Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27932608›Full record

Trial reportThe Journal of infectious diseases2017

Antiviral Activity of Pocapavir in a Randomized, Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Human Oral Poliovirus Vaccine Challenge Model.

Marc S Collett, Jeffrey R Hincks, Kimberley Benschop, Erwin Duizer, Harrie van der Avoort, Eric Rhoden, Hongmei Liu, M Steven Oberste, Mark A McKinlay, Marianne Hartford

Open access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The Journal of infectious diseases, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed
6.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

48 citing papers in PubMed, 77 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Current infectious disease management challenges in inborn errors of immunity.Annals of clinical microbiology and antimicrobials · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Mucosal immunity to poliovirus.Mucosal immunology · 2022
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Marc S CollettViroDefense, Chevy Chase, Maryland.
Jeffrey R HincksViroDefense, Chevy Chase, Maryland.
Kimberley BenschopCenter for Infectious Diseases Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, the Netherlands; and.
Erwin DuizerCenter for Infectious Diseases Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, the Netherlands; and.
Harrie van der AvoortCenter for Infectious Diseases Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, the Netherlands; and.
Eric RhodenDivision of Viral Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and.
Hongmei LiuDivision of Viral Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and.
M Steven ObersteDivision of Viral Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and.
Mark A McKinlayTask Force for Global Health, Decatur, Georgia.
Marianne HartfordClinical Trial Center, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden.
National Institute for Public Health and the Environment · NLSahlgrenska University Hospital · SEThe Task Force for Global Health · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImmunodeficient individuals who excrete vaccine-derived polioviruses threaten polio eradication. Antivirals address this threat.

methodsIn a randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled study, adults were challenged with monovalent oral poliovirus type 1 vaccine (mOPV1) and subsequently treated with capsid inhibitor pocapavir or placebo. The time to virus negativity in stool was determined.

resultsA total of 144 participants were enrolled; 98% became infected upon OPV challenge. Pocapavir-treated subjects (n = 93) cleared virus a median duration of 10 days after challenge, compared with 13 days for placebo recipients (n = 48; P = .0019). Fifty-two of 93 pocapavir-treated subjects (56%) cleared virus in 2-18 days with no evidence of drug resistance, while 41 of 93 (44%) treated subjects experienced infection with resistant virus while in the isolation facility, 3 (3%) of whom were infected at baseline, before treatment initiation. Resistant virus was also observed in 5 placebo recipients (10%). Excluding those with resistant virus, the median time to virus negativity was 5.5 days in pocapavir recipients, compared with 13 days in placebo recipients (P < .0001). There were no serious adverse events and no withdrawals from the study.

conclusionsTreatment with pocapavir was safe and significantly accelerated virus clearance. Emergence of resistant virus and transmission of virus were seen in the context of a clinical isolation facility. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: EudraCT 2011-004804-38.

Indexed as

AdultAntiviral AgentsCohort StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPhenyl EthersPoliomyelitisPoliovirus Vaccine, OralSingle-Blind MethodTreatment OutcomeViral LoadVirus SheddingVirus UncoatingAntiviral AgentsPhenyl EtherspocapavirPoliovirus Vaccine, Oralantiviralclinical efficacyclinical trial designdrug resistancepocapavirPoliopoliovirustransmissionvirus challengevirus eradication.

Identifiers

PMID27932608
PMCPMC5393058
OpenAlexW2560200449

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.