47.6–52.2%, 51.9–62.6% and 20.6–24.2% for Salk virus types-1, -2 and -3, respectively) [22] and 60.7% for Salk type-2 only [23] , due to maternal antibodies in 6 week-old infants. Interference by maternal antibodies with the responses to IPV has been established, [24] , [25] , [26] , [27] , [28] , [29] , [30] , [31] , and acknowledged by the WHO, the SAGE recommending that when a single dose of IPV is given in the mixed bOPV and IPV series it should be administered at 14 weeks of age [32] . A Puerto Rican study directly compared responses to Salk IPV administered in either the 6,10,14 weeks or 2,4,6 months schedules and found responses to types-1 and -2 were significantly lower with the earlier schedule [28] .…”
Highlights
A novel IPV vaccine was developed from attenuated Sabin poliovirus strains.
The vaccine was generally well tolerated in adults, toddlers and infants.
The vaccine was immunogenic as a booster in previously polio-vaccinated toddlers.
The vaccine was insufficiently immunogenic from 6 weeks of age in the EPI schedule.
There was evidence of interference of the immune response by maternal antibodies.
“…This may indicate that candidate sIPV type-3 is sufficiently immunogenic to overcome interference with maternal antibodies, but it was notable that type-3 seropositivity due to maternal Abs was generally lower compared with types-1 and −2. This was most evident using Sabin viruses in the assay, and reflects the same observation made in the Puerto Rican study [28] for Salk vaccine and more recently by Tang et al [30] who also found that Sabin types 1 and 2 were most sensitive to this apparent interference, and the lower type-2 responses to a single dose of IPV at 16 weeks of age in seropositive infants [29] . The mothers of these infants would have been immunized with Sabin OPV, which was the standard of care in Panama until 2014 when the three infant primary doses were replaced by IPV.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 79%
“…Other recent studies in Panama found a similar profile of prevaccination seropositivity rates (47.6–52.2%, 51.9–62.6% and 20.6–24.2% for Salk virus types-1, -2 and -3, respectively) [22] and 60.7% for Salk type-2 only [23] , due to maternal antibodies in 6 week-old infants. Interference by maternal antibodies with the responses to IPV has been established, [24] , [25] , [26] , [27] , [28] , [29] , [30] , [31] , and acknowledged by the WHO, the SAGE recommending that when a single dose of IPV is given in the mixed bOPV and IPV series it should be administered at 14 weeks of age [32] . A Puerto Rican study directly compared responses to Salk IPV administered in either the 6,10,14 weeks or 2,4,6 months schedules and found responses to types-1 and -2 were significantly lower with the earlier schedule [28] .…”
Highlights
A novel IPV vaccine was developed from attenuated Sabin poliovirus strains.
The vaccine was generally well tolerated in adults, toddlers and infants.
The vaccine was immunogenic as a booster in previously polio-vaccinated toddlers.
The vaccine was insufficiently immunogenic from 6 weeks of age in the EPI schedule.
There was evidence of interference of the immune response by maternal antibodies.
“…The finding was consistent with our previous phase III study [21], but these values are slightly lower than those of another double-blinded phase III clinical trial conducted in 2012-2014 [22], which may be due to the relatively high level of maternal antibodies in our study. Previous studies have shown that high levels of maternal poliovirus antibodies could attenuate the antibody responses to the IPVs [23][24][25]. Of note, in the present study, the post-vaccination GMTs of poliovirus types 1, 2 and 3 in the investigational sIPV group were noticeably higher than those in the IPV group.…”
Background: The Sabin-strain-based inactivated poliovirus vaccine (sIPV) plays an important role in poliomyelitis eradication in developing countries. As part of the phase III clinical development program, this study aimed to evaluate the safety, immunogenicity and lot-to-lot consistency of the sIPV in 2-month-old infants. Method: We conducted a phase III, randomized, double-blind, positive-controlled trial in which 1300 healthy infants were randomly assigned to four groups in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive one of the three lots of the sIPV or the control IPV at 2, 3 and 4 months of age. Serum samples were collected before the first dose and 30 days after the third dose of vaccination to assess the immunogenicity. Solicited local and systemic reactions were recorded within 7 days and unsolicited adverse events within 30 days after each vaccination. Results: Of the 1300 randomized infants, 1190 infants completed the study and were included in the per-protocol population. The seroconversion rates in the three lots of the sIPV were 95.67%, 97.03% and 95.59%, respectively, for type 1; 94.33%, 93.73% and 92.88%, respectively, for type 2; and 98.67%, 99.67% and 99.32%, respectively, for type 3. The ratios of GMTs for poliovirus types 1, 2 and 3 of each pair of lots were all between 0.67 and 1.50, therefore meeting the predefined immunological equivalence criteria. For the seroconversion rate of poliovirus types 1, 2 and 3, the pooled sIPV group was non-inferior to the IPV group. The incidence of solicited and unsolicited adverse reactions (ARs) was similar in the pooled sIPV lots and the IPV group, and most of them were mild to moderate in severity. Non-vaccine-related serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported. Conclusions: Three consecutive lots of sIPV demonstrated robust and consistent immunogenicity. The safety and tolerability of the sIPV was acceptable and similar to that of the IPV.
“…Several lines of evidence suggest that maternal antibodies transferred via the placenta can limit vaccine responses in infants by capturing vaccine antigens, thereby neutralizing the induction of a de novo immune response as is proposed to occur for the tetanus, poliovirus, and measles vaccines (Osterhaus et al, 1998;Jones et al, 2014;Tang et al, 2019). Mechanistically, it is proposed that maternally derived antibodies specifically opsonize vaccine antigens, driving enhanced clearance via the inhibitory receptor, FcgRIIB, resulting in an overall dampened immune response (Karlsson et al, 2001).…”
Section: Maternal Bm Antibodies On Neonatal Vaccine Responsesmentioning
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.