Immunogenicity, safety and reactogenicity of Ad26.RSV.preF/RSV preF protein vaccine in adults aged 60 to 75 years: A comparison of phase 2b and phase 3 clinical trial material.

The Ad26.RSV.preF/RSV preF protein vaccine has previously demonstrated efficacyin protecting older adults against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV)-related lower respiratory tract disease in a phase 2b study. This study compared the immunogenicity of vaccine clinical trial material (CTM) representative of phase 2b clinical studies with CTM used in phase 3 clinical studies. A total of 248 adults aged 60-75 years, randomized in a 1:1 ratio, received one dose of either phase 3 CTM or phase 2b CTM. Solicited adverse events (AEs), unsolicited AEs, and serious AEs (SAEs) were assessed for 7-d, 28-d, and 6-month periods post-vaccination, respectively. RSV preF-ELISA antibody titers and RSV neutralizing titers were measured before and 14 d after vaccination. The phase 3 CTM-induced preF-ELISA response at Day 15, in terms of geometric mean titer, was shown to be non-inferior to that induced by phase 2b CTM. The RSV neutralizing antibody titers were also similar in the two groups at Day 15. The safety profile in terms of solicited AEs, unsolicited AEs, or SAEs was in general similar between the phase 3 CTM and phase 2b CTM groups, and solicited AEs were mostly mild to moderate in intensity. No related SAEs were reported, and no safety concerns were identified.

Long-term efficacy and immunogenicity of Ad26.RSV.preF-RSV preF protein vaccine (CYPRESS): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2b study.

BACKGROUND: Ad26.RSV.preF-RSV preF protein showed 80·0% vaccine efficacy against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) lower respiratory tract disease (LRTD) in older adults during one RSV season. No RSV vaccines have shown three-season efficacy. We aimed to evaluate efficacy of Ad26.RSV.preF-RSV preF protein over three RSV seasons. METHODS: CYPRESS was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2b study done at 40 US clinical research centres wherein adults aged 65 years or older were centrally randomly assigned 1:1 by computer algorithm to receive Ad26.RSV.preF-RSV preF protein or placebo (one intramuscular injection) on day 1. Investigators, participants, site personnel, and the sponsor were masked to vaccine allocation, except for individuals involved in preparation of study vaccinations. The primary endpoint (first occurrence of RSV-mediated LRTD meeting one of three case definitions) was previously reported. Here, the predefined exploratory endpoint of vaccine efficacy against RSV-positive LRTD was assessed in the per-protocol efficacy set (all participants randomly assigned and vaccinated without protocol deviations affecting efficacy) through season 1 and from day 365 until the end of season 3. Humoral and cellular immunogenicity was assessed in a subset of randomly assigned and vaccinated participants. The secondary endpoint of safety through the first RSV season was previously reported; follow-up for selected safety outcomes (fatal adverse events, adverse events leading to study discontinuation, serious adverse events, and vaccine-related serious adverse events) until study completion is reported here in all randomly assigned and vaccinated participants. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03982199 and is complete. FINDINGS: Of 6672 adults screened, 5782 participants (2891 each receiving vaccine or placebo) were enrolled and vaccinated between Aug 5 and Nov 13, 2019. The season 2 per-protocol efficacy set included 2124 vaccine recipients and 2126 placebo recipients (season 3: 864 and 881; across three seasons: 2795 and 2803, respectively). Vaccine efficacy against RSV LRTD was 76·1% (95% CI 26·9-94·2) over seasons 2 and 3 and 78·7% (57·3-90·4) across three seasons. For those in the immunogenicity subset (vaccine n=97; placebo n=98), immune responses remained above baseline for at least 1 year. Serious adverse events occurred in 47 (2·1%) and 12 (1·3%) vaccine recipients and 45 (2·1%) and 10 (1·1%) placebo recipients during seasons 2 and 3, respectively. No treatment-related serious or fatal adverse events were reported. INTERPRETATION: Ad26.RSV.preF-RSV preF protein maintained high efficacy against RSV LRTD in older adults across three RSV seasons. FUNDING: Janssen Vaccines & Prevention.

Immunogenicity and safety of Ad26.RSV.preF/RSV preF protein vaccine at predicted intermediate- and end-of-shelf-life as an evaluation of potency throughout shelf life.

This study assessed three Ad26.RSV.preF/RSV preF protein combinations, combining different Ad26.RSV.preF doses and naturally aged preF protein, representing the expected critical vaccine quality attributes close to release, around intermediate shelf-life (ISL) and near-presumed end-of-shelf-life (EoSL), as a way to evaluate the vaccine immunogenicity and safety throughout its shelf-life. A single dose of Ad26.RSV.preF/RSV preF protein vaccine was administered to adults 60-75 years of age. Solicited adverse events (AEs), unsolicited AEs, and serious AEs (SAEs) were assessed for 7-day, 28-day, and 6-month periods after vaccination, respectively. RSV preF-binding antibody concentrations and RSV neutralizing titers were measured 14 days post-vaccination as primary and secondary endpoints, respectively; binding antibodies were also measured 6 months post-vaccination. The RSV preF-binding antibody responses induced by Ad26.RSV.preF/RSV preF protein vaccine lots representing the critical quality attributes around ISL and near presumed EoSL were noninferior to the responses induced by the vaccine lot representing the critical quality attributes near release. The RSV preF-binding and RSV neutralizing antibody levels measured 14 days post-vaccination were similar across the 3 groups. RSV preF-binding antibody concentrations were also similar 6 months post-vaccination. Solicited AEs were mostly mild to moderate in intensity, and a decreased reactogenicity was observed from the Release group to the ISL and EoSL group. None of the reported SAEs were considered related to study vaccination. The study provided evidence of sustained immunogenicity and safety over the intended shelf-life of the Ad26.RSV.pref/RSV preF protein vaccine. The three vaccine lots had acceptable safety profiles.

Safety, Immunogenicity, and Regimen Selection of Ad26.RSV.preF-Based Vaccine Combinations: A Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-Controlled, Phase 1/2a Study.

BACKGROUND: Ad26.RSV.preF is an adenovirus serotype 26 vector-based respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine encoding a prefusion conformation-stabilized RSV fusion protein (preF) that demonstrated robust humoral and cellular immunogenicity and showed promising efficacy in a human challenge study in younger adults. Addition of recombinant RSV preF protein might enhance RSV-specific humoral immune responses, especially in older populations. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1/2a study compared the safety and immunogenicity of Ad26.RSV.preF alone and varying doses of Ad26.RSV.preF-RSV preF protein combinations in adults aged ≥60 years. This report includes data from cohort 1 (initial safety, n = 64) and cohort 2 (regimen selection, n = 288). Primary immunogenicity and safety analyses were performed 28 days postvaccination (cohort 2) for regimen selection. RESULTS: All vaccine regimens were well tolerated, with similar reactogenicity profiles among them. Combination regimens induced greater humoral immune responses (virus-neutralizing and preF-specific binding antibodies) and similar cellular ones (RSV-F-specific T cells) as compared with Ad26.RSV.preF alone. Vaccine-induced immune responses remained above baseline up to 1.5 years postvaccination. CONCLUSIONS: All Ad26.RSV.preF-based regimens were well tolerated. A combination regimen comprising Ad26.RSV.preF, which elicits strong humoral and cellular responses, and RSV preF protein, which increases humoral responses, was selected for further development. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT03502707.

Concomitant Administration of Ad26.RSV.preF/RSV preF Protein Vaccine and High-Dose Influenza Vaccine in Adults 65 Years and Older: A Noninferiority Trial.

BACKGROUND: Since influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) carry significant burden in older adults with overlapping seasonality, vaccines for both pathogens would ideally be coadministered in this population. Here we evaluate the immunogenicity and safety of concomitant administration of Ad26.RSV.preF/RSV preF protein and high-dose seasonal influenza vaccine (Fluzone-HD) in adults ≥65 years old. METHODS: Participants were randomized 1:1 to the Coadministration or Control group. The Coadministration group received concomitant Ad26.RSV.preF/RSV preF protein and Fluzone-HD on day 1 and placebo on day 29, while the Control group received Fluzone-HD and placebo on day 1 and Ad26.RSV.preF/RSV preF protein on day 29. Influenza hemagglutination-inhibiting and RSV preF-binding antibody titers were measured postvaccination and tested for noninferiority between both groups. Safety data were collected throughout the study and analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: Coadministered Ad26.RSV.preF/RSV preF protein and Fluzone-HD vaccines induced noninferior immune responses compared to each vaccine administered alone. Seroconversion and seroprotection rates against influenza were similar between groups. Both vaccines remained well tolerated upon concomitant administration. CONCLUSIONS: Coadministration of Ad26.RSV.preF/RSV preF protein and Fluzone-HD showed an acceptable safety profile and did not hamper the immunogenicity of either vaccine, thus supporting that both vaccines can be concomitantly administered in adults ≥65 years old.

Vaccine-induced antibody Fc-effector functions in humans immunized with a combination Ad26.RSV.preF/RSV preF protein vaccine.

IMPORTANCE: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) can cause serious illness in older adults (i.e., those aged ≥60 years). Because options for RSV prophylaxis and treatment are limited, the prevention of RSV-mediated illness in older adults remains an important unmet medical need. Data from prior studies suggest that Fc-effector functions are important for protection against RSV infection. In this work, we show that the investigational Ad26.RSV.preF/RSV preF protein vaccine induced Fc-effector functional immune responses in adults aged ≥60 years who were enrolled in a phase 1/2a regimen selection study of Ad26.RSV.preF/RSV preF protein. These results demonstrate the breadth of the immune responses induced by the Ad26.RSV.preF/RSV preF protein vaccine.

Evaluation of symptoms in respiratory syncytial virus infection in adults: psychometric evaluation of the Respiratory Infection Intensity and Impact Questionnaire™ symptom scores.

BACKGROUND: The Respiratory Infection Intensity and Impact Questionnaire (RiiQ™) is a patient-reported outcome measure designed to assess symptoms and impacts of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection. This study evaluated the construct validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the RiiQ™ Respiratory and Systemic Symptoms Scale scores. METHODS: Prospective data were analyzed from a total of 1795 participants, including from non-hospitalized patients with acute respiratory infection (ARI) and no coinfections enrolled in a Phase 2b RSV vaccine study (RSV-positive: n = 60; RSV-negative: n = 1615), and two observational studies of patients hospitalized with RSV (n = 20; n = 100). Descriptive statistics, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), test-retest intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), construct validity correlations (between a clinician-assessed clinical questionnaire and the RiiQ™ symptoms scale), known-groups validity, and responsiveness (correlations of change scores) were evaluated. RESULTS: Mean patient age ranged from 66.5 to 71.5 years and the majority of patients were female. Initial assessments in the vaccine trial (ARI Day 1) were suggestive of less severe illness than in the observational studies with hospitalized patients. CFA loadings (> 0.40) supported summary scores. ICCs exceeding the recommended threshold of 0.70 supported test-retest reliability for Respiratory and Systemic Symptoms, except in the small observational study. At the scale level, correlations were moderate to strong (|r| ≥ 0.3) and positive between the Respiratory Symptoms Scale and the related clinical questionnaire scores, reflecting measurement of similar symptoms in support of convergent validity. Correlations with change in Patient Global Impression of Severity > 0.30 supported responsiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Psychometric tests applied to the RiiQ™ Symptoms scales provide evidence of its reliability, construct validity, discriminating ability, and responsiveness for use in clinical studies to assess the onset and severity of RSV symptoms.

Efficacy and Safety of an Ad26.RSV.preF-RSV preF Protein Vaccine in Older Adults.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) can cause serious lower respiratory tract disease in older adults, but no licensed RSV vaccine currently exists. An adenovirus serotype 26 RSV vector encoding a prefusion F (preF) protein (Ad26.RSV.preF) in combination with RSV preF protein was previously shown to elicit humoral and cellular immunogenicity. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2b, proof-of-concept trial to evaluate the efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of an Ad26.RSV.preF-RSV preF protein vaccine. Adults who were 65 years of age or older were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive vaccine or placebo. The primary end point was the first occurrence of RSV-mediated lower respiratory tract disease that met one of three case definitions: three or more symptoms of lower respiratory tract infection (definition 1), two or more symptoms of lower respiratory tract infection (definition 2), and either two or more symptoms of lower respiratory tract infection or one or more symptoms of lower respiratory tract infection plus at least one systemic symptom (definition 3). RESULTS: Overall, 5782 participants were enrolled and received an injection. RSV-mediated lower respiratory tract disease meeting case definitions 1, 2, and 3 occurred in 6, 10, and 13 vaccine recipients and in 30, 40, and 43 placebo recipients, respectively. Vaccine efficacy was 80.0% (94.2% confidence interval [CI], 52.2 to 92.9), 75.0% (94.2% CI, 50.1 to 88.5), and 69.8% (94.2% CI, 43.7 to 84.7) for case definitions 1, 2, and 3, respectively. After vaccination, RSV A2 neutralizing antibody titers increased by a factor of 12.1 from baseline to day 15, a finding consistent with other immunogenicity measures. Percentages of participants with solicited local and systemic adverse events were higher in the vaccine group than in the placebo group (local, 37.9% vs. 8.4%; systemic, 41.4% vs. 16.4%); most adverse events were mild to moderate in severity. The frequency of serious adverse events was similar in the vaccine group and the placebo group (4.6% and 4.7%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In adults 65 years of age or older, Ad26.RSV.preF-RSV preF protein vaccine was immunogenic and prevented RSV-mediated lower respiratory tract disease. (Funded by Janssen Vaccines and Prevention; CYPRESS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03982199.).

Burden of respiratory syncytial virus infection in older and high-risk adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence from developed countries.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) significantly impacts the health of older and high-risk adults (those with comorbidities). We aimed to synthesise the evidence on RSV disease burden and RSV-related healthcare utilisation in both populations. METHODS: We searched Embase and MEDLINE for papers published between 2000 and 2019 reporting the burden and clinical presentation of symptomatic RSV infection and the associated healthcare utilisation in developed countries in adults aged ≥60 years or at high risk. We calculated pooled estimates using random-effects inverse variance-weighted meta-analysis. RESULTS: 103 out of 3429 articles met the inclusion criteria. Among older adults, RSV caused 4.66% (95% CI 3.34-6.48%) of symptomatic respiratory infections in annual studies and 7.80% (95% CI 5.77-10.45%) in seasonal studies; RSV-related case fatality proportion (CFP) was 8.18% (95% CI 5.54-11.94%). Among high-risk adults, RSV caused 7.03% (95% CI 5.18-9.48%) of symptomatic respiratory infections in annual studies, and 7.69% (95% CI 6.23-9.46%) in seasonal studies; CFP was 9.88% (95% CI 6.66-14.43%). Data paucity impaired the calculation of estimates on population incidence, clinical presentation, severe outcomes and healthcare-related utilisation. CONCLUSIONS: Older and high-risk adults frequently experience symptomatic RSV infection, with appreciable mortality; however, detailed data are lacking. Increased surveillance and research are needed to quantify population-based disease burden and facilitate RSV treatments and vaccine development.

Phase 1/2a Safety and Immunogenicity of an Adenovirus 26 Vector Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) Vaccine Encoding Prefusion F in Adults 18-50 Years and RSV-Seropositive Children 12-24 Months.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) remains a leading cause of pediatric morbidity, with no approved vaccine. We assessed the safety and immunogenicity of the Ad26.RSV.preF vaccine candidate in adults and children. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, phase 1/2a, placebo-controlled study, 12 adults (18-50 years) and 36 RSV-seropositive children (12-24 months) were randomized 2:1 to Ad26.RSV.preF (1 × 1011 viral particles [vp] for adults, 5 × 1010 vp for children) or placebo, at day 1 and 29, with 6-month immunogenicity and 1-year safety follow-up. Respiratory syncytial virus infection was an exploratory outcome in children. RESULTS: In adults, solicited adverse events (AEs) were generally mild to moderate, with no serious AEs. In children, no vaccination-related serious AEs were reported; fever was reported in 14 (58.3%) Ad26.RSV.preF recipients. Baseline pediatric geometric mean titers for RSV A2 neutralization increased from 121 (95% confidence interval [CI], 76-191) to 1608 (95% CI, 730-3544) at day 29, and 2235 (95% CI, 1586-3150) at day 57, remaining elevated over 7 months. Respiratory syncytial virus infection was confirmed in fewer children receiving Ad26.RSV.preF (1, 4.2%) than placebo (5, 41.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Ad26.RSV.preF demonstrated immunogenicity in healthy adults and toddlers, with no safety concerns raised. Evaluations in RSV-seronegative children are underway.

Prevention of Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infection in Healthy Adults by a Single Immunization of Ad26.RSV.preF in a Human Challenge Study.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a significant cause of severe lower respiratory tract disease in children and older adults, but has no approved vaccine. This study assessed the potential of Ad26.RSV.preF to protect against RSV infection and disease in an RSV human challenge model. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled study, healthy adults aged 18-50 years were randomized 1:1 to receive 1 × 1011 vp Ad26.RSV.preF or placebo intramuscularly. Twenty-eight days postimmunization, volunteers were challenged intranasally with RSV-A (Memphis 37b). Assessments included viral load (VL), RSV infections, clinical symptom score (CSS), safety, and immunogenicity. RESULTS: Postchallenge, VL, RSV infections, and disease severity were lower in Ad26.RSV.preF (n = 27) vs placebo (n = 26) recipients: median VL area under the curve (AUC) quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction: 0.0 vs 236.0 (P = .012; predefined primary endpoint); median VL-AUC quantitative culture: 0.0 vs 109; RSV infections 11 (40.7%) vs 17 (65.4%); median RSV AUC-CSS 35 vs 167, respectively. From baseline to 28 days postimmunization, geometric mean fold increases in RSV A2 neutralizing antibody titers of 5.8 and 0.9 were observed in Ad26.RSV.preF and placebo, respectively. Ad26.RSV.preF was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Ad26.RSV.preF demonstrated protection from RSV infection through immunization in a human challenge model, and therefore could potentially protect against natural RSV infection and disease. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT03334695; CR108398, 2017-003194-33 (EudraCT); VAC18193RSV2002.

Vaccines based on replication incompetent Ad26 viral vectors: Standardized template with key considerations for a risk/benefit assessment.

Replication-incompetent adenoviral vectors have been under investigation as a platform to carry a variety of transgenes, and express them as a basis for vaccine development. A replication-incompetent adenoviral vector based on human adenovirus type 26 (Ad26) has been evaluated in several clinical trials. The Brighton Collaboration Viral Vector Vaccines Safety Working Group (V3SWG) was formed to evaluate the safety and features of recombinant viral vector vaccines. This paper reviews features of the Ad26 vectors, including tabulation of safety and risk assessment characteristics of Ad26-based vaccines. In the Ad26 vector, deletion of E1 gene rendering the vector replication incompetent is combined with additional genetic engineering for vaccine manufacturability and transgene expression optimization. These vaccines can be manufactured in mammalian cell lines at scale providing an effective, flexible system for high-yield manufacturing. Ad26 vector vaccines have favorable thermostability profiles, compatible with vaccine supply chains. Safety data are compiled in the Ad26 vaccine safety database version 4.0, with unblinded data from 23 ongoing and completed clinical studies for 3912 participants in five different Ad26-based vaccine programs. Overall, Ad26-based vaccines have been well tolerated, with no significant safety issues identified. Evaluation of Ad26-based vaccines is continuing, with >114,000 participants vaccinated as of 4th September 2020. Extensive evaluation of immunogenicity in humans shows strong, durable humoral and cellular immune responses. Clinical trials have not revealed impact of pre-existing immunity to Ad26 on vaccine immunogenicity, even in the presence of Ad26 neutralizing antibody titers or Ad26-targeting T cell responses at baseline. The first Ad26-based vaccine, against Ebola virus, received marketing authorization from EC on 1st July 2020, as part of the Ad26.ZEBOV, MVA-BN-Filo vaccine regimen. New developments based on Ad26 vectors are underway, including a COVID-19 vaccine, which is currently in phase 3 of clinical evaluation.

Prevention of influenza during mismatched seasons in older adults with an MF59-adjuvanted quadrivalent influenza vaccine: a randomised, controlled, multicentre, phase 3 efficacy study.

BACKGROUND: The absolute degree of protection from influenza vaccines in older adults has not been studied since 2001. This study aimed to show the clinical efficacy of an MF59-adjuvanted quadrivalent influenza vaccine (aQIV) in adults 65 years or older compared with adults not vaccinated to prevent influenza. METHODS: We did a randomised, stratified, observer-blind, controlled, multicentre, phase 3 study at 89 sites in 12 countries in 2016-17 northern hemisphere and 2017 southern hemisphere influenza seasons. We enrolled community-dwelling male and female adults aged 65 years and older who were healthy or had comorbidities that increased their risk of influenza complications. We stratified eligible participants by age (cohorts 65-74 years and ≥75 years) and risk of influenza complications (high and low) and randomly assigned them (1:1) via an interactive response technology to receive either aQIV or a non-influenza comparator vaccine. We masked participants and outcome assessors to the administered vaccine. Personnel administering the vaccines did not participate in endpoint assessment. The primary outcome was absolute vaccine efficacy assessed by RT-PCR-confirmed influenza due to any influenza strain in the overall study population (full analysis set) from day 21 to 180 or the end of the influenza season. Vaccine efficacy was calculated on the basis of a Cox proportional hazard regression model for time to first occurrence of RT-PCR-confirmed influenza due to any strain of influenza. Safety outcomes were assessed in the overall study population. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02587221. FINDINGS: Northern hemisphere enrolment occurred between Sept 30, 2016, and Feb 28, 2017, and southern hemisphere enrolment between May 26, 2017, and 30 June 30, 2017. aQIV was administered to 3381 participants, who subsequently had 122 (3·6%) RT-PCR-confirmed influenza cases, and the comparator was administered to 3380 participants, who subsequently had 151 (4·5%) influenza cases. The majority, 214 (78·4%) of 273, were caused by influenza A H3N2. Most antigenically characterised isolates were mismatched to the vaccine strain (118 [85%] of 139). Vaccine efficacy was 19·8% (multiplicity-adjusted 95% CI -5·3 to 38·9) against all influenza and 49·9% (-24·0 to 79·8) against antigenically matched strains, when the protocol definition of influenza-like illness was used. The most common local solicited adverse event was injection site pain, reported by 102 (16·3%) of 624 participants in the aQIV group and 71 (11·2%) of 632 of participants in the comparator group. Deaths were evenly distributed; none were considered related to study vaccines. The safety profile for aQIV was similar to previously reported trials. INTERPRETATION: The prespecified criterion for showing the efficacy of aQIV in older adults was not met during the influenza seasons with high amounts of vaccine strain mismatch. Vaccine efficacy was higher against influenza cases associated with higher fever, which represent more clinically significant disease. FUNDING: Seqirus UK.

Safety and Immunogenicity of the Ad26.RSV.preF Investigational Vaccine Coadministered With an Influenza Vaccine in Older Adults.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and influenza cause significant disease burden in older adults. Overlapping RSV and influenza seasonality presents the opportunity to coadminister vaccines for both infections. This study assessed coadministration of the investigational vaccine, Ad26.RSV.preF, an adenovirus serotype 26 (Ad26) vector encoding RSV F protein stabilized in its prefusion conformation (pre-F), with a seasonal influenza vaccine in older adults. METHODS: In this phase 2a, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 180 adults aged ≥60 years received Ad26.RSV.preF plus Fluarix on day 1 and placebo on day 29, or placebo plus Fluarix on day 1 and Ad26.RSV.preF on day 29 (control). RESULTS: The coadministration regimen had an acceptable tolerability profile. Reactogenicity was generally higher after Ad26.RSV.preF versus Fluarix, but symptoms were generally transient and mild or moderate. At 28 days after the first vaccination, the upper confidence intervals of the hemagglutination inhibition antibody geometric mean ratio (control/coadministration) for all influenza strains were <2, demonstrating noninferiority. Robust neutralizing and binding antibody responses to RSV A2 were observed in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Coadministration of Fluarix with Ad26.RSV.preF vaccine had an acceptable safety profile and showed no evidence of interference in immune response. The results are compatible with simultaneous seasonal vaccination with both vaccines. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT03339713.

Repeated exposure to an MF-59 adjuvanted quadrivalent subunit influenza vaccine (aQIV) in children: Results of two revaccination studies.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric adjuvanted seasonal influenza vaccines induce higher immune responses and have the potential to confer better protection against influenza among young vaccine-naïve children. Limited data describe benefits and risks of repeated administration of adjuvanted influenza vaccines in children. Two revaccination studies assess the safety and immunogenicity of repeated exposure to an MF59-adjuvanted quadrivalent influenza vaccine (aQIV; Fluad®) compared to routine non-adjuvanted quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV). METHODS: Children previously enrolled in the parent study, who received vaccination with aQIV or nonadjuvanted influenza vaccine (TIV or QIV), were recruited in Season 1 (n = 607) or Season 2 (n = 1601) of the extension trials. Season 1 participants remained in their original randomization groups (aQIV-aQIV or TIV-QIV); Season 2 subjects were re-randomized to either vaccine, resulting in four groups (aQIV-aQIV, aQIV-QIV, QIV-aQIV, or QIV-QIV). All subjects received a single-dose vaccination. Blood samples were taken for immunogenicity assessment prior to vaccination and 21 and 180 days after vaccination. Reactogenicity (Days 1-7) and safety were assessed in all subjects. RESULTS: Hemagglutination inhibition (HI) geometric mean titer (GMT) ratios demonstrated superiority of aQIV revaccination over QIV revaccination for all strains in Season 1 and for A/H1N1, B/Yamagata, and B/Victoria in Season 2. Higher HI titers against heterologous influenza strains were observed after aQIV vaccination during both seasons. Mild to moderate severity and short duration reactogenicity was more common in the aQIV than QIV groups, but the overall safety profiles were similar to the parent study. CONCLUSION: The safety and immunogenicity results from this study demonstrate benefit of aQIV for both priming and revaccination of children aged 12 months to 7 years.

Immunogenicity and Safety of an MF59-adjuvanted Quadrivalent Seasonal Influenza Vaccine in Young Children at High Risk of Influenza-associated Complications: A Phase III, Randomized, Observer-blind, Multicenter Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination against seasonal influenza is recommended for all children with a history of medical conditions placing them at increased risk of influenza-associated complications. The immunogenicity and efficacy of conventional influenza vaccines among young children are suboptimal; one strategy to enhance these is adjuvantation. We present immunogenicity and safety data for an MF59-adjuvanted quadrivalent influenza vaccine (aIIV4) in healthy children and those at a high risk of influenza-associated complications, based on the results of a recently completed phase III study. METHODS: Children 6 months to 5 years of age (N = 10,644) were enrolled. The study was conducted across northern hemisphere seasons 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. Subjects received either aIIV4 or a nonadjuvanted comparator influenza vaccine. Antibody responses were assessed by hemagglutination inhibition assay against vaccine and heterologous strains. Long-term antibody persistence was assessed (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01964989). RESULTS: aIIV4 induced significantly higher antibody titers than nonadjuvanted vaccine in high-risk subjects. aIIV4 antibody responses were of similar magnitude in high-risk and healthy subjects. Incidence of solicited local and systemic adverse events (AEs) was slightly higher in aIIV4 than nonadjuvanted vaccinees, in both the healthy and high-risk groups. Incidence of unsolicited AEs, serious AEs and AEs of special interest were similar for adjuvanted and nonadjuvanted vaccinees in the healthy and high-risk groups. CONCLUSION: aIIV4 was more immunogenic than nonadjuvanted vaccine in both the healthy and high-risk study groups. The reactogenicity and safety profiles of aIIV4 and the nonadjuvanted vaccine were acceptable and similar in 6-month- to 5-year-old high-risk and healthy children.

MF59-adjuvanted seasonal trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine: Safety and immunogenicity in young children at risk of influenza complications.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and immunogenicity of the MF59-adjuvanted seasonal trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (aIIV3; Fluad) in children aged 6 months through 5 years who are at risk of influenza complications. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed to examine unsolicited adverse events (AEs) in an integrated dataset from six randomized clinical studies that compared aIIV3 with non-adjuvanted inactivated influenza vaccines (IIV3). The integrated safety set comprised 10 784 children, of whom 373 (3%) were at risk of influenza complications. RESULTS: The at-risk safety population comprised 373 children aged 6 months through 5 years: 179 received aIIV3 and 194 received non-adjuvanted IIV3 (128 subjects received a licensed IIV3). The most important risk factors were respiratory system illnesses (62-70%) and infectious and parasitic diseases (33-39%). During the treatment period, unsolicited AEs occurred in 54% of at-risk children and 55% of healthy children who received aIIV3; of those receiving licensed IIV3, 59% of at-risk and 62% of healthy subjects reported an unsolicited AE. The most common AEs were infections, including upper respiratory tract infection. Serious AEs (SAEs) were reported in <10% of at-risk subjects, and no vaccine-related SAEs were observed. In the immunogenicity subset (involving 103 participants from one study), geometric mean titers (GMTs) were approximately 2- to 3-fold higher with aIIV3 than with IIV3 for all three homologous strains (A/H1N1, A/H3N2, and B). Seroconversion rates were high for both aIIV3 (79-96%) and IIV3 (83-89%). CONCLUSIONS: In young children at risk of influenza complications, aIIV3 was well-tolerated and had a safety profile that was generally similar to that of non-adjuvanted IIV3. Similar to the not-at-risk population, the immune response in at-risk subjects receiving aIIV3 was increased over those receiving IIV3, suggesting aIIV3 is a valuable option in young children at risk of influenza complications.

Cumulative clinical experience with MF59-adjuvanted trivalent seasonal influenza vaccine in young children.

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the potential of an MF59-adjuvanted inactivated trivalent seasonal influenza vaccine (aIIV3; Fluad™) to improve the immune response in young children, we review the immunogenicity, efficacy, and safety/tolerability of aIIV3 from a comprehensive clinical development program in a pediatric population with a specific need for improved influenza vaccines. METHODS: Data were analyzed from a series of 1 phase Ib, 3 phase II, and 2 phase III studies involving 11,942 children aged 6 months through 5years. RESULTS: The clinical data showed that aIIV3 had statistically significantly greater immunogenicity and efficacy in the prevention of influenza compared to conventional inactivated trivalent seasonal influenza vaccines (IIV3s). The safety profile of aIIV3 was generally similar to that of nonadjuvanted IIV3, apart from an increased frequency of solicited adverse events (AEs) following vaccination. The majority of solicited AEs were mild or moderate in severity and resolved within 1 to 3 days. CONCLUSIONS: aIIV3 was well tolerated, with immunogenicity and efficacy exceeding that of conventional IIV3 in children 6 months through 5years of age. The MF59-adjuvanted vaccine has the potential to fulfill an unmet clinical need in the prevention of seasonal influenza in this age group.

Immunogenicity of aIIV3, MF59-adjuvanted seasonal trivalent influenza vaccine, in older adults ≥65 years of age: Meta-analysis of cumulative clinical experience.

OBJECTIVE: Compare the immunogenicity of MF59-adjuvanted trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (aIIV3; Fluad™) versus conventional trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV3) in an integrated dataset using a meta-analysis. METHODS: In a meta-analysis, the immunogenicity of aIIV3 in subjects ≥65 years of age was compared with IIV3 immunogenicity using hemagglutination inhibition assay results from 23 phase I through III randomized controlled trials, including 16 first-dose vaccination studies and 7 revaccination studies assessing immunogenicity after second or third annual vaccination. RESULTS: The full analysis set consisted of 11,105 subjects (5869 aIIV3 and 5236 IIV3). In the revaccination studies, 822 individuals received 2 consecutive annual influenza vaccinations (492 aIIV3 and 330 IIV3), and 237 received 3 (150 aIIV3 and 87 IIV3). Overall, across all strains, the meta-analyzed point estimates for seroconversion (SC) and geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio were significantly higher for aIIV3 versus IIV3. The meta-analyzed percent differences in SC with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) for A/H1N1, A/H3N2, and B strain were 9.5% (5.2-13.9), 10.5% (6.6-14.5), and 12.7% (8.6-16.8), respectively. The meta-analyzed GMT ratios with corresponding 95% CI for A/H1N1, A/H3N2, and B strain were 1.15 (1.01-1.31), 1.30 (1.18-1.44), 1.23 (1.15-1.31). Antibody responses against heterologous influenza strains were also significantly higher with aIIV3. Revaccination studies showed continued robust immune response to aIIV3 with repeated vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: aIIV3 elicited a statistically significantly greater immune response compared to conventional IIV3 in older adults, increasing the breadth and duration of the immune response.

Cumulative clinical experience with MF59-adjuvanted trivalent seasonal influenza vaccine in young children and adults 65 years of age and older.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the long-term safety of MF59-adjuvanted trivalent influenza vaccine (aIIV3; Fluad™) in adults ≥65 years of age. METHODS: Data from 36 primary vaccination and 7 re-vaccination Phase I through III trials were analyzed; 7532 subjects received aIIV3 and 5198 subjects a nonadjuvanted trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV3). These trials were evaluated in 2 data poolings: first-dose randomized controlled trials (FD-RCT) and revaccination trials. Spontaneously reported adverse events (AEs) from post-marketing surveillance were also analyzed. RESULTS: The percentages of subjects reporting AEs following vaccination were similar between aIIV3 and IIV3: 24.8% for aIIV3 vs 26.7% for IIV3 (relative risk [RR] 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.87-1.01). The percentage of subjects with serious AEs was 6.7% for aIIV3 vs 7.0% for IIV3 (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.82-1.09). Percentages of subjects with AEs leading to withdrawal, hospitalizations, adverse events of special interest (AESIs), and deaths between vaccination groups were similar. There was no signal of disproportionality for AESIs associated with aIIV3 compared to IIV3 in the post-marketing database. CONCLUSIONS: This integrated safety analysis demonstrates an acceptable safety profile for aIIV3 in adults ≥65 years of age.