Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
1.
Clin Infect Dis ; 2024 Jan 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38189778

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Co-administration of vaccines against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and influenza can be considered given their overlapping seasonality, and may increase vaccine uptake and compliance. In this phase 3, open-label, randomized study, we evaluated the immunogenicity, reactogenicity, and safety of the AS01E-adjuvanted RSV prefusion F protein-based candidate vaccine (RSVPreF3 OA) when co-administered with a seasonal quadrivalent influenza vaccine (FLU-QIV) in older adults. METHODS: Participants aged ≥60 years (randomized 1:1) received either RSVPreF3 OA and FLU-QIV simultaneously on day 1 (Co-Ad group) or FLU-QIV on day 1 followed by RSVPreF3 OA on day 31 (sequential administration [SA] group). The co-primary objectives were to demonstrate noninferiority of RSVPreF3 OA in terms of RSV-A neutralization geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and FLU-QIV in terms of hemagglutination inhibition GMT ratio for each FLU-QIV strain, when co-administered versus when administered alone at 1-month post-vaccination. Noninferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interview of the group GMT ratio (SA/Co-Ad) was ≤1.5. Secondary descriptive objectives comprised additional immunogenicity assessments, reactogenicity, and safety. RESULTS: Of the 885 participants who received one dose of the study vaccines, 837 were included in the per protocol set. Demographic and baseline characteristics were balanced between the groups. Both co-primary objectives were met for both vaccines. Reported adverse events in both groups were mild-to-moderate, with a low frequency of grade 3 events. CONCLUSIONS: Data from this study demonstrate that RSVPreF3 OA can be co-administered with FLU-QIV. Co-administration is well tolerated, with an acceptable safety profile. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV REGISTRATION: NCT04841577.

2.
Hum Vaccin Immunother ; 18(7): 2129236, 2022 12 30.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36469706

RESUMO

As individuals age, they become increasingly prone to infectious diseases, many of which are vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs). Adult immunization has become a public health priority in the modern era, yet VPDs vaccination rates for adults are low worldwide. In Central America and Caribbean, national recommendations and vaccination practices in adults differ across countries, and adult vaccination coverage data are limited. An advisory board comprised infectious disease experts, pulmonologists, geriatricians, occupational health, and public health professionals for Central America and Dominican Republic was convened to: a) describe adult immunization practices in these countries; b) discuss challenges and barriers to adult vaccination; and c) find strategies to increase awareness about VPDs. The advisory board discussions reflect that national immunization guidelines typically do not include routine vaccine recommendations for all adults, but rather focus on those with risk factors. This is the case for influenza, pneumococcal, and hepatitis B immunizations. Overall, knowledge lacks about the VPD burden among health-care professionals and the general public. Even more, there is insufficient information on vaccinology for students in medical schools. Actions from the responsible authorities - medical schools and scientific societies which can advocate for vaccination and a better knowledge in vaccinology - can help address these issues. A preventive medicine culture in the workplace may contribute to the advancement of public opinion on vaccination. Promoting vaccine education and research could be facilitated via working groups formed by disease experts, public and private sectors, and supranational authorities, in an ethical and transparent manner.


Assuntos
Vacinas contra Influenza , Doenças Preveníveis por Vacina , Adulto , Humanos , População do Caribe , Vacinação , Vacinas Pneumocócicas , América Central , Imunização
3.
Lancet Infect Dis ; 22(3): 329-340, 2022 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34826381

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Additional safe and efficacious vaccines are needed to control the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to analyse the efficacy and safety of the CVnCoV SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine candidate. METHODS: HERALD is a randomised, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase 2b/3 clinical trial conducted in 47 centres in ten countries in Europe and Latin America. By use of an interactive web response system and stratification by country and age group (18-60 years and ≥61 years), adults with no history of virologically confirmed COVID-19 were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intramuscularly either two 0·6 mL doses of CVnCoV containing 12 µg of mRNA or two 0·6 mL doses of 0·9% NaCl (placebo) on days 1 and 29. The primary efficacy endpoint was the occurrence of a first episode of virologically confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 of any severity and caused by any strain from 15 days after the second dose. For the primary endpoint, the trial was considered successful if the lower limit of the CI was greater than 30%. Key secondary endpoints were the occurrence of a first episode of virologically confirmed moderate-to-severe COVID-19, severe COVID-19, and COVID-19 of any severity by age group. Primary safety outcomes were solicited local and systemic adverse events within 7 days after each dose and unsolicited adverse events within 28 days after each dose in phase 2b participants, and serious adverse events and adverse events of special interest up to 1 year after the second dose in phase 2b and phase 3 participants. Here, we report data up to June 18, 2021. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04652102, and EudraCT, 2020-003998-22, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Dec 11, 2020, and April 12, 2021, 39 680 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either CVnCoV (n=19 846) or placebo (n=19 834), of whom 19 783 received at least one dose of CVnCoV and 19 746 received at least one dose of placebo. After a mean observation period of 48·2 days (SE 0·2), 83 cases of COVID-19 occurred in the CVnCoV group (n=12 851) in 1735·29 person-years and 145 cases occurred in the placebo group (n=12 211) in 1569·87 person-years, resulting in an overall vaccine efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 of 48·2% (95·826% CI 31·0-61·4; p=0·016). Vaccine efficacy against moderate-to-severe COVID-19 was 70·7% (95% CI 42·5-86·1; CVnCoV 12 cases in 1735·29 person-years, placebo 37 cases in 1569·87 person-years). In participants aged 18-60 years, vaccine efficacy against symptomatic disease was 52·5% (95% CI 36·2-64·8; CVnCoV 71 cases in 1591·47 person-years, placebo, 136 cases in 1449·23 person-years). Too few cases occurred in participants aged 61 years or older (CVnCoV 12, placebo nine) to allow meaningful assessment of vaccine efficacy. Solicited adverse events, which were mostly systemic, were more common in CVnCoV recipients (1933 [96·5%] of 2003) than in placebo recipients (1344 [67·9%] of 1978), with 542 (27·1%) CVnCoV recipients and 61 (3·1%) placebo recipients reporting grade 3 solicited adverse events. The most frequently reported local reaction after any dose in the CVnCoV group was injection-site pain (1678 [83·6%] of 2007), with 22 grade 3 reactions, and the most frequently reported systematic reactions were fatigue (1603 [80·0%] of 2003) and headache (1541 [76·9%] of 2003). 82 (0·4%) of 19 783 CVnCoV recipients reported 100 serious adverse events and 66 (0·3%) of 19 746 placebo recipients reported 76 serious adverse events. Eight serious adverse events in five CVnCoV recipients and two serious adverse events in two placebo recipients were considered vaccination-related. None of the fatal serious adverse events reported (eight in the CVnCoV group and six in the placebo group) were considered to be related to study vaccination. Adverse events of special interest were reported for 38 (0·2%) participants in the CVnCoV group and 31 (0·2%) participants in the placebo group. These events were considered to be related to the trial vaccine for 14 (<0·1%) participants in the CVnCoV group and for five (<0·1%) participants in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: CVnCoV was efficacious in the prevention of COVID-19 of any severity and had an acceptable safety profile. Taking into account the changing environment, including the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants, and timelines for further development, the decision has been made to cease activities on the CVnCoV candidate and to focus efforts on the development of next-generation vaccine candidates. FUNDING: German Federal Ministry of Education and Research and CureVac.


Assuntos
Vacinas contra COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Vacinas Sintéticas , Vacinas de mRNA , Adulto , Idoso , Vacinas contra COVID-19/administração & dosagem , Vacinas contra COVID-19/farmacologia , Método Duplo-Cego , Europa (Continente) , Feminino , Humanos , América Latina , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Vacinação
4.
Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis ; 15: 1919-1929, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32821094

RESUMO

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a preventable and usually progressive lung disease that affects millions of people worldwide and is the sixth leading cause of death in the Americas. Viral and bacterial respiratory tract infections and air pollution may cause acute exacerbations of COPD (AE-COPD) ranging from mild, moderate to severe. The greatest proportion of the overall COPD burden on the health system is due to disease exacerbations. There is limited evidence regarding the etiology and burden of AE-COPD in Latin America (LATAM). Methods: To respond to this gap in evidence, an Advisory Board with regional pneumologists and infectious disease experts was convened in September 2018 in Panama City, Panama, to: 1) review the burden of AE-COPD in LATAM; 2) evaluate the etiology of AE-COPD in LATAM; and 3) assess and compare the local/regional guidelines to confirm the etiology, characterize, and manage AE-COPD. Results: The results of the meeting showed that there is a high prevalence of AE-COPD in LATAM countries, limited evidence on etiology data, and discrepancies in the case definitions and symptomology (ie, severity) classifications used in LATAM. Conclusion: The Advisory Board discussions further resulted in recommendations for future research on the impact on the epidemiology and burden of disease, on establishing standardized AE-COPD case definition guidelines, and on studying the etiology of both moderate and severe AE-COPD cases.


Assuntos
Poluição do Ar , Doença Pulmonar Obstrutiva Crônica , Progressão da Doença , Humanos , América Latina/epidemiologia , Prevalência , Doença Pulmonar Obstrutiva Crônica/diagnóstico , Doença Pulmonar Obstrutiva Crônica/epidemiologia , Doença Pulmonar Obstrutiva Crônica/terapia
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA