PoliomyelitisNCT02967783
A Campaign-based ID fIPV Administration Trial
A study testing ID adaptor, ID Jet Injector (Tropis, Pharmajet) and Needle and syringe in people with Poliomyelitis, run by Medical Research Council Unit, The Gambia at 1 site in The Gambia.
Trial summary
The introduction of one dose of the inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) into routine immunization schedules in OPV-only using countries as part of the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) was planned for completion in 2016. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 4 to 59 monthsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Poliomyelitis
- What is being tested?
- ID adaptor, ID Jet Injector (Tropis, Pharmajet) and Needle and syringe
- Type of treatment
- Vaccines, Injection or infusion, Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 2,721 participants
- Where
- 1 siteThe Gambia
- Study dates
- 7 Feb 2017to 18 Sep 2018
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 4 to 59 months
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Child
Who may be able to join
- Written or thumb-printed informed consent obtained from a child's parent or guardian
- Resident within the geographical area which is expected to be covered by the campaign
- Between 4 and 59 months of age at the time of the campaign
Who cannot join
- Anaphylaxis or a severe, potentially life threatening, allergic reaction to a previous vaccination
- Any other condition or significant acute illness meaning that it is judged to be against the infant's or child's best interests to receive ID fIPV (note that most chronic illnesses and minor acute illnesses - when normal vaccinations would be encouraged, do not represent exclusions for the trial)
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: A Pragmatic Trial to Quantitatively and Qualitatively Assess Different Techniques for the ID Administration of Fractional Dose IPV in a Campaign Setting in The Gambia
The introduction of one dose of the inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) into routine immunization schedules in OPV-only using countries as part of the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) was planned for completion in 2016. However, due to recent developments in the global IPV supply landscape, the GPEI polio eradication program is facing a critical shortage of the vaccine which is forecast to continue until at least the end of 2017. The shortage means that some countries that have already introduced the vaccine, but which are considered to be relatively low risk (The Gambia included), will be left without adequate supplies and in other countries IPV introduction is being unavoidably delayed.
Exacerbating the shortage is the need to reserve IPV for future outbreak responses (OBR). The current OBR protocol recommends that, if a circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus type 2 (cVDPV2) outbreak occurs (after the recent global switch from trivalent to bivalent OPV), a large scale IPV campaign will be implemented to increase population immunity to the type 2 poliovirus in an large area surrounding the outbreak as high risk of extending transmission.
Due to above, dose-sparing through the administration of intra-dermal (ID) fractional (one fifth - 0.1mL) doses of IPV (fIPV) has become a very important focus and, for planning purposes, there is an urgent need to assess the practical and logistic challenges a country such as The Gambia would face in rapidly undertaking an ID fIPV campaign.
Read the detailed description
Background information and rationale
Background information
Polio eradication requires the removal of all polioviruses from the human population, whether wild-type poliovirus (WPV) or those vaccine-derived polioviruses (VDPV) emanating from the oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV). The Polio Eradication \& Endgame Strategic Plan 2013-2018 provides a framework for interruption of WPV transmission in remaining endemic foci and lays out plan for the new polio endgame. This will include the withdrawal of Sabin strains, starting with the type 2 strain, and the introduction of the inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV), for risk mitigation purposes.
The introduction of one dose of IPV into routine immunization schedules in OPV-only using countries was planned for completion in 2016. However, due to recent developments in the global IPV supply landscape, the polio eradication program is facing a critical shortage of the vaccine which is currently forecast to continue until at least the end of 2017. The shortage is not only preventing the universal introduction of one dose of IPV into some routine immunization schedule but may also mean that some countries who have already introduced the vaccine, but are considered to be relatively low risk, will be left without adequate supplies.
Exacerbating the shortage is the demand to reserve IPV for future outbreak responses (OBR). The current OBR protocol recommends that, in the event of a circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus type 2 (cVDPV2) outbreak after the switch, a large scale IPV response is implemented - a preventive campaign in the zone surrounding the outbreak (rather than the core area of the outbreak itself) to increase population immunity to the type 2 poliovirus in an area at high risk of driving further transmission considering the ongoing VDPV2 outbreak nearby.
In light of the number of individuals to be vaccinated under such circumstances, dose-sparing through the administration of intradermal (ID) fractional (one fifth - 0.1mL) doses of IPV (fIPV) has become a very important focus. The approach is not new, having been assessed in trials undertaken in vaccine-naive infants, in OPV-primed infants and children, as well as in adults. In addition, given the practical and logistical challenges of needle and syringe (N\&S)-based ID vaccine administration, the use of needle-free administration devices has also been explored previously.
In these trials, the administration of one fifth of a full dose by the ID route has consistently demonstrated a good safety profile. The rates of local reactions related to the administration of the vaccine by the ID route compared to the intramuscular (IM) route are higher in some although not in other trials. However, those reactions reported are generally mild and self-limiting irrespective of the method of administration employed. No significant systemic reactions or serious adverse events (SAE) related to ID fIPV administration have been reported. Furthermore, although when comparisons have been undertaken, the seroconversion rates and neutralizing antibody titres generated by the ID fIPV are consistently lower than those generated by a full IM dose of the same vaccine, the immunogenicity is such that the approach is viewed as a viable alternative in the context of the current Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) strategy.
Of particular importance, in studies undertaken in Cuba and Bangladesh, the administration of a single ID fIPV dose to poliovirus-vaccine naive infants has been shown to effectively prime the immune system for a subsequent rapid anamnestic response to an ID fIPV booster. In Cuba, priming with ID fIPV at four months of age resulted in a response within seven days of a subsequent ID fIPV booster dose at eight months - resulting in a cumulative seroconversion rate of 98% for poliovirus serotype 2 over the two dose course . The equivalent figure was 81% following a six and 14 week prime-boost schedule in Bangladesh. In both cases, the cumulative seroconversion rate following two ID fIPV doses was significantly higher for all serotypes than the seroconversion rate recorded following a single full-dose of IPV administered by the IM route (98% versus 62% in Cuba; 80% versus 39% in Bangladesh for serotype 2). The demonstrated anamnestic responses described, provide an effective strategy for rapidly inducing seroprotection in a primed population through the campaign-based provision of a second dose of ID fIPV - initiated as part of an OBR. In addition, if coverage can be assured, the use of a two dose ID fIPV routine schedule provides higher levels of seroprotection than a single IM IPV dose while still remaining dose sparing (0.2mL versus 0.5mL).
Based on the data available and their assessment of the current global landscape, the latest WHO position paper on polio vaccines, published in March 2016, suggests that '...countries could consider instituting a 2-dose fractional dose schedule, which could ensure that all eligible infants receive IPV...'. The same paper indicates that 'One fractional-dose IPV may be particularly appropriate for outbreak response if supplies are limited'. Based on this recommendation, and their own assessment, several states in India have subsequently decided to introduce two ID fIPV doses into their routine immunization schedule.
Rationale
While the safety and immunogenicity of ID fIPV is established in a clinic setting, there are little data examining the feasibility of rapid ID fIPV delivery in community-based campaign.
Many countries across sub-Saharan Africa, and other parts of the world where OPV supplementary immunization activities (SIA) are ongoing, have an established and highly effective framework for the campaign-based delivery of oral vaccines and other orally administered interventions (e.g. vitamin A and medendazole). However, such SIA commonly rely on the use of non-clinically trained individuals for frontline delivery (for example, volunteers from youth groups and other community organizations play a key role in such campaigns in The Gambia).
National campaigns involving the delivery of IM vaccines (e.g. MenAfriVac™ and most recently the measles and rubella combined vaccine [90-95% coverage of 802 425 target nine-month to 15 year olds in The Gambia in April 2016]) have also been undertaken very successfully - in this case relying on nurses and public health officers (or other health professionals involved in the routine provision Expanded Programme on Immunization (EPI) schedule) to administer the vaccines. However, the delivery of IM injections is part of the routine day-to-day practice of such professionals and can be completed with almost 100% success following limited training.
In contrast, the reliable delivery of ID injections, as is required to ensure the consistent immunogenicity of fIPV, is notoriously difficult with a N\&S, particularly in active infants and children, and requires not only training but also significant practical experience. Indeed, data from both Cuba and The Gambia highlight that the immunogenicity of ID fIPV is directly determined by injection quality, as assessed by both ID bleb size and fluid loss at the injection site ([14] and The Gambia - unpublished data). Furthermore, given the nature of the injection, the approach is more time consuming than an IM vaccination (The Gambia - Figure 1 [unpublished data]) and markedly more time consuming than the delivery of a dose of OPV. This has important manpower implications even assuming personnel with the requisite skills are available.
Given these challenges, this pragmatic trial will specifically compare the feasibility of ID fIPV delivery using three different methods of administration in a campaign setting in rural part of The Gambia:
- Needle and syringe [N\&S] (auto-disable, fixed needle)
- Intradermal Adapter [IDA] - West Pharmaceutical Services Inc
- Tropis™ Disposable Syringe Jet Injector [DSJI] - Pharmajet
Gaining an understanding of the utility of different methods of ID fIPV delivery in a campaign represents an important final step before key decisions regarding the approaches taken to fIPV delivery, particularly in an OBR, are finalized. A number of qualitative and quantitative endpoints will be assessed related to the practicalities of implementation. Information on solicited local and systemic reactogenicity will also be collected to strengthen the existing data set with this regard particularly related to campaign-based administration. Immunogenicity data will also be generated in a subset of 24 to 59 month old vaccine recipients to ensure that any factors enhancing the speed and ease of ID fIPV administration do not significantly compromise the ID fIPV immunogenicity - for example as a result of poor injection quality. This age group is chosen to limit the potential confounding effects of having received a different number of OPV and/or IPV doses present in younger age groups.
The data will also expand what is currently a very limited data-set regarding ID fIPV administration in sub-Saharan Africa - a setting where the risks of future cVDPV2 outbreaks is not inconsiderable despite recent sustained progress.
- Conditions
- Poliomyelitis
- Being tested
- ID adaptor, ID Jet Injector (Tropis, Pharmajet), Needle and syringe
- Medical subject headings
- Poliomyelitis
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
ID adaptorDevice
ID adaptor fixed to the end of a standard ID needle and syringe to facilitate ID administration of the inactivated poliovirus vaccine
ID Jet Injector (Tropis, Pharmajet)Device
ID disposable syringe (needle free) jet injector to facilitate ID administration of the inactivated poliovirus vaccine
Needle and syringeDevice
Standard ID needle and syringe for ID administration of the inactivated poliovirus vaccine
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| ID Needle and Syringe | Active comparator | Fractional (0.1mL) dose of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) administered using a needle and syringe Receives: Device: Needle and syringe |
| ID Adaptor (Helm) | Experimental | Fractional (0.1mL) dose of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) administered using a needle and syringe with an ID adaptor Receives: Device: ID adaptor |
| ID Jet Injector (Tropis, Pharmajet) | Experimental | Fractional (0.1mL) dose of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) administered by needle and syringe with a disposable syringe jet injecto Receives: Device: ID Jet Injector (Tropis, Pharmajet) |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Total time taken to deliver ID fIPV using each of the three methods of administration
Measured: Collected on day 1, 2 or 3 of the vaccination campaign
Qualitative measures of administration method utility
Ergonomic characteristics of the intradermal administration methods collected through questionnaires
Measured: Collected on day 1, 2 or 3 of the vaccination campaign
Local and systemic reactogenicity collected according to standard severity score (0 - 4) system.
Local reactogenicity (induration, erythema, tenderness, fever, vomiting, diarrhoea, feeding, irritability) will be collected on all vaccines on day 3 following vaccine administration
Measured: Day 3 following vaccination
Serious adverse events (SAE) and adverse events (AE) following ID fIPV administration
Measured: Within 4 weeks of vaccination
Semi-quantitative measure of distress in infants and children associated with ID fIPV administration
Infant distress will be graded according to a visual analogue scale
Measured: Collected on day 1, 2 or 3 of the vaccination campaign
Storage volumes of equipment required for ID fIPV delivery and subsequent bio-waste disposal including any differences the equipment required to safely deliver such vaccinations in a campaign
The volume of the disposables and biowaste created by each of the administration methods will be recorded.
Measured: Collected on day 1, 2 or 3 of the vaccination campaign
Number of ID fIPV doses deliverable per IPV vial using each of the three administration methods (to identify any wastage associated with syringe/device filling)
Measured: Collected on day 1, 2 or 3 of the vaccination campaign
Immune response to ID fIPV (poliovirus neutralization assays)
Poliovirus neutralization assays
Measured: Serum sample taken at baseline (pre-vaccination) and 4 weeks following vaccination
Changes in the time taken to deliver the ID fIPV and in the immune responses generated over the course of a 3 day campaign
Measured: Over 3 days of the campaign
Changes in the vaccine vial monitors (VVM) and also temperature deviations identified using a continuous temperature data logger associated with a campaign using each of the three administration methods
Measured: Over 3 days of the campaign
Qualitative factors which might influence campaign uptake in The Gambia and comparable sub-Saharan African settings
Measured: 1 week following vaccination campaign
Number of ID fIPV doses delivered using each of the three methods in the course of a defined campaign day by one vaccination team
Measured: Collected on day 1, 2 or 3 of the vaccination campaign
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted18 Nov 2016 (estimated)
- Study start7 Feb 2017
- Primary completion10 Jul 2017
- Study completion18 Sep 2018
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for PoliomyelitisStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Device feasibility
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 2,721 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Medical Research Council Unit, The Gambia
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- World Health Organization, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Ed Clarke, MRCPCH MSc PhD, Principal investigator, MRC Unit The GambiaAdedapo O Bashorun, MBBS, Principal investigator, MRC Unit The Gambia
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02967783
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- SCC1495
- Status last verified
- Jan 2019
- First submitted
- 19 Sep 2016
- Last updated
- 3 Jan 2019
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Bashorun AO, Badjie Hydara M, Adigweme I, Umesi A, Danso B, Johnson N, Sambou NA, Fofana S, Kanu FJ, Jeyaseelan V, Verma H, Weldon WC, Oberste MS, Sutter RW, Jeffries D, Wathuo M, Mach O, Clarke E. Intradermal administration of fractional doses of the inactivated poliovirus vaccine in a campaign: a pragmatic, open-label, non-inferiority trial in The Gambia. Lancet Glob Health. 2022 Feb;10(2):e257-e268. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(21)00497-6. Epub 2021 Dec 21.
PubMed 34951974
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 3 Jan 2019. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- A Pragmatic Trial to Quantitatively and Qualitatively Assess Different Techniques for the ID Administration of Fractional Dose IPV in a Campaign Setting in The Gambia
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02967783
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- SCC1495
- Conditions
- Poliomyelitis
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 2,721 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Medical Research Council Unit, The GambiaUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- World Health Organization, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
- Study start
- 7 Feb 2017 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 10 Jul 2017 (actual)
- Study completion
- 18 Sep 2018 (actual)
- First posted
- 18 Nov 2016 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The introduction of one dose of the inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) into routine immunization schedules in OPV-only using countries as part of the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) was planned for completion in 2016. However, due to recent developments in the global IPV supply landscape, the GPEI polio eradication program is facing a critical shortage of the vaccine which is forecast to continue until at least the end of 2017. The shortage means that some countries that have already introduced the vaccine, but which are considered to be relatively low risk (The Gambia included), will be left without adequate supplies and in other countries IPV introduction is being unavoidably delayed.
Exacerbating the shortage is the need to reserve IPV for future outbreak responses (OBR). The current OBR protocol recommends that, if a circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus type 2 (cVDPV2) outbreak occurs (after the recent global switch from trivalent to bivalent OPV), a large scale IPV campaign will be implemented to increase population immunity to the type 2 poliovirus in an large area surrounding the outbreak as high risk of extending transmission.
Due to above, dose-sparing through the administration of intra-dermal (ID) fractional (one fifth - 0.1mL) doses of IPV (fIPV) has become a very important focus and, for planning purposes, there is an urgent need to assess the practical and logistic challenges a country such as The Gambia would face in rapidly undertaking an ID fIPV campaign.
Detailed description
Background information and rationale
Background information
Polio eradication requires the removal of all polioviruses from the human population, whether wild-type poliovirus (WPV) or those vaccine-derived polioviruses (VDPV) emanating from the oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV). The Polio Eradication \& Endgame Strategic Plan 2013-2018 provides a framework for interruption of WPV transmission in remaining endemic foci and lays out plan for the new polio endgame. This will include the withdrawal of Sabin strains, starting with the type 2 strain, and the introduction of the inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV), for risk mitigation purposes.
The introduction of one dose of IPV into routine immunization schedules in OPV-only using countries was planned for completion in 2016. However, due to recent developments in the global IPV supply landscape, the polio eradication program is facing a critical shortage of the vaccine which is currently forecast to continue until at least the end of 2017. The shortage is not only preventing the universal introduction of one dose of IPV into some routine immunization schedule but may also mean that some countries who have already introduced the vaccine, but are considered to be relatively low risk, will be left without adequate supplies.
Exacerbating the shortage is the demand to reserve IPV for future outbreak responses (OBR). The current OBR protocol recommends that, in the event of a circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus type 2 (cVDPV2) outbreak after the switch, a large scale IPV response is implemented - a preventive campaign in the zone surrounding the outbreak (rather than the core area of the outbreak itself) to increase population immunity to the type 2 poliovirus in an area at high risk of driving further transmission considering the ongoing VDPV2 outbreak nearby.
In light of the number of individuals to be vaccinated under such circumstances, dose-sparing through the administration of intradermal (ID) fractional (one fifth - 0.1mL) doses of IPV (fIPV) has become a very important focus. The approach is not new, having been assessed in trials undertaken in vaccine-naive infants, in OPV-primed infants and children, as well as in adults. In addition, given the practical and logistical challenges of needle and syringe (N\&S)-based ID vaccine administration, the use of needle-free administration devices has also been explored previously.
In these trials, the administration of one fifth of a full dose by the ID route has consistently demonstrated a good safety profile. The rates of local reactions related to the administration of the vaccine by the ID route compared to the intramuscular (IM) route are higher in some although not in other trials. However, those reactions reported are generally mild and self-limiting irrespective of the method of administration employed. No significant systemic reactions or serious adverse events (SAE) related to ID fIPV administration have been reported. Furthermore, although when comparisons have been undertaken, the seroconversion rates and neutralizing antibody titres generated by the ID fIPV are consistently lower than those generated by a full IM dose of the same vaccine, the immunogenicity is such that the approach is viewed as a viable alternative in the context of the current Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) strategy.
Of particular importance, in studies undertaken in Cuba and Bangladesh, the administration of a single ID fIPV dose to poliovirus-vaccine naive infants has been shown to effectively prime the immune system for a subsequent rapid anamnestic response to an ID fIPV booster. In Cuba, priming with ID fIPV at four months of age resulted in a response within seven days of a subsequent ID fIPV booster dose at eight months - resulting in a cumulative seroconversion rate of 98% for poliovirus serotype 2 over the two dose course . The equivalent figure was 81% following a six and 14 week prime-boost schedule in Bangladesh. In both cases, the cumulative seroconversion rate following two ID fIPV doses was significantly higher for all serotypes than the seroconversion rate recorded following a single full-dose of IPV administered by the IM route (98% versus 62% in Cuba; 80% versus 39% in Bangladesh for serotype 2). The demonstrated anamnestic responses described, provide an effective strategy for rapidly inducing seroprotection in a primed population through the campaign-based provision of a second dose of ID fIPV - initiated as part of an OBR. In addition, if coverage can be assured, the use of a two dose ID fIPV routine schedule provides higher levels of seroprotection than a single IM IPV dose while still remaining dose sparing (0.2mL versus 0.5mL).
Based on the data available and their assessment of the current global landscape, the latest WHO position paper on polio vaccines, published in March 2016, suggests that '...countries could consider instituting a 2-dose fractional dose schedule, which could ensure that all eligible infants receive IPV...'. The same paper indicates that 'One fractional-dose IPV may be particularly appropriate for outbreak response if supplies are limited'. Based on this recommendation, and their own assessment, several states in India have subsequently decided to introduce two ID fIPV doses into their routine immunization schedule.
Rationale
While the safety and immunogenicity of ID fIPV is established in a clinic setting, there are little data examining the feasibility of rapid ID fIPV delivery in community-based campaign.
Many countries across sub-Saharan Africa, and other parts of the world where OPV supplementary immunization activities (SIA) are ongoing, have an established and highly effective framework for the campaign-based delivery of oral vaccines and other orally administered interventions (e.g. vitamin A and medendazole). However, such SIA commonly rely on the use of non-clinically trained individuals for frontline delivery (for example, volunteers from youth groups and other community organizations play a key role in such campaigns in The Gambia).
National campaigns involving the delivery of IM vaccines (e.g. MenAfriVac™ and most recently the measles and rubella combined vaccine [90-95% coverage of 802 425 target nine-month to 15 year olds in The Gambia in April 2016]) have also been undertaken very successfully - in this case relying on nurses and public health officers (or other health professionals involved in the routine provision Expanded Programme on Immunization (EPI) schedule) to administer the vaccines. However, the delivery of IM injections is part of the routine day-to-day practice of such professionals and can be completed with almost 100% success following limited training.
In contrast, the reliable delivery of ID injections, as is required to ensure the consistent immunogenicity of fIPV, is notoriously difficult with a N\&S, particularly in active infants and children, and requires not only training but also significant practical experience. Indeed, data from both Cuba and The Gambia highlight that the immunogenicity of ID fIPV is directly determined by injection quality, as assessed by both ID bleb size and fluid loss at the injection site ([14] and The Gambia - unpublished data). Furthermore, given the nature of the injection, the approach is more time consuming than an IM vaccination (The Gambia - Figure 1 [unpublished data]) and markedly more time consuming than the delivery of a dose of OPV. This has important manpower implications even assuming personnel with the requisite skills are available.
Given these challenges, this pragmatic trial will specifically compare the feasibility of ID fIPV delivery using three different methods of administration in a campaign setting in rural part of The Gambia:
- Needle and syringe [N\&S] (auto-disable, fixed needle)
- Intradermal Adapter [IDA] - West Pharmaceutical Services Inc
- Tropis™ Disposable Syringe Jet Injector [DSJI] - Pharmajet
Gaining an understanding of the utility of different methods of ID fIPV delivery in a campaign represents an important final step before key decisions regarding the approaches taken to fIPV delivery, particularly in an OBR, are finalized. A number of qualitative and quantitative endpoints will be assessed related to the practicalities of implementation. Information on solicited local and systemic reactogenicity will also be collected to strengthen the existing data set with this regard particularly related to campaign-based administration. Immunogenicity data will also be generated in a subset of 24 to 59 month old vaccine recipients to ensure that any factors enhancing the speed and ease of ID fIPV administration do not significantly compromise the ID fIPV immunogenicity - for example as a result of poor injection quality. This age group is chosen to limit the potential confounding effects of having received a different number of OPV and/or IPV doses present in younger age groups.
The data will also expand what is currently a very limited data-set regarding ID fIPV administration in sub-Saharan Africa - a setting where the risks of future cVDPV2 outbreaks is not inconsiderable despite recent sustained progress.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Device feasibility
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 3
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| ID Needle and Syringe | Active comparator | Device: Needle and syringeFractional (0.1mL) dose of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) administered using a needle and syringe |
| ID Adaptor (Helm) | Experimental | Device: ID adaptorFractional (0.1mL) dose of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) administered using a needle and syringe with an ID adaptor |
| ID Jet Injector (Tropis, Pharmajet) | Experimental | Device: ID Jet Injector (Tropis, Pharmajet)Fractional (0.1mL) dose of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) administered by needle and syringe with a disposable syringe jet injecto |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 4 to 59 months
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Child
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Written or thumb-printed informed consent obtained from a child's parent or guardian
- Resident within the geographical area which is expected to be covered by the campaign
- Between 4 and 59 months of age at the time of the campaign
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Anaphylaxis or a severe, potentially life threatening, allergic reaction to a previous vaccination
- Any other condition or significant acute illness meaning that it is judged to be against the infant's or child's best interests to receive ID fIPV (note that most chronic illnesses and minor acute illnesses - when normal vaccinations would be encouraged, do not represent exclusions for the trial)
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| ID adaptorID adaptor fixed to the end of a standard ID needle and syringe to facilitate ID administration of the inactivated poliovirus vaccine | Device | ID Adaptor (Helm) |
| ID Jet Injector (Tropis, Pharmajet)ID disposable syringe (needle free) jet injector to facilitate ID administration of the inactivated poliovirus vaccine | Device | ID Jet Injector (Tropis, Pharmajet) |
| Needle and syringeStandard ID needle and syringe for ID administration of the inactivated poliovirus vaccine | Device | ID Needle and Syringe |
Primary outcome
Total time taken to deliver ID fIPV using each of the three methods of administration
Time frame: Collected on day 1, 2 or 3 of the vaccination campaign
Qualitative measures of administration method utility
Time frame: Collected on day 1, 2 or 3 of the vaccination campaign
Ergonomic characteristics of the intradermal administration methods collected through questionnaires
Local and systemic reactogenicity collected according to standard severity score (0 - 4) system.
Time frame: Day 3 following vaccination
Local reactogenicity (induration, erythema, tenderness, fever, vomiting, diarrhoea, feeding, irritability) will be collected on all vaccines on day 3 following vaccine administration
Serious adverse events (SAE) and adverse events (AE) following ID fIPV administration
Time frame: Within 4 weeks of vaccination
Semi-quantitative measure of distress in infants and children associated with ID fIPV administration
Time frame: Collected on day 1, 2 or 3 of the vaccination campaign
Infant distress will be graded according to a visual analogue scale
Storage volumes of equipment required for ID fIPV delivery and subsequent bio-waste disposal including any differences the equipment required to safely deliver such vaccinations in a campaign
Time frame: Collected on day 1, 2 or 3 of the vaccination campaign
The volume of the disposables and biowaste created by each of the administration methods will be recorded.
Number of ID fIPV doses deliverable per IPV vial using each of the three administration methods (to identify any wastage associated with syringe/device filling)
Time frame: Collected on day 1, 2 or 3 of the vaccination campaign
Immune response to ID fIPV (poliovirus neutralization assays)
Time frame: Serum sample taken at baseline (pre-vaccination) and 4 weeks following vaccination
Poliovirus neutralization assays
Changes in the time taken to deliver the ID fIPV and in the immune responses generated over the course of a 3 day campaign
Time frame: Over 3 days of the campaign
Changes in the vaccine vial monitors (VVM) and also temperature deviations identified using a continuous temperature data logger associated with a campaign using each of the three administration methods
Time frame: Over 3 days of the campaign
Qualitative factors which might influence campaign uptake in The Gambia and comparable sub-Saharan African settings
Time frame: 1 week following vaccination campaign
Number of ID fIPV doses delivered using each of the three methods in the course of a defined campaign day by one vaccination team
Time frame: Collected on day 1, 2 or 3 of the vaccination campaign
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 3 Jan 2019.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 34951974Bashorun AO, Badjie Hydara M, Adigweme I, Umesi A, Danso B, Johnson N, Sambou NA, Fofana S, Kanu FJ, Jeyaseelan V, Verma H, Weldon WC, Oberste MS, Sutter RW, Jeffries D, Wathuo M, Mach O, Clarke E. Intradermal administration of fractional doses of the inactivated poliovirus vaccine in a campaign: a pragmatic, open-label, non-inferiority trial in The Gambia. Lancet Glob Health. 2022 Feb;10(2):e257-e268. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(21)00497-6. Epub 2021 Dec 21.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Poliomyelitis
RecruitingPhase 1/2
A Phase I/II Clinical Trial of the Diphtheria, Tetanus, Acellular Component Pertussis and Sabin Inactivated Poliomyelitis Vaccine Adsorbed
Diphtheria, Pertussis
RecruitingPhase 1
Safety and Immunogenicity of a Recombinant Poliomyelitis Vaccine (rPV) in Comparison With IPOL Vaccine in Healthy Adults
Polio Immunity
Active, not recruiting
Effects of Virtual Walking on Chronic Pain and Psychological Distress for Individuals With Severe Mobility Impairment
Severe Mobility Impairment, Spinal Cord Injuries (SCI)
RecruitingPhase 3
A Study to Evaluate the Mucosal Intestinal Immunity to Poliovirus Type-2 of nOPV2 at Birth Dose in Healthy IPV Vaccinated Infants
Poliomyelitis
Active, not recruitingPhase 2/3
A Phase II/III Study to Evaluate the Immunogenicity, Safety and Lot-to-lot Consistency of LBVD, a Fully Liquid Hexavalent Diphtheria-tetanus-whole Cell Pertussis-hepatitis B-poliovirus-Haemophilus Influenzae Type b Conjugate (DTwP-HepB-IPV-Hib) Vaccine, in Healthy Infants as Primary Series
Diphtheria, Tetanus
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Ed Clarke, MRCPCH MSc PhD principal investigator
MRC Unit The Gambia
Adedapo O Bashorun, MBBS principal investigator
MRC Unit The Gambia
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing ID adaptor, ID Jet Injector (Tropis, Pharmajet) and Needle and syringe in people with Poliomyelitis, run by Medical Research Council Unit, The Gambia at 1 site in The Gambia.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 3 inclusion and 2 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 3 Jan 2019. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in The Gambia. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Total time taken to deliver ID fIPV using each of the three methods of administration (time frame: Collected on day 1, 2 or 3 of the vaccination campaign). The study lists 12 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT02967783, which also lists 1 linked publication.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 3 Jan 2019; AzTrials last refreshed its copy on 30 Oct 2026.