Respiratory Syncytial Virus Prefusion F Protein Vaccine Is Efficacious in Older Adults With Underlying Medical Conditions.

BACKGROUND: Older adults with chronic cardiorespiratory or endocrine/metabolic conditions are at increased risk of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV)-related acute respiratory illness (RSV-ARI) and severe respiratory disease. In an ongoing, randomized, placebo-controlled, multicountry, phase 3 trial in ≥60-year-old participants, an AS01E-adjuvanted RSV prefusion F protein-based vaccine (RSVPreF3 OA) was efficacious against RSV-related lower respiratory tract disease (RSV-LRTD), severe RSV-LRTD, and RSV-ARI. We evaluated efficacy and immunogenicity among participants with coexisting cardiorespiratory or endocrine/metabolic conditions that increase the risk of severe RSV disease ("conditions of interest"). METHODS: Medically stable ≥60-year-old participants received 1 dose of RSVPreF3 OA or placebo. Efficacy against first RSV-LRTD and RSV-ARI episodes was assessed in subgroups with/without coexisting cardiorespiratory or endocrine/metabolic conditions of interest. Immunogenicity was analyzed post hoc in these subgroups. RESULTS: In total, 12 467 participants received RSVPreF3 OA and 12 499 received placebo. Of these, 39.6% (RSVPreF3 OA) and 38.9% (placebo) had ≥1 coexisting condition of interest. The median efficacy follow-up was 6.7 months. Efficacy against RSV-LRTD was high in participants with ≥1 condition of interest (94.6%), ≥1 cardiorespiratory (92.1%), ≥1 endocrine/metabolic (100%), and ≥2 conditions of interest (92.0%). Efficacy against RSV-ARI was 81.0% in participants with ≥1 condition of interest (88.1% for cardiorespiratory, 79.4% for endocrine/metabolic conditions) and 88.0% in participants with ≥2 conditions of interest. Postvaccination neutralizing titers were at least as high in participants with ≥1 condition of interest as in those without. CONCLUSIONS: RSVPreF3 OA was efficacious against RSV-LRTD and RSV-ARI in older adults with coexisting medical conditions associated with an increased risk of severe RSV disease. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04886596.

Safety and Immunogenicity of a Respiratory Syncytial Virus Prefusion F (RSVPreF3) Candidate Vaccine in Older Adults: Phase 1/2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to investigate safety and immunogenicity of vaccine formulations against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) containing the stabilized prefusion conformation of RSV fusion protein (RSVPreF3). METHODS: This phase 1/2, randomized controlled, observer-blind study enrolled 48 young adults (YAs; aged 18-40 years) and 1005 older adults (OAs; aged 60-80 years) between January and August 2019. Participants were randomized into equally sized groups to receive 2 doses of unadjuvanted (YAs and OAs) or AS01-adjuvanted (OAs) vaccine or placebo 2 months apart. Vaccine safety and immunogenicity were assessed until 1 month (YAs) or 12 months (OAs) after second vaccination. RESULTS: The RSVPreF3 vaccines boosted humoral (RSVPreF3-specific immunoglobulin G [IgG] and RSV-A neutralizing antibody) responses, which increased in an antigen concentration-dependent manner and were highest after dose 1. Compared to prevaccination, the geometric mean frequencies of polyfunctional CD4+ T cells increased after each dose and were significantly higher in adjuvanted than unadjuvanted vaccinees. Postvaccination immune responses persisted until end of follow-up. Solicited adverse events were mostly mild to moderate and transient. Despite a higher observed reactogenicity of AS01-containing vaccines, no safety concerns were identified for any assessed formulation. CONCLUSIONS: Based on safety and immunogenicity profiles, the AS01E-adjuvanted vaccine containing 120 µg of RSVPreF3 was selected for further clinical development. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT03814590.

Safety and immunogenicity of two novel type 2 oral poliovirus vaccine candidates compared with a monovalent type 2 oral poliovirus vaccine in healthy adults: two clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Two novel type 2 oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV2) candidates, novel OPV2-c1 and novel OPV2-c2, designed to be more genetically stable than the licensed Sabin monovalent OPV2, have been developed to respond to ongoing polio outbreaks due to circulating vaccine-derived type 2 polioviruses. METHODS: We did two randomised studies at two centres in Belgium. The first was a phase 4 historical control study of monovalent OPV2 in Antwerp, done before global withdrawal of OPV2, and the second was a phase 2 study in Antwerp and Ghent with novel OPV2-c1 and novel OPV2-c2. Eligible participants were healthy adults aged 18-50 years with documented history of at least three polio vaccinations, including OPV in the phase 4 study and either OPV or inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) in the novel OPV2 phase 2 study, with no dose within 12 months of study start. In the historical control trial, participants were randomly assigned to either one dose or two doses of monovalent OPV2. In the novel OPV2 trial, participants with previous OPV vaccinations were randomly assigned to either one or two doses of novel OPV2-c1 or to one or two doses of novel OPV2-c2. IPV-vaccinated participants were randomly assigned to receive two doses of either novel OPV2-c1, novel OPV2-c2, or placebo. Vaccine administrators were unmasked to treatment; medical staff performing safety and reactogenicity assessments or blood draws for immunogenicity assessments were masked. Participants received the first vaccine dose on day 0, and a second dose on day 28 if assigned to receive a second dose. Primary objectives were assessments and comparisons of safety up to 28 days after each dose, including solicited adverse events and serious adverse events, and immunogenicity (seroprotection rates on day 28 after the first vaccine dose) between monovalent OPV2 and the two novel OPV2 candidates. Primary immunogenicity analyses were done in the per-protocol population. Safety was assessed in the total vaccinated population-ie, all participants who received at least one dose of their assigned vaccine. The phase 4 control study is registered with EudraCT (2015-003325-33) and the phase 2 novel OPV2 study is registered with EudraCT (2018-001684-22) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04544787). FINDINGS: In the historical control study, between Jan 25 and March 18, 2016, 100 volunteers were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive one or two doses of monovalent OPV2 (n=50 in each group). In the novel OPV2 study, between Oct 15, 2018, and Feb 27, 2019, 200 previously OPV-vaccinated volunteers were assigned to the four groups to receive one or two doses of novel OPV2-c1 or novel OPV2-c2 (n=50 per group); a further 50 participants, previously vaccinated with IPV, were assigned to novel OPV2-c1 (n=17), novel OPV2-c2 (n=16), or placebo (n=17). All participants received the first dose of assigned vaccine or placebo and were included in the total vaccinated population. All vaccines appeared safe; no definitely vaccine-related withdrawals or serious adverse events were reported. After first doses in previously OPV-vaccinated participants, 62 (62%) of 100 monovalent OPV2 recipients, 71 (71%) of 100 recipients of novel OPV2-c1, and 74 (74%) of 100 recipients of novel OPV2-c2 reported solicited systemic adverse events, four (monovalent OPV2), three (novel OPV2-c1), and two (novel OPV2-c2) of which were considered severe. In IPV-vaccinated participants, solicited adverse events occurred in 16 (94%) of 17 who received novel OPV2-c1 (including one severe) and 13 (81%) of 16 who received novel OPV2-c2 (including one severe), compared with 15 (88%) of 17 placebo recipients (including two severe). In previously OPV-vaccinated participants, 286 (97%) of 296 were seropositive at baseline; after one dose, 100% of novel OPV2 vaccinees and 97 (97%) of monovalent OPV2 vaccinees were seropositive. INTERPRETATION: Novel OPV2 candidates were as safe, well tolerated, and immunogenic as monovalent OPV2 in previously OPV-vaccinated and IPV-vaccinated adults. These data supported the further assessment of the vaccine candidates in children and infants. FUNDING: University of Antwerp and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Respiratory Syncytial Virus Disease Burden in Community-Dwelling and Long-Term Care Facility Older Adults in Europe and the United States: A Prospective Study.

Background: Data on respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) disease burden in adults remain scarce. We assessed the burden of confirmed RSV-acute respiratory infections (cRSV-ARIs) in community-dwelling (CD) adults and those in long-term care facilities (LTCFs). Methods: In this prospective cohort study covering 2 RSV seasons (October 2019-March 2020 and October 2020-June 2021), RSV-ARIs were identified through active surveillance, in medically stable CD-adults ≥50 years (Europe) or adults ≥65 years in LTCFs (Europe and the United States). RSV infection was confirmed by polymerase chain reaction from combined nasal and throat swabs. Results: Of 1981 adults enrolled, 1251 adults in CD and 664 LTCFs (season 1) and 1223 adults in CD and 494 LTCFs (season 2) were included in the analyses. During season 1, overall incidence rates ([IRs] cases/1000 person-years) and attack rates (ARs) for cRSV-ARIs were 37.25 (95% confidence interval [CI], 22.62-61.35) and 1.84% in adults in CD and 47.85 (CI, 22.58-101.4) and 2.26% in adults in LTCFs. Complications occurred for 17.4% (CD) and 13.3% (LTCFs) of cRSV-ARIs. One cRSV-ARI occurred in season 2 (IR = 2.91 [CI, 0.40-20.97]; AR = 0.20%), without complications. No cRSV-ARIs led to hospitalization or death. Viral pathogens were codetected in ≤17.4% of cRSV-ARIs. Conclusions: RSV is an important cause of disease burden in adults in CD and LTCFs. Despite the observed low severity of cRSV-ARI, our results support the need for RSV prevention strategies among adults ≥50 years old.