Antibody Persistence Following Administration of a Hexavalent DTwP-IPV-HB-PRP~T Vaccine Versus Separate DTwP-HB-PRP~T and IPV Vaccines and Safety and Immunogenicity of a Booster Dose of DTwP-IPV-HB-PRP~T Administered With an MMR Vaccine in Healthy Infants in India.

BACKGROUND: Antibody persistence of a whole-cell pertussis-containing hexavalent vaccine (DTwP-IPV-HB-PRP~T) and its co- or sequential administration with measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine were evaluated. METHODS: Phase III, open-label, randomized, multicenter study in India. Healthy toddlers 12-24 months of age who had received DTwP-IPV-HB-PRP~T or separate DTwP-HB-PRP~T+IPV primary vaccination at 6-8, 10-12 and 14-16 weeks of age received a DTwP-IPV-HB-PRP~T booster concomitantly with MMR (N = 336) or 28 days before MMR (N = 340). Participants had received a first dose of measles vaccine. Immunogenicity assessment used validated assays and safety was by parental reports. All analyses were descriptive. RESULTS: All participants had prebooster anti-T ≥0.01 IU/mL and anti-polio 1 and 3 ≥8 1/dil, and ≥96.5% had anti-D ≥0.01 IU/mL, anti-HBs ≥10 mIU/mL, anti-polio 2 ≥8 1/dil and anti-PRP ≥0.15 µg/mL; for pertussis, antibody persistence was similar in each group. Postbooster immunogenicity for DTwP-IPV-HB-PRP~T was similar for each antigen in each group: ≥99.5% of participants had anti-D ≥0.01 IU/mL, anti-T ≥0.01 IU/mL, anti-polio 1, 2 and 3 >8 1/dil, anti-HBs ≥10 mIU/mL and anti-PRP ≥1 µg/mL; for pertussis, vaccine response was similar in each group [72.0%-75.9% (anti-PT), 80.8%-81.4% (anti-FIM), 77.6%-79.5% (anti-PRN), 78.2%-80.8% (anti-FHA)]. There was no difference in MMR immunogenicity between groups, and no difference in DTwP-IPV-HB-PRP~T booster immunogenicity based on the primary series. There were no safety concerns. CONCLUSIONS: DTwP-IPV-HB-PRP~T antibody persistence was similar to licensed comparators. Booster immunogenicity was robust after DTwP-IPV-HB-PRP~T with or without MMR, and MMR immunogenicity was not affected by coadministration with DTwP-IPV-HB-PRP~T. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY INDIA NUMBER: CTRI/2020/04/024843.

Live attenuated tetravalent (G1-G4) bovine-human reassortant rotavirus vaccine (BRV-TV): Randomized, controlled phase III study in Indian infants.

BACKGROUND: Rotavirus remains the leading cause of diarrhoea among children <5years. We assessed immunogenic non-inferiority of a tetravalent bovine-human reassortant rotavirus vaccine (BRV-TV) over the licensed human-bovine pentavalent rotavirus vaccine RV5. METHODS: Phase III single-blind study (parents blinded) in healthy infants randomized (1:1) to receive three doses of BRV-TV or RV5 at 6-8, 10-12, and 14-16weeks of age. All concomitantly received a licensed diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B, Haemophilus influenzae type b conjugate vaccine (DTwP-HepB-Hib) and oral polio vaccine (OPV). Immunogenic non-inferiority was evaluated in terms of the inter-group difference in anti-rotavirus serum IgA seroresponse (primary endpoint), and seroprotection/seroresponse rates to DTwP-HepB-Hib and OPV vaccines. Seroresponse was defined as a ≥4-fold increase in titers from baseline to D28 post-dose 3. Non-inferiority was declared if the difference between groups (based on the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval [CI]) was above -10%. Each subject was evaluated for solicited adverse events 7days and unsolicited & serious adverse events 28days following each dose of vaccination. RESULTS: Of 1195 infants screened, 1182 were randomized (590 to BRV-TV; 592 to RV5). Non-inferiority for rotavirus serum IgA seroresponse was not established: BRV-TV, 47.1% (95%CI: 42.8; 51.5) versus RV5, 61.2% (95%CI: 56.8; 65.5); difference between groups, -14.08% (95%CI: -20.4; -7.98). Serum IgA geometric mean concentrations at D28 post-dose 3 were 28.4 and 50.1U/ml in BRV-TV and RV5 groups, respectively. For all DTwP-HepB-Hib and OPV antigens, seroprotection/seroresponse was elicited in both groups and the -10% non-inferiority criterion between groups was met. There were 16 serious adverse events, 10 in BRV-TV group and 6 in RV5 group; none were classified as vaccine related. Both groups had similar vaccine safety profiles. CONCLUSION: BRV-TV was immunogenic but did not meet immunogenic non-inferiority criteria to RV5 when administered concomitantly with routine pediatric antigens in infants.