Efficacy, safety, and immunology of an inactivated alum-adjuvant enterovirus 71 vaccine in children in China: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: A vaccine for enterovirus 71 (EV71) is needed to address the high burden of disease associated with infection. We assessed the efficacy, safety, immunogenicity, antibody persistence, and immunological correlates of an inactivated alum-adjuvant EV71 vaccine. METHODS: We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Healthy children aged 6-35 months from four centres in China were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive vaccine or alum-adjuvant placebo at day 0 and 28, according to a randomisation list (block size 30) generated by an independent statistician. Investigators and participants and their guardians were masked to the assignment. Primary endpoints were EV71-associated hand, foot, and mouth disease (HFMD) and EV71-associated disease during the surveillance period from day 56 to month 14, analysed in the per-protocol population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01508247. FINDINGS: 10,245 participants were enrolled and assigned: 5120 to vaccine versus 5125 to placebo. 4907 (with three cases of EV71-associated HFMD and eight cases of EV71-associated disease) versus 4939 (with 30 cases of EV71-associated HFMD and 41 cases of EV71-associated disease) were included in the primary efficacy analysis. Vaccine efficacy was 90·0% (95% CI 67·1-96·9) against EV71-associated HFMD (p=0·0001) and 80·4% (95% CI 58·2-90·8) against EV71-associated disease (p<0·0001). Serious adverse events were reported by 62 of 5117 (1·2%) participants in the vaccine group versus 75 of 5123 (1·5%) in the placebo group (p=0·27). Adverse events occurred in 3644 (71·2%) versus 3603 (70·3%; p=0·33). INTERPRETATION: EV71 vaccine provides high efficacy, satisfactory safety, and sustained immunogenicity. FUNDING: China's 12-5 National Major Infectious Disease Program, Beijing Vigoo Biological.

[Influence of Anticoagulants on Detection of ITP Platelet-Specific Autoantibodies and Relationship of Autoantibody Types with Glucocorticoid Efficacy].

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the influence of divalent cation chelator EDTA and heparin sodium on the detection of ITP platelet-specific autoantibodies by the modified monoclonal antibody immobilization of platelet antigen assay (MAIPA) and to explore the relationship between types of platelet specific autoantibodies and glucocorticoid efficacy. METHODS: The samples were obtained from EDTA- and heparin- anticoagulant ITP patients, respectively, so as to detect the platelet-specific autoantibodies (GPIIb/IIIa and GPIbα) in 140 ITP samples by modified MAIPA, then the differences between these two methods were compared. RESULTS: Out of 140 cases in EDTA group, 55 cases were positive for GPIIb/IIIa, while 76 cases in heparin group were positive for GPIIb/IIIa, 42 cases in both group were repeatable; among them 13 cases were positive in EDTA group and negative in heparin group, while 34 cases were positive in heparin group and negative in EDTA group, there was significant difference between them (x (2) = 9.38, P < 0.05), 62 cases in 140 cases of EDTA group were positive for GPIba, while 51 cases in heparin group were positive for GPIba, 42 cases in both group were repeatabe; among them 20 cases were positive in EDTA group and negative in heparin group, while 9 cases were positive in heparin group and negative in EDTA group, there was no significant difference between them (x (2) = 3.44, P > 0.05). A total of 320 cases received a standard glucocorticoid treatment, out of them 143 cases were positive for GPIbα with effective rate 39.9%, 177 cases were negative for GPIbα with effective rate 79.7%, there was statisticalty significant difference between them (x (2) = 53.115, P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: EDTA anticoagulant (a divalent cation chelator) has a significant influence on detection of ITP platelet-specific autoantibodies (GPIIb/IIIa) by a modified MAIPA method and the GPIbα antibody positive may be one of the important factors that results in un-sensitivity of ITP patients to glucocorticoid treatment.