Vaccine Strategies

 http://whqsabin.who.int:8082/vaccines.htm

During the twentieth century, many significant scientific advances were made which furthered the understanding of poliovirus. In 1949, poliovirus was grown by Enders on tissue culture, which paved the way for detailed research on the molecular biology of poliovirus. That same year, the virus was grouped into three immunological types, or serotypes. Subsequent to the discoveries of Avery et al and Hershey and Chase on DNA-mediated transformation of bacteria, RNA was identified as the infectious agent of poliovirus in 1957. Shortly thereafter, the basic steps of replication cycle of poliovirus were established, and the interaction of poliovirus with its antibody was analyzed. X-ray crystallographic and electron microscopic analysis of poliovirus contributed to its further characterization.

These advances all contributed to the development of the two vaccines which are currently used in the global campaigns to control and to eliminate poliomyelitis: Oral Polio Vaccine and Inactivated Polio Vaccine. IPV, a killed polio vaccine, is administered subcutaneously via injection while OPV, a live polio vaccine, is taken orally and more resembles the fecal-oral route of transmission of the virus.

 

 

 

 

Dr. Jonas Salk

http://tqd.advanced.org/3361/polio.html

Inactivated Polio Vaccine

 

DESCRIPTION

IPV (Inactivated Polio Vaccine), also called the Salk vaccine, was developed by Dr. Jonas Salk in 1952. The vaccine is a clear, colorless sterile suspension for subcutaneous injection. IPV contains strains of the 3 types of polioviruses (Types 1, 2, and 3), originally grown in monkey kidney cell culture and inactivated by exposure to formaldehyde. Clinical trials of IPV began in 1954, and results were dramatic: the cases of polio in the vaccinated test groups fell amazingly, and permission for IPV distribution was quickly granted by the US government in 1955. In 1987, a new, more potent version of inactivated poliovirus vaccine was introduced that is grown on human cell culture and contains greater antigenic content than the original vaccine.

 

 

 wysiwyg://65/http://www-micro.msb.le.ac.uk/224/Vaccines224.html

EFFECTIVENESS

IPV produces protective antibodies in the blood (serum immunity). After 2 doses of enhanced-potency IPV, high levels of serum-neutralizing antibodies to all 3 types of poliovirus appears in 94-100% of individuals, and after 3 doses, seroconversion appears in 99-100% of individuals. This serum immunity prevents the spread of the virus to the CNS and provides protection against polio paralysis. The suggested immunity is prolonged and perhaps lifelong: circulating antibodies have persisted for at least 10 years as shown in field studies in Europe. However, IPV induces only low levels of immunity (via secretary IgA) to poliovirus in the gut. Enhanced-potency IPV induces mucosal immunity by inhibiting pharyngeal acquisition of poliovirus and, to a lesser extent, intestinal acquisition, yet the extent of mucosal immunity induced by IPV is far less than OPV. Therefore, while OPV can prevent the spread of wild poliovirus, IPV is a less reliable vaccine. However, even though this vaccine does not induce much secretory IgA in the alimentary tract, its effectiveness has been demonstrated in Sweden, Finland, Iceland, Holland, Norway and Canada where the exclusive use of IPV has been adopted.

 DOSE AND ADMINISTRATION

Typical administration of IPV involves 2 doses for both infants and unvaccinated adults:

  Infants Unvaccinated Adults
Number of injections per dose 3 2
1st dose administration 6-8 weeks of age 2 injections at a 1-2 month interval
2nd dose administration 4-6 months of age 6-12 months later

 

ADVANTAGES

· The virus is not live, thus it is easier to manage than OPV

· There is no risk of vaccine-associated polio paralysis (VAPP)

· Immunization triggers an excellent immune response and long-lasting immunity to all 3 poliovirus types

· No serious adverse effects to date exist

 DISADVANTAGES

· IPV induces only little immunity in intestinal tract: if an individual is infected with the wild-type poliovirus, the virus can multiply in the intestines and be shed in stools, ultimately heightening the risk of viral circulation within the community

· The price of IPV is over 5 times that of OPV

· Administering of IPV requires trained health workers

· IPV requires additional injections in infants until new combination products are available

 

Oral Polio Vaccine

 HISTORY

The Oral Polio Vaccine (OPV) was developed in 1958 by Dr. Albert Sabin. Sabin attenuated the wild type poliovirus by passaging the virus in monkey kidney epithelial cells. The commonly used form of the oral polio vaccine is trivalent, which means that it contains live attenuated strains of the three serotypes of poliovirus. Trivalent OPV is characterized in vivo by efficient growth properties in the intestinal tract, unaltered immunogenic properties with respect to wild type progenitors, and attenuated neurovirulence after experimental intraspinal injection into primates. This means that an individual immunized with trivalent OPV induces long-lasting (frequently life-long) protective immunity of the gastrointestinal tract to all known forms of poliovirus.

Dr. Albert Sabin

Source: http://www.sabin.georgetown.edu/

 

 

Location of Attenuating Mutations within Genomes of Type 1 and Type 3 (Sabin) Poliovirus Strains Compared with Parent Strains

Source: Levine et al, 317.

 

 

 

 

 

MEANS OF EFFECTIVENESS

Once administered, the attenuated vaccine colonizes the intestine. This colonization enables the production of secretory IgA, which serves as an important defense against naturally acquired poliovirus, as well as smaller amounts of IgM and IgG. Since it is a polymer, secretory IgA can cross-link large antigens with multiple epitopes at mucous membrane surfaces, which are the main entry sites for most pathogenic organisms. The binding of IgA to viral surface antigens prevents the attachment of the pathogen to the mucosal cells, thereby inhibiting viral infection of the cells. Complexes of secretory IgA and antigen are entrapped by the mucous and eliminated by the ciliated epithelial cells of the respiratory tract or by the peristalsis of the gut.

Since the three attenuated strains of poliovirus present in the OPV interfere with each other's replication in the intestine, boosters of OPV are required to induce protective immunity to all three polio serotypes. In the first immunization, one strain will grow most effectively, and immunity to this strain will be induced. With the second immunization, the immune response generated to the first strain will inhibit the growth of that same strain, such that a second strain will replicate most successfully, inducing immunity to the second strain. Similarly, immunity is induced to the third strain with the third booster.

Sabin Administering OPV

Source:http://whqsabin.who.int:8082/pictures.htm

ADVANTAGES

There are many biological and practical advantages to the Oral Polio Vaccine. Since attenuated vaccines are capable of transient growth, the OPV allows prolonged exposure of the immune system to the epitopes on the attenuated organisms, resulting in increased immunogenicity and memory-cell development. OPV also indirectly protects other susceptible individuals by secondary vaccination, which means that vaccinated individuals may spread the vaccine virus in the community and thereby inhibit the spread of the wild type virus if it occurs in the population. Significantly, OPV prevents the vaccinee from acting as a carrier of wild type poliovirus, and as stated, confers long-lasting immunity. The OPV is also easily administered by giving children a sugar cube or sugar liquid containing the vaccine, neither of which requires extensive medical training to be administered.

Source: www.discovery.com/

 

DISADVANTAGES

The most serious disadvantage of the Oral Polio Vaccine is the risk of vaccine-associated paralytic polio as a result of the vaccination. In fact, in any attenuated vaccine, there exists a danger that the attenuated form will revert to the virulent form. The Centers for Disease Control estimate that 1 case per 2.5 million doses of OPV distributed results in vaccine-associated paralytic polio, however, the risk increases significantly for the first dose of OPV, which results in 1 case per 790,000 doses administered. The risk is even higher for children receiving their first dose of OPV, as 1 in 520,000 children acquires vaccine-related polio after receiving their first OPV dose. Particularly problematic in Third World countries, other gastrointestinal viruses interfere with the replication of the attenuated polio vaccine viruses in the intestine of the vaccinees. Also, the fact that several boosters are required to induce protective immunity significantly decreases the success of polio vaccination programs, which is corroborated by studies that reveal that in Third World countries 20% of people fail to return for each subsequent booster.

Source: http://www.worldortho.com/database/polio/pg4.html

A public health campaign is currently underway to minimize the risk of vaccine-related polio by adhering to a specific CDC-recommended immunization schedule: 2 doses of IPV followed by 2 doses of OPV as part of the routine childhood immunization schedule. If the Inactivated Polio Vaccine, which has no known risk of vaccine-associated polio, is administered prior to the Oral Polio Vaccine, then the killed vaccine prevents against the small risk of contracting polio from the live vaccine. This immunization schedule is expected to reduce the rate of vaccine-associated paralytic polio in the USA by 50 to 75% without creating a risk of paralytic polio caused by naturally circulating virus. Unfortunately, the relative expense of IPV as compared with OPV inhibits the implementation of this immunization schedule in certain countries.

Source: http://whqsabin.who.int:8082/pictures.htm

Immunosuppressed individuals should not take the Oral Polio Vaccine, and should avoid contact with persons who have received the Sabin vaccine for two weeks post vaccination. This includes people with AIDS, HIV infection, other immunodeficiency diseases, cancer, leukemia, and lymphoma. People receiving radiation treatments, medications to treat cancer, corticosteroids (such as prednisone), or other immunosuppressive medications should also follow these recommendations. Should vaccination against polio be deemed necessary for these individuals, they should be vaccinated with IPV.

FUTURE

Ever since OPV was introduced, it has been the vaccine administered most extensively in the US for immunization of polio. IPV had been recommended only for immunocompromised individuals and their household contacts since the virus is transmitted via the fecal-oral route, and immunization with OPV results in live virus found in respiratory secretions for several days and in stool for several weeks after vaccination. However, a new method of polio immunization involving use of IPV had been proposed in 1997 in the US by the American Academy of Pediatrics (APP). Since then, the use of IPV has increased considerably in the US.

Reason for proposal of new method

The two main decisive factors of the change in immunization recommendations involve the absence of wild-type strains of polio in the US, and the risk of vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP) caused by OPV.

· Wild-type strains: The last reported case of infection due to wild-type poliovirus in the US was in 1979. Therefore, the risk of exposure to wild-type poliovirus in the US is so low that it is no longer a factor with regard to vaccination.

· VAPP: Vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis can be a clinical result of polio infection and is derived from vaccination with OPV. In fact, all cases (8 to 9 reported yearly) of paralytic poliomyelitis since 1979 in the US have been due to OPV administration.

Implications

The new proposed method of polio immunization involves sequential use of IPV followed by OPV. It is now recommended that, under most circumstances, children in the US should receive IPV for the first 2 doses of the polio vaccine at 2 and 4 months followed by administration of OPV for the 3rd and 4th doses at 12-18 months and 4-6 years of age. The rationale for this method is that 2 doses of IPV induce sufficient humoral immunity to prevent VAPP while 2 doses of OPV induce optimal intestinal immunity and sustain humoral immunity. The ACIP recommends sequential use as the current public health strategy to reduce the risk of VAPP, to maintain community resistance to wild-type via optimal mucosal immunity from OPV, and to keep injection number at a minimun (the sequential option requires only 2 additional injections than an OPV-only regimen, versus an additional 4 from an IPV-only regimen). It is argued that the change in policy should take effect now instead of 10 years from now when global eradication of wild-type poliovirus may be achieved; for, the continued use of OPV may result in as many as 100 cases or more of VAPP within the next 10 years.

 Other options of polio immunization include using IPV alone or OPV alone.

The exceptions, advantages, and disadvantages involved with each method can be seen below:

 

Sequential IPV and OPV

IPV alone

OPV alone

Recommended for... · most individuals · immunocompromised and household contacts · children whose adult household members were inadequately vaccinated

· when # of injections does not decrease compliance

· individuals who do not want additional injections

· children starting vaccination after 6 months

· populations with low vaccination rates

Advantages · reduce VAPP risk

· +2 injections (than OPV alone)

· maintains optimal intestinal immunity

· prevention of VAPP most rapidly · lowest number of injections

· high intestinal immunity

Disadvantages · cost = $14.7 million · +4 injections (than OPV alone)

· limited availability

· lower intestinal immunity than OPV in the case of imported wild-type polioviruses

· cost = $28.1million

· risk of VAPP

 

In the US, one of the largest complaints of the sequential schedule administered to infants is the parent's refusal for the number of injections necessary to administer the other routinely recommended vaccines (ie: MMR) at 2 and 4 month visits.

Costs

Changing to an IPV-only or a sequential schedule would cost $28.1M and $14.7 M, respectively. Costs per case of VAPP prevented are estimated as $3M and $3.1 M for each option, respectively. Therefore, this method is not cost-beneficial.

Global eradication

Assuming global progress toward elimination of poliovirus circulation continues, an IPV-only regimen should eventually be initiated for all children in the US. Since humans are the only reservoir for poliovirus, an ultimate discontinuity of vaccination is plausible once worldwide eradication is confirmed.

 

 

New Approaches, Other Vaccines/ Treatments

As the target year for the eradication of poliomyelitis approaches, the objectives of the World Health Organization is working to implement improved methods for identifying wild-type poliovirus and determining infection with poliovirus including:

  1. Polymerase Chain Reaction to identify wild-type poliovirus in clinical specimens and environmental samples.
  2. Nucleic acid hybridization to specifically identify all wild-type polioviruses.
  3. Restriction fragments length polymorphism (RFLP).
  4. Use of mouse cell lines expressing the human poliovirus receptor.
  5. Use of Sabin-specific monoclonal antibodies for rapid identification of Sabin-related poliovirus by neutralization.
  6. Development of a standard test for detection of poliovirus-specific IgM antibodies to evaluate transgenic mice as an animal model for neurovirulence test of oral poliomyelitis vaccine.

 

Current objectives guiding vaccine research and development include defining more efficient immunization strategies and new delivery systems. Improving immunization strategies means investigating approaches such as nucleic acid vaccines, combined vaccines, mucosal immunization, and neonatal vaccination. There is a major effort in polio research particularly to produce a DNA vaccine, in which genes from polio would be inserted into a bacterial plasmid. DNA vaccines successfully elicit an immune response, although the mechanism of this response is as yet undetermined. A potential risk of using DNA vaccines in humans is that injecting naked DNA might not be safe; this foreign DNA could insert itself into and damage human chromosomes and potentially increase the risk of cancers or autoimmune disorders.

As stated, multiple boosters of vaccine are required to induce immunological memory to all three serotypes of poliovirus. Ideally, children could receive a single vaccine to replace the current childhood immunization schedule, however, because of the antagonistic effects of various vaccines, this is not yet possible. Efforts are however underway to minimize the number of boosters required for polio immunization, and include research into the development of a single vaccine with a time-release mechanism.

Other possibilities to increase the efficiency of polio vaccination include using adjuvants, particularly to improve the mucosal immune response typically generated by OPV. Also, a vaccine that induced only a localized immune response would minimize tissue damage generated by processes such as innocent bystander lysis. The Children's Vaccine Initiative has also made substantial progress including the development of a heat-stable polio vaccine and a single-dose tetanus toxoid vaccine, which could prevent some 600,000 deaths per year

Viral DNA Vaccine Synthesis, Source: Kuby, 452.

The great success of the Sabin attenuate polio virus at providing effective protection at the mucosal surface stimulated interest that it might be used as a recombinant vector vaccine, that is, as a vector for foreign genes. It remains uncertain whether these foreign structures are sufficiently immunogenic to induce an adequate humoral response to the insert, since such structures do not productively replicate.

 

Back to Polio Home / Epidemiology / Mode of Transmission