Safety and immunogenicity of a new formulation of a pentavalent DTwP-HepB-Hib vaccine in healthy Indian infants-A randomized study.

BACKGROUND: Pentavalent vaccines (DTP-HepB-Hib) have been introduced in many countries in their routine public immunization programmes to protect against diphtheria (D), tetanus (T), pertussis (P), hepatitis B (Hep B) and Hemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) diseases. This study compared the safety and immunogenicity of a new formulation of a whole-cell Bordetella pertussis (wP) based pentavalent vaccine (DTwP-HepB-Hib). The new formulation was developed using well-characterized hepatitis B and pertussis whole cell vaccine components. METHODS: This was a phase III, observer-blind, randomized, non-inferiority, multi-center study conducted in India among 460 infants who were followed up for safety and immunogenicity for 28 days after administration of three doses of either investigational or licensed comparator formulations at 6-8, 10-12 and 14-16 weeks of age. RESULTS: The investigational formulation of DTwP-HepB-Hib vaccine was non-inferior to the licensed formulation in terms of hepatitis B seroprotection rate (% of subjects with HepB antibodies ≥10mIU/mL were 99.1% versus 99.0%, respectively, corresponding to a difference of 0.1% (95% CI, -2.47 to 2.68)) and pertussis immune responses (adjusted geometric mean concentrations of antibodies for anti-PT were 76.7 EU/mL versus 63.3 EU/mL, with a ratio of aGMTs of 1.21 (95% CI, 0.89-1.64), and for anti-FIM were 1079 EU/mL versus 1129 EU/mL, with a ratio of aGMTs of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.73-1.24), respectively). The immune responses to other valences (D, T, and Hib) in the two formulations were also similar. The safety profile of both formulations was found to be similar and were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: The investigational DTwP-HepB-Hib vaccine formulation was immunogenic and well-tolerated when administered as three dose primary series in infants. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials Registry India number: CTRI/2018/12/016692.

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.

Immunogenicity and safety of a novel MMR vaccine (live, freeze-dried) containing the Edmonston-Zagreb measles strain, the Hoshino mumps strain, and the RA 27/3 rubella strain: Results of a randomized, comparative, active controlled phase III clinical trial.

This phase III clinical trial was conducted to evaluate the immunogenicity and safety of the single-dose and multi-dose formulations of a novel MMR vaccine (live, freeze-dried) developed by M/s Cadila Healthcare Limited, India (Cadila MMR vaccine), containing the Hoshino mumps strain, compared to that of an existing MMR vaccine (live, freeze-dried) developed by M/s Serum Institute of India Limited, India (Serum MMR vaccine). These two vaccines have similar measles and rubella strains, but different mumps strains (Hoshino in Cadila MMR vaccine, and L-Zagreb in Serum MMR vaccine). Three hundred and twenty-eight subjects of either sex, aged 15-18 months, were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive either the Cadila or Serum MMR vaccine. Immunogenicity assessments (IgG antibodies against measles, mumps, and rubella viruses) were done at baseline and 42 d after vaccination. Solicited (local and systemic) and unsolicited adverse events were recorded for up to 42 d following vaccination. The Cadila MMR vaccine was found to be non-inferior to the Serum MMR vaccine in terms of end-of-study proportion of subjects seropositive for anti-measles antibodies (100.0% in both groups), anti-mumps antibodies (94.5% vs. 94.0%), and anti-rubella antibodies (95.5% vs. 91.0%). Both vaccines were well tolerated by all study participants; the most common adverse event reported in both groups was fever, followed by rash. The results of this phase III clinical trial show that the novel Cadila MMR vaccine is non-inferior to the Serum MMR vaccine.