Immunogenicity of AS03-adjuvanted and non-adjuvanted trivalent inactivated influenza vaccines in elderly adults: A Phase 3, randomized trial and post-hoc correlate of protection analysis.

In this study we describe the immunogenicity results from a subset of older people (N = 5187) who participated in a Phase 3 randomized, observer-blinded trial of AS03-TIV versus TIV (Fluarix™) (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00753272). Participants received one dose of AS03-TIV or TIV in each study year and antibody titers against the vaccine strains were assessed using hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay at 21 d and 180 d post-vaccination in each vaccine group in the 2008/09 (Year 1) and 2009/10 (Year 2) influenza seasons. Manufacturing consistency of 3 lots of AS03-TIV for HI antibody responses in Year 1 was a co-primary objective. In a post-hoc analysis, a statistical regression model included 4830 subjects in whom immunogenicity and laboratory-confirmed attack rate data were available; the analysis was performed to assess HI antibody titers against A/H3N2 as a correlate of protection for laboratory-confirmed A/H3N2 influenza. AS03-TIV and TIV elicited strong HI antibody responses against each vaccine strain 21 d post-vaccination in both years. The manufacturing consistency of 3 lots of AS03-TIV was demonstrated. In both years and each vaccine group, HI antibody responses were lower for A/H1N1 than the other vaccine strains. Day 180 seroconversion rates (proportion with ≥4-fold increase in titer compared with pre-vaccination titer) in Year 1 in the AS03-TIV and TIV groups, respectively, were 87.7% and 74.1% for A/H3N2, 69.7% and 59.6% for influenza B, and 58.3% and 47.4% for A/H1N1. The post-hoc statistical model based on A/H3N2 attack rates and HI antibody titers estimated that a 4-fold increase in post-vaccination titers against A/H3N2 was associated with a 2-fold decrease in the odds of A/H3N2 infection.

A multi-criteria decision making approach to identify a vaccine formulation.

This article illustrates the use of a multi-criteria decision making approach, based on desirability functions, to identify an appropriate adjuvant composition for an influenza vaccine to be used in elderly. The proposed adjuvant system contained two main elements: monophosphoryl lipid and α-tocopherol with squalene in an oil/water emulsion. The objective was to elicit a stronger immune response while maintaining an acceptable reactogenicity and safety profile. The study design, the statistical models, the choice of the desirability functions, the computation of the overall desirability index, and the assessment of the robustness of the ranking are all detailed in this manuscript.

Selection of an adjuvant for seasonal influenza vaccine in elderly people: modelling immunogenicity from a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Improved influenza vaccines are needed to reduce influenza-associated complications in older adults. The aim of this study was to identify the optimal formulation of adjuvanted seasonal influenza vaccine for use in elderly people. METHODS: This observer-blind, randomized study assessed the optimal formulation of adjuvanted seasonal influenza vaccine based on immunogenicity and safety in participants aged ≥65 years. Participants were randomized (~200 per group) to receive one dose of non-adjuvanted vaccine or one of eight formulations of vaccine formulated with a squalene and tocopherol oil-in-water emulsion-based Adjuvant System (AS03(C), AS03(B) or AS03(A), with 2.97, 5.93 and 11.86 mg tocopherol, respectively) together with the immunostimulant monophosphoryl lipid A (MPL, doses of 0, 25 or 50 mg). Hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) antibody responses and T-cell responses were assessed on Day 0 and 21 days post-vaccination. The ratio of HI-based geometric mean titers in adjuvanted versus non-adjuvanted vaccine groups were calculated and the lower limit of the 90% confidence interval was transformed into a desirability index (a value between 0 and 1) in an experimental domain for each vaccine strain, and plotted in relation to the AS03 and MPL dose combination in the formulation. This model was used to assess the optimal formulation based on HI antibody titers. Reactogenicity and safety were also assessed. The immunogenicity and safety analyses were used to evaluate the optimal formulation of adjuvanted vaccine. RESULTS: In the HI antibody-based model, an AS03 dose-response was evident; responses against the A/H1N1 and A/H3N2 strains were higher for all adjuvanted formulations versus non-adjuvanted vaccine, and for the AS03(A)-MPL25, AS03(B)-MPL25 and AS03(B)-MPL50 formulations against the B strain. Modelling using more stringent criteria (post hoc) showed a clear dose-range effect for the AS03 component against all strains, whereas MPL showed a limited effect. Higher T-cell responses for adjuvanted versus non-adjuvanted vaccine were observed for all except two formulations (AS03(C) and AS03(B)-MPL25). Reactogenicity increased with increasing AS03 dosage, and with MPL. No safety concerns were raised. CONCLUSIONS: Five formulations containing AS03(A) or AS03(B) were identified as potential candidates to improve immune responses to influenza vaccination; AS03(B) without MPL showed the best balance between improved immunogenicity and acceptable reactogenicity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00540592.

AS03-adjuvanted versus non-adjuvanted inactivated trivalent influenza vaccine against seasonal influenza in elderly people: a phase 3 randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to compare AS03-adjuvanted inactivated trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV) with non-adjuvanted TIV for seasonal influenza prevention in elderly people. METHODS: We did a randomised trial in 15 countries worldwide during the 2008-09 (year 1) and 2009-10 (year 2) influenza seasons. Eligible participants aged at least 65 years who were not in hospital or bedridden and were without acute illness were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either AS03-adjuvanted TIV or non-adjuvanted TIV. Randomisation was done in an internet-based system, with a blocking scheme and stratification by age (65-74 years and 75 years or older). Participants were scheduled to receive one vaccine in each year, and remained in the same group in years 1 and 2. Unmasked personnel prepared and gave the vaccines, but participants and individuals assessing any study endpoint were masked. The coprimary objectives were to assess the relative efficacy of the vaccines and lot-to-lot consistency of the AS03-adjuvanted TIV (to be reported elsewhere). For the first objective, the primary endpoint was relative efficacy of the vaccines for prevention of influenza A (excluding A H1N1 pdm09) or B, or both, that was confirmed by PCR analysis in year 1 (lower limit of two-sided 95% CI had to be greater than zero to establish superiority). From Nov 15, to April 30, in both years, participants were monitored by telephone or site contact and home visits every week or 2 weeks to identify cases of influenza-like illness. After onset of suspected cases, we obtained nasal and throat swabs to identify influenza RNA with real-time PCR. Efficacy analyses were done per protocol. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00753272. FINDINGS: We enrolled 43 802 participants, of whom 21 893 were assigned to and received the AS03-adjuvanted TIV and 21 802 the non-adjuvanted TIV in year 1. In the year 1 efficacy cohort, fewer participants given AS03-adjuvanted than non-adjuvanted TIV were infected with influenza A or B, or both (274 [1·27%, 95% CI 1·12-1·43] of 21 573 vs 310 [1·44%, 1·29-1·61] of 21 482; relative efficacy 12·11%, 95% CI -3·40 to 25·29; superiority not established). Fewer participants in the year 1 efficacy cohort given AS03-adjuvanted TIV than non-adjuvanted TIV were infected with influenza A (224 [1·04%, 95% CI 0·91-1·18] vs 270 [1·26, 1·11-1·41]; relative efficacy 17·53%, 95% CI 1·55-30·92) and influenza A H3N2 (170 [0·79, 0·67-0·92] vs 205 [0·95, 0·83-1·09]; post-hoc analysis relative efficacy 22·0%, 95% CI 5·68-35·49). INTERPRETATION: AS03-adjuvanted TIV has a higher efficacy for prevention of some subtypes of influenza than does a non-adjuvanted TIV. Future influenza vaccine studies in elderly people should be based on subtype or lineage-specific endpoints. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA.