Stéphane Thomas

Evaluation of a diphtheria–tetanus–acellular pertussis–inactivated poliovirus–Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine given concurrently with meningococcal group C conjugate vaccine at 2, 3 and 4 months of age

Background and objective: In view of the possible introduction of diphtheria–tetanus–acellular pertussis–inactivated poliovirus–Haemophilus influenzae type b (DTaP-IPV-Hib, eg Pediacel) vaccine in the UK, a study of the immunogenicity of Pediacel when given with one of two different meningococcal group C conjugate (MCC) vaccines at 2, 3 and 4 months of age was conducted. Methods: Randomised controlled study in 241 infants. Results: Post vaccination, the proportion of infants with anti-polyribosylribitol phosphate (PRP) levels ⩾0.15 μg/ml was 93.2% (95% confidence interval (CI) 86.6 to 96.7) in the Pediacel group compared with 100% (95% CI 96.4 to 100) in the diphtheria–tetanus–whole-cell pertussis–Haemophilus influenzae type b (DTwP-Hib) group. The anti-PRP response was lower in infants receiving either Pediacel or DTwP-Hib when these vaccines were given concomitantly with meningococcal group C conjugate with diphtheria-derived protein CRM197 as conjugate protein (MCC-CRM) compared with meningococcal group C conjugate with tetanus toxoid as conjugate protein (MCC-TT). For group C meningococcus, the proportion of infants with serum bactericidal antibody (SBA) titre ⩾1:8 in the Pediacel group was 99.0% compared with 100% in the DTwP-Hib group. The MCC SBA geometric mean titre (GMT) was lower in those receiving Pediacel with MCC-TT than in those receiving DTwP-Hib with MCC-TT, although all titres were well above the protective threshold. The MCC SBA GMT was similar in those receiving Pediacel and DTwP-Hib and MCC-CRM. Responses to all other vaccine components were equivalent in the two groups. Conclusions: Pediacel is immunogenic when given at 2, 3 and 4 months of age. Coadministration of MCC vaccine can influence the Hib response, and the MCC response to a tetanus conjugate can be influenced by the nature of the coadministered DTP-Hib vaccine.

Evaluation of non-inferiority of intradermal versus adjuvanted seasonal influenza vaccine using two serological techniques: a randomised comparative study

BackgroundAlthough seasonal influenza vaccine is effective in the elderly, immune responses to vaccination are lower in the elderly than in younger adults. Strategies to optimise responses to vaccination in the elderly include using an adjuvanted vaccine or using an intradermal vaccination route. The immunogenicity of an intradermal seasonal influenza vaccine was compared with that of an adjuvanted vaccine in the elderly.MethodsElderly volunteers (age ≥ 65 years) were randomised to receive a single dose of trivalent seasonal influenza vaccine: either a split-virion vaccine containing 15 μg haemagglutinin [HA]/strain/0.1-ml dose administered intradermally, or a subunit vaccine (15 μg HA/strain/0.5-ml dose) adjuvanted with MF59C.1 and administered intramuscularly. Blood samples were taken before and 21 ± 3 days post-vaccination. Anti-HA antibody titres were assessed using haemagglutination inhibition (HI) and single radial haemolysis (SRH) methods. We aimed to show that the intradermal vaccine was non-inferior to the adjuvanted vaccine.ResultsA total of 795 participants were enrolled (intradermal vaccine n = 398; adjuvanted vaccine n = 397). Non-inferiority of the intradermal vaccine was demonstrated for the A/H1N1 and B strains, but not for the A/H3N2 strain (upper bound of the 95% CI = 1.53) using the HI method, and for all three strains by the SRH method. A post-hoc analysis of covariance to adjust for baseline antibody titres demonstrated the non-inferiority of the intradermal vaccine by HI and SRH methods for all three strains. Both vaccines were, in general, well tolerated; the incidence of injection-site reactions was higher for the intradermal (70.1%) than the adjuvanted vaccine (33.8%) but these reactions were mild and of short duration.ConclusionsThe immunogenicity and safety of the intradermal seasonal influenza vaccine in the elderly was comparable with that of the adjuvanted vaccine. Intradermal vaccination to target the immune properties of the skin appears to be an appropriate strategy to address the challenge of declining immune responses in the elderly.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00554333.

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase III Study of the Immunogenicity and Safety of a 9-Valent Human Papillomavirus L1 Virus-Like Particle Vaccine (V503) Versus Gardasil®in 9-15-Year-Old Girls.

Background: A 9-valent human papillomavirus (9vHPV) vaccine has been developed to prevent infections and diseases related to HPV 6/11/16/18 [as per the licensed quadrivalent HPV (qHPV) vaccine], as well as 5 additional oncogenic HPV types (HPV 31/33/45/52/58). Compared with the qHPV vaccine, the 9vHPV vaccine potentially increases the coverage of protection from 70% to 90% of cervical cancers. We compared the immunogenicity and safety of the 9vHPV vaccine versus the qHPV vaccine in 9–15-year-old girls. Methods: Participants (n = 600) were randomized to receive 9vHPV or qHPV vaccines on day 1, month 2 and month 6. Serology testing was performed on day 1 and month 7. HPV type-specific antibody titers (anti-HPV 6/11/16/18/31/33/45/52/58) were determined by competitive Luminex immunoassay and expressed as geometric mean titers and seroconversion rates. Vaccine safety was also assessed. Results: The HPV 6/11/16/18 immune responses elicited by the 9vHPV vaccine were comparable with those elicited by the qHPV vaccine. All participants (except 1 for HPV 45) receiving the 9vHPV vaccine seroconverted for HPV 31/33/45/52/58. The 9vHPV and qHPV vaccines showed comparable safety profiles, although the incidence of injection-site swelling was higher in the 9vHPV vaccine group. Conclusions: In addition to immune responses to HPV 31/33/45/52/58, a 3-dose regimen of the 9vHPV vaccine elicited a similar immune response to HPV 6/11/16/18 when compared with the qHPV vaccine in girls aged 9–15 years. The safety profile was also similar for the 2 vaccines.

A phase III clinical study to compare the immunogenicity and safety of the 9-valent and quadrivalent HPV vaccines in men.

BACKGROUND A nine-valent human papilloma virus (9vHPV) vaccine has been developed to prevent infections and diseases related to HPV 6/11/16/18 (as per the licensed quadrivalent HPV (qHPV) vaccine) as well as to five additional oncogenic HPV types (HPV 31/33/45/52/58). The 9vHPV vaccine has the potential to prevent 90% of cervical cancers, HPV-related anal, vaginal and vulval cancers and anogenital warts. We compared the immunogenicity and safety of the 9vHPV vaccine versus the qHPV vaccine in 16-26-year-old men. METHODS Participants (N=500) were randomised to receive 9vHPV or qHPV vaccines on day 1, month 2 and month 6. Serology testing was performed on day 1 and month 7. HPV type-specific antibody titres (anti-HPV 6/11/16/18/31/33/45/52/58) were determined by competitive Luminex immunoassay and expressed as geometric mean titres and seroconversion rates. Vaccine safety was also assessed. RESULTS The HPV 6/11/16/18 immune responses elicited by the 9vHPV vaccine were comparable with those elicited by the qHPV vaccine. All participants receiving the 9vHPV vaccine seroconverted for HPV 31/33/45/52/58. The 9vHPV and qHPV vaccines showed comparable safety profiles. CONCLUSIONS In addition to immune responses to HPV 31/33/45/52/58, a three-dose regimen of the 9vHPV vaccine elicited a similar immune response to HPV 6/11/16/18 when compared with the qHPV vaccine in men aged 16-26years. The safety profile was also similar for the two vaccines. The results from this study support extending the efficacy findings with qHPV vaccine to 9vHPV vaccine in men aged 16-26years. NCT02114385.

Challenge with a hepatitis B vaccine in two cohorts of 4–7-year-old children primed with hexavalent vaccines: An open-label, randomised trial in Italy ☆

BACKGROUND AND AIMS The anamnestic response to a challenge dose of vaccine can assess immune memory and protection against hepatitis B infection. This study investigated responses to a challenge dose of monovalent hepatitis B vaccine in children immunised with three doses of either Hexavac or Infanrix-Hexa during infancy. METHODS This open-label, randomised, controlled, four-arm study enrolled 410 healthy children aged 4-7 years who had received either Hexavac (n=201) or Infanrix-Hexa (n=209) at 3, 5 and 11 months of life. Children received a single intramuscular challenge dose of either hepatitis B vaccine, HBVaxPro (Hexavac, n=34; Infanrix-Hexa, n=28) or Engerix-B (Hexavac, n=167; Infanrix-Hexa, n=181). Hepatitis B surface antibody (anti-HBs) concentrations were measured before and 1 month after the challenge vaccine dose. The analysis was descriptive and no formal hypothesis was tested. RESULTS One month post-challenge, 91.2% of children in the Hexavac group (95% confidence interval [CI] 86.3, 94.8) and 98.0% (95% CI 94.9, 99.4) in the Infanrix-Hexa group had anti-HBs concentrations ≥10 mIU/ml (primary endpoint). In a post hoc analysis, most children with pre-challenge anti-HBs concentration <10 mIU/ml achieved anti-HBs concentrations ≥10 mIU/ml (Hexavac group, 85.3% [95% CI 77.6, 91.2]; Infanrix-Hexa group, 91.9% [95% CI 78.1, 98.3]). Both challenge vaccines were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS These data suggest that immune memory persists for long-term (5 years) after a primary vaccination in infancy with a hexavalent vaccine (Hexavac or Infanrix-Hexa).

Immunogenicity and safety of a live attenuated shingles (herpes zoster) vaccine (Zostavax®) in individuals aged ≥ 70 years: A randomized study of a single dose vs. two different two-dose schedules

Disease protection provided by herpes zoster (HZ) vaccination tends to reduce as age increases. This study was designed to ascertain whether a second dose of the HZ vaccine, Zostavax®, would increase varicella zoster virus (VZV)-specific immune response among individuals aged ≥ 70 y. Individuals aged ≥ 70 y were randomized to receive HZ vaccine in one of three schedules: a single dose (0.65 mL), two doses at 0 and 1 mo, or two doses at 0 and 3 mo. VZV antibody titers were measured at baseline, 4 weeks after each vaccine dose, and 12 mo after the last dose. In total, 759 participants (mean age 76.1 y) were randomized to receive vaccination. Antibody responses were similar after a single dose or two doses of HZ vaccine [post-dose 2/post-dose 1 geometric mean titer (GMT) ratios for the 1-mo or 3-mo schedules were 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02–1.22 and 0.78, 95% CI 0.73–0.85], respectively). The 12-mo post-dose 2/12-mo post-dose 1 GMT ratio was similar for the 1-mo schedule and for the 3-mo schedule (1.06, 95% CI 0.96–1.17 and 1.08, 95% CI 0.98–1.19, respectively). Similar immune responses were observed in participants aged 70–79 y and those aged ≥ 80 y. HZ vaccine was generally well tolerated, with no evidence of increased adverse event incidence after the second dose with either schedule. Compared with a single-dose regimen, two-dose vaccination did not increase VZV antibody responses among individuals aged ≥ 70 y. Antibody persistence after 12 mo was similar with all three schedules.

Comparison of intramuscular and subcutaneous administration of a herpes zoster live-attenuated vaccine in adults aged ≥50 years: A randomised non-inferiority clinical trial

Zostavax(®) is a live, attenuated varicella zoster virus (VZV) vaccine developed specifically for the prevention of HZ and PHN in individuals aged ≥50 years. During the clinical development of Zostavax, which was mainly in the US, the vaccine was administrated by the subcutaneous (SC) route. In Europe, many healthcare professionals prefer administering vaccines by the intramuscular (IM) route. This was an open-label, randomised trial conducted in 354 subjects aged ≥50 years. The primary objectives were to demonstrate that IM administration is both non-inferior to SC administration in terms of 4-week post-vaccination geometric mean titres (GMTs), and elicits an acceptable geometric mean fold-rise (GMFR) of antibody titres measured by glycoprotein enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Pre-specified non-inferiority was set as the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the GMT ratio (IM/SC) being >0.67. An acceptable GMFR for the IM route was pre-specified as the lower bound of its 95% CI being >1.4. Description of the VZV immune response using the interferon-gamma enzyme-linked immunospot (IFN-γ ELISPOT) assay and of the safety were secondary objectives. Participants were randomised to IM or SC administration (1:1). The baseline demographics were comparable between groups; mean age: 62.6 years (range: 50.0-90.5). The primary immunogenicity objectives were met (per protocol analysis): GMT ratio (IM/SC): 1.05 (95% CI: 0.93-1.18); GMFR: 2.7 (2.4-3.0). VZV immune response using IFN-γ ELISPOT were comparable between groups. Frequencies of systemic adverse events were comparable between groups. Injection-site reactions were less frequent with IM than SC route: erythema (15.9% versus 52.5%), pain (25.6% versus 39.5%) and swelling (13.6% versus 37.3%), respectively. In adults aged ≥50 years, IM administration of Zostavax elicited similar immune responses to SC administration and was well tolerated, with fewer injection-site reactions than with SC administration.

Immunogenicity and safety of concomitant administration of a measles, mumps and rubella vaccine (M-M-RvaxPro®) and a varicella vaccine (VARIVAX®) by intramuscular or subcutaneous routes at separate injection sites: a randomised clinical trial

BackgroundWhen this trial was initiated, the combined measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine was licensed for subcutaneous administration in all European countries and for intramuscular administration in some countries, whereas varicella vaccine was licensed only for subcutaneous administration. This study evaluated the intramuscular administration of an MMR vaccine (M-M-RvaxPro®) and a varicella vaccine (VARIVAX®) compared with the subcutaneous route.MethodsAn open-label randomised trial was performed in France and Germany. Healthy children, aged 12 to18 months, received single injections of M-M-RvaxPro and VARIVAX concomitantly at separate injection sites. Both vaccines were administered either intramuscularly (IM group, n = 374) or subcutaneously (SC group, n = 378). Immunogenicity was assessed before vaccination and 42 days after vaccination. Injection-site erythema, swelling and pain were recorded from days 0 to 4 after vaccination. Body temperature was monitored daily between 0 and 42 days after vaccination. Other adverse events were recorded up to 42 days after vaccination and serious adverse events until the second study visit.ResultsAntibody response rates at day 42 in the per-protocol set of children initially seronegative to measles, mumps, rubella or varicella were similar between the IM and SC groups for all four antigens. Response rates were 94 to 96% for measles, 98% for both mumps and rubella and 86 to 88% for varicella. For children initially seronegative to varicella, 99% achieved the seroconversion threshold (antibody concentrations of ≥ 1.25 gpELISA units/ml). Erythema and swelling were the most frequently reported injection-site reactions for both vaccines. Most injection-site reactions were of mild intensity or small size (≤ 2.5 cm). There was a trend for lower rates of injection-site erythema and swelling in the IM group. The incidence and nature of systemic adverse events were comparable for the two routes of administration, except varicella-like rashes, which were less frequent in the IM group.ConclusionThe immunogenicities of M-M-RvaxPro and VARIVAX administered by the intramuscular route were comparable with those following subcutaneous administration, and the tolerability of the two vaccines was comparable regardless of administration route. Integration of both administration routes in the current European indications for the two vaccines will now allow physicians in Europe to choose their preferred administration route in routine clinical practice.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT00432523

Antibody persistence in UK pre-school children following primary series with an acellular pertussis-containing pentavalent vaccine given concomitantly with meningococcal group C conjugate vaccine, and response to a booster dose of an acellular pertussis-containing quadrivalent vaccine

This open-label, randomised, controlled study examined antibody persistence following infant vaccination at 2, 3 and 4 months of age with either an acellular pertussis, diphtheria, tetanus, inactivated poliovirus, Haemophilus influenzae type b (DT(5)aP-IPV-Hib; Pediacel) or a whole-cell pertussis (DTwP//Hib+oral poliomyelitis vaccine [OPV]) combination vaccine, given concomitantly with meningococcal serogroup C conjugate (MCC) vaccine, followed by a Hib booster at approximately 15 months of age. Immune responses were sustained to 3.5-4.5 years of age for all antigens contained in Pediacel. Administration of an acellular pertussis-containing quadrivalent pre-school booster (Td(5)ap-IPV; Repevax), with or without measles, mumps and rubella (M-M-RII) vaccine, induced robust antibody responses indicative of protection, regardless of the vaccine used for the primary series. Reactogenicity of Repevax was acceptable and consistent with previous experience.

Immunogenicity and safety of ZOSTAVAX® approaching expiry potency in individuals aged ≥50 years

Background: Age is a major risk factor for herpes zoster (HZ) and its potential long-term complication post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN). Due to the significant burden of HZ and PHN on patients’ quality of life, it is vital that effective and well-tolerated vaccines are available to prevent HZ in older adults. ZOSTAVAX® vaccine was developed to prevent HZ and PHN in individuals ≥50 years (y) of age, and its clinical efficacy and safety have been demonstrated. Aims and Methods: This phase 4, open-label, multicenter study was undertaken to assess the immunogenicity and safety of a single dose of ZOSTAVAX (refrigerator-stable formulation) given within 6 mo of its expiry date in individuals ≥50 y of age. The geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) from pre-vaccination to 4 weeks post-vaccination in varicella zoster virus (VZV) antibody titers was calculated. An acceptable antibody response was defined as a lower 95% confidence interval (CI) of GMFR >1.4. Solicited and unsolicited injection-site reactions and systemic adverse events were recorded. Results: The GMFR in VZV antibody titers was 3.1 (95% CI: 2.6, 3.8), satisfying the criterion for an acceptable VZV antibody response to ZOSTAVAX (minimum requirement: 1.4 GMFR). An acceptable rise in VZV antibody titers was observed in individuals of 50–59 y of age (GMFR 3.9; 95% CI: 2.9, 5.1) and in those ≥60 y of age (GMFR 2.5; 95% CI: 1.9, 3.2). ZOSTAVAX was well tolerated; no serious adverse events were reported. Conclusion: ZOSTAVAX elicits an acceptable immune response in immunocompetent individuals ≥50 y of age when stored as directed and administered during the 6 mo prior to expiration.