Switch to fixed-dose doravirine (100 mg) with islatravir (0·75 mg) once daily in virologically suppressed adults with HIV-1 on antiretroviral therapy: 48-week results of a phase 3, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Doravirine and islatravir is an investigational, once-daily, single-tablet regimen with high antiviral potency, favourable safety and tolerability, and low propensity for resistance. We report week 48 results from a phase 3 trial evaluating switch from stable, oral antiretroviral therapy (ART) to the fixed combination of doravirine (100 mg) and islatravir (0·75 mg). METHODS: This phase 3, multicentre, randomised, active-controlled, open-label, non-inferiority trial was conducted at 77 research, community, and hospital-based clinics in 15 countries. Adults aged 18 years or older with fewer than 50 HIV-1 RNA copies per mL on any oral, two-drug or three-drug ART regimen for at least 3 months, and no history of previous virological failure on any past or current regimen were randomly assigned (1:1) by a computer-generated randomisation schedule to switch to doravirine (100 mg) and islatravir (0·75 mg) or to continue their baseline ART regimen. Block randomisation was based on a block size of four, and randomisation was stratified by baseline regimen (ie, protease inhibitor, integrase inhibitor, or other). Participants in the doravirine and islatravir group were instructed to take one tablet at approximately the same time each day, and participants in the baseline ART group continued to take the medication according to the locally approved label. HIV-1 RNA and safety evaluations were done at baseline and weeks 4, 12, 24, 36, and 48. CD4 cell counts were measured at baseline, week 24, and week 48. The primary endpoint was proportion of participants with greater than or equal to 50 HIV-1 RNA copies per mL at week 48 in the full analysis set (ie, all participants who received at least one dose of study drug) using the US Food and Drug Administration snapshot approach and prespecified non-inferiority margin of 4%. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04223778) and is completed. FINDINGS: Between Feb 18 and Oct 2, 2020, 740 individuals were screened for eligibility, of whom 672 (90·8%) participants (249 [37·1%] women and 423 [62·9%] men; median CD4 count of 678 cells per µL [IQR 496-868]) were randomly assigned to doravirine (100 mg) and islatravir (0·75 mg; n=336) or to continue baseline ART (n=336). The last follow-up visit occurred on Sept 8, 2021. At week 48, zero of 336 participants in the doravirine and islatravir group versus five (1·5%) of 336 participants in the baseline ART group had greater than or equal to 50 HIV-1 RNA copies per mL (difference -1·5, 95% CI -3·4 to -0·3). The per-protocol analysis showed consistent results. Headache was the most common adverse event in both groups (35 [10·4%] of 336 participants in the doravirine and islatravir group, 16 [4·8%] of 336 in the baseline ART group), infection rates were similar (113 [33·6%] in both groups), and discontinuations due to adverse events were low (seven [2·1%] vs one [0·3%]). 66 (19·6%) of 336 participants had treatment-related adverse events in the doravirine and islatravir group compared with 30 (8·9%) of 336 in the baseline ART group. In the islatravir and doravirine group, CD4 cell counts (mean change -30·3 cells per µL) and total lymphocyte counts (mean change -0·26 × 109/L) were decreased at 48 weeks. INTERPRETATION: Switching to single-tablet doravirine (100 mg) and islatravir (0·75 mg) maintained viral suppression up to week 48 and was non-inferior to antiretroviral combinations used in clinical practice for adults with HIV-1; however, decreases in CD4 cell and total lymphocyte counts do not support further development of once-daily doravirine (100 mg) and islatravir (0·75 mg). FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co.

Switch to fixed-dose doravirine (100 mg) with islatravir (0·75 mg) once daily in virologically suppressed adults with HIV-1 on bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide: 48-week results of a phase 3, randomised, controlled, double-blind, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Doravirine and islatravir is an investigational, once-daily regimen with high antiviral potency, favourable safety and tolerability, and a low propensity for resistance. We investigated a switch from bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide to doravirine (100 mg) and islatravir (0·75 mg) in virologically suppressed adults with HIV-1. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, multicentre, randomised, active-controlled, double-blind, double-dummy, non-inferiority trial at 89 research, community, and hospital-based clinics in 11 countries. Adults aged 18 years or older with fewer than 50 HIV-1 RNA copies per mL for at least 3 months on bictegravir (50 mg), emtricitabine (200 mg), and tenofovir alafenamide (25 mg) and no history of previous virological failure on any past or current regimen were randomly assigned (1:1) by a computer-generated randomisation allocation schedule, with block randomisation based on a block size of four, to switch to doravirine (100 mg) and islatravir (0·75 mg) or continue bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide orally once daily, with matching placebos taken by all participants. Participants, investigators, study staff, and sponsor personnel involved in study drug administration or clinical evaluation of participants were masked to treatment assignment until week 48. Participants were instructed at each visit to take one tablet from each of the two bottles received, one of study drug and one of placebo, once daily, and participants were assessed at baseline and weeks 4, 12, 24, 36, and 48. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with greater than or equal to 50 HIV-1 RNA copies per mL at week 48 in the full analysis set (ie, all participants who received at least one dose of study drug; US Food and Drug Administration snapshot; prespecified non-inferiority margin 4%). The study is ongoing, with all remaining participants in post-treatment follow-up, and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04223791. FINDINGS: We screened 726 individuals for eligibility between Feb 18 and Sept 3, 2020, of whom 643 (88·6%) participants were randomly assigned to a treatment group (183 [28·5%] women and 460 [71·5%] men). 322 participants were switched to doravirine (100 mg) and islatravir (0·75 mg) and 321 continued bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide (two participants [one with a protocol deviation and one who withdrew] assigned to bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide did not receive treatment). The last follow-up visit for the week 48 analysis occurred on Aug 26, 2021. At week 48, two (0·6%) of 322 participants in the doravirine and islatravir group compared with one (0·3%) of 319 participants in the bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide group had greater than or equal to 50 HIV-1 RNA copies per mL (difference 0·3%, 95% CI -1·2 to 2·0). The per-protocol analysis showed consistent results. 25 (7·8%) participants in the doravirine and islatravir group had headache compared with 23 [7·2%] participants in the bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide group; 101 (31·4%) compared with 98 (30·7%) had infections; and eight (2·5%) participants in each group discontinued therapy due to adverse events. 32 (9·9%) participants had treatment-related adverse events in the islatravir and doravirine group comapred with 38 (11·9%) in the bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide group. In the islatravir and doravirine group, CD4 cell counts (mean change -19·7 cells per µL) and total lymphocyte counts (mean change -0·20 × 109/L) were decreased at 48 weeks. INTERPRETATION: Switching to daily doravirine (100 mg) and islatravir (0·75 mg) was non-inferior to bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide at week 48. However, decreases in CD4 cell and total lymphocyte counts do not support the further development of once-daily doravirine (100 mg) and islatravir (0·75 mg). FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co.

Brief Report: Efficacy and Safety of Oral Islatravir Once Daily in Combination With Doravirine Through 96 Weeks for Treatment-Naive Adults With HIV-1 Infection Receiving Initial Treatment With Islatravir, Doravirine, and Lamivudine.

BACKGROUND: Islatravir (MK-8591) is a nucleoside reverse transcriptase translocation inhibitor in development for treatment and prevention of HIV-1. We present efficacy and safety data for islatravir and doravirine (DOR) through 96 weeks of the phase 2b trial (NCT03272347). METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, dose-ranging trial, participants initially received islatravir (0.25, 0.75, or 2.25 mg) with doravirine (100 mg) and lamivudine (3TC, 300 mg) or a fixed-dose combination of doravirine, 3TC, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (DOR/3TC/TDF) daily. Beginning at week 24, participants receiving islatravir stopped 3TC if HIV-1 RNA from the prior visit was <50 copies per milliliter and continued taking the assigned islatravir dose (still blinded) with doravirine. All islatravir groups transitioned to open-label use of 0.75 mg between weeks 60 and 84. Efficacy end points at week 96 included the proportion of participants maintaining HIV-1 RNA of <50 copies per milliliter (FDA Snapshot). Safety was assessed by adverse event (AE) reporting. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-one treatment-naive participants received the study drugs and were included in the analyses. Through week 96, HIV-1 RNA<50 copies per milliliter was maintained in 86.2% (25/29), 90.0% (27/30), and 67.7% (21/31) of participants in the 0.25-, 0.75-, and 2.25-mg islatravir groups, respectively, 81.1% (73/90) of the combined islatravir group, and 80.6% (25/31) of the DOR/3TC/TDF group. One participant in the 2.25-mg islatravir group had Protocol-Defined Virologic Failure after week 48. Drug-related AE rates were higher for DOR/3TC/TDF participants (22.6%) compared with islatravir (combined 7.8%). Two participants (2.2%) receiving islatravir with doravirine and one (3.2%) receiving DOR/3TC/TDF discontinued because of an AE. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment regimens containing islatravir and doravirine maintained viral suppression through week 96 and were well tolerated regardless of dose.

Islatravir in combination with doravirine for treatment-naive adults with HIV-1 infection receiving initial treatment with islatravir, doravirine, and lamivudine: a phase 2b, randomised, double-blind, dose-ranging trial.

BACKGROUND: Islatravir is a nucleoside reverse transcriptase translocation inhibitor in development for the treatment and prevention of HIV-1 infection. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of islatravir-based regimens for the treatment of HIV-1. METHODS: We did a phase 2b, randomised, double-blind, comparator-controlled, dose-ranging trial at 24 clinics or hospitals in four countries (Chile, France, the UK, and the USA). Treatment-naive adults (≥18 years) with plasma HIV-1 RNA concentrations of at least 1000 copies per mL, CD4 T-cell counts of at least 200 cells per mL, and a calculated creatinine clearance of at least 50 mL/min (all within 60 days before study treatment) were eligible for inclusion. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) with a block size of four via an interactive voice and web response system to receive oral treatment with one of three doses of islatravir (0·25 mg, 0·75 mg, or 2·25 mg) plus doravirine (100 mg) and lamivudine (300 mg) or to doravirine (100 mg) plus lamivudine (300 mg) plus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF; 300 mg) once daily with placebo (part 1). Treatment groups were stratified according to screening HIV-1 RNA concentration (≤100 000 copies per mL or >100 000 copies per mL). After at least 24 weeks of treatment, participants taking islatravir who achieved an HIV-1 RNA concentration lower than 50 copies per mL switched to a two-drug regimen of islatravir and doravirine (part 2). All participants and study investigators were masked to treatment in part 1; in part 2, the islatravir dose was masked to all participants and investigators, but the other drugs were given open label. The primary efficacy outcomes were the proportions of participants with an HIV-1 RNA concentration lower than 50 copies per mL at weeks 24 and 48 (US Food and Drug Administration snapshot approach). The primary safety outcomes were the number of participants experiencing adverse events and the number of participants discontinuing study drug owing to adverse events. All participants who received at least one dose of any study drug were included in the analyses. This trial is ongoing, but closed to enrolment of new participants; herein, we report study findings through 48 weeks of treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03272347. FINDINGS: Between Nov 27, 2017, and April 25, 2019, 121 participants (mean age 31 years [SD 10·9], 112 [93%] male, 92 [76%] white, 27 [22%] with HIV-1 RNA concentration >100 000 copies per mL) were randomly assigned: 29 to the 0·25 mg, 30 to the 0·75 mg, and 31 to the 2·25 mg islatravir groups, and 31 to the doravirine, lamivudine, and TDF group. At week 24, 26 (90%) of 29 participants in the 0·25 mg islatravir group, 30 (100%) of 30 in the 0·75 mg islatravir group, and 27 (87%) of 31 in the 2·25 mg islatravir group achieved HIV-1 RNA concentrations lower than 50 copies per mL compared with 27 (87%) of 31 in the doravirine plus lamivudine plus TDF group (difference 2·8%, 95% CI -14·9 to 20·4, for the 0·25 mg islatravir group; 12·9%, -1·6 to 27·5, for the 0·75 mg islatravir group; and 0·3%, -17·9 to 18·5, for the 2·25 mg islatravir group). At week 48, these data were 26 (90%) of 29 in the 0·25 mg islatravir group, 27 (90%) of 30 in the 0·75 mg islatravir group, and 24 (77%) of 31 in the 2·25 mg islatravir group compared with 26 (84%) of 31 in the doravirine plus lamivudine plus TDF group (difference 6·1%, 95% CI -12·4 to 24·4, for the 0·25 mg islatravir group; 6·2%, -12·2 to 24·6, for the 0·75 mg islatravir group; and -6·1%, -27·1 to 14·8, for the 2·75 mg islatravir group). 66 (73%) of participants in the islatravir groups combined and 24 (77%) of those in the doravirine plus lamivudine plus TDF group reported at least one adverse event. Two participants in the 2·25 mg islatravir group and one participant in the doravirine plus lamivudine plus TDF group discontinued owing to an adverse event. No deaths were reported up to week 48. INTERPRETATION: Treatment regimens containing islatravir and doravirine showed antiviral efficacy and were well tolerated regardless of dose. Doravirine in combination with islatravir has the potential to be a potent two-drug regimen that warrants further clinical development. FUNDING: Merck, Sharp, & Dohme Corp, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc.

Efficacy of Bezlotoxumab in Trial Participants Infected With Clostridioides difficile Strain BI Associated With Poor Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Bezlotoxumab reduced rates of recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (rCDI) vs placebo in Monoclonal Antibodies for C. difficile Therapy (MODIFY) I/II trial participants receiving antibacterial drug treatment for CDI. A secondary objective of MODIFY I/II was to assess bezlotoxumab's efficacy against C. difficile strains associated with increased rates of morbidity and mortality. METHODS: In this post-hoc analysis of pooled MODIFY I/II data, efficacy endpoints were assessed in participants infected with restriction endonuclease analysis BI and non-BI strains of C. difficile at study entry. Treatment outcomes were compared between participants receiving bezlotoxumab (alone or with actoxumab [B, B+A]) and those receiving no bezlotoxumab (placebo or actoxumab [P, A]). RESULTS: From 2559 randomized participants, C. difficile was isolated from 1588 (67.2%) baseline stool samples. Participants with BI strains (n = 328) were older and had more risk factors for rCDI than non-BI strain participants (n = 1260). There were no differences in initial clinical cure rate between BI and non-BI strains in either group. The rCDI rate for BI strains treated with bezlotoxumab was lower than for the no bezlotoxumab group (B, B+A vs P, A: 23.6% vs 43.9%) and was also lower for the non-BI strains (B, B+A vs P, A: 21.4% vs 36.1%). Rates of 30-day CDI-associated rehospitalization were greater with BI vs non-BI strains in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Infection with BI strains of C. difficile predicted poor outcomes in the MODIFY I/II trials. Bezlotoxumab (alone or with actoxumab) treatment was effective both in BI and non-BI subpopulations.

Influence of Diagnostic Method on Outcomes in Phase 3 Clinical Trials of Bezlotoxumab for the Prevention of Recurrent Clostridioides difficile Infection: A Post Hoc Analysis of MODIFY I/II.

BACKGROUND: The optimum diagnostic test method for Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) remains controversial due to variation in accuracy in identifying true CDI. This post hoc analysis examined the impact of CDI diagnostic testing methodology on efficacy outcomes in phase 3 MODIFY I/II trials. METHODS: In MODIFY I/II (NCT01241552/NCT01513239), participants received bezlotoxumab (10 mg/kg) or placebo during anti-CDI treatment for primary/recurrent CDI (rCDI). Using MODIFY I/II pooled data, initial clinical cure (ICC) and rCDI were assessed in participants diagnosed at baseline using direct detection methods (enzyme immunoassay [EIA]/cell cytotoxicity assay [CCA]) or indirect methods to determine toxin-producing ability (toxin gene polymerase chain reaction [tgPCR]/toxigenic culture). RESULTS: Of 1554 participants who received bezlotoxumab or placebo in MODIFY I/II, 781 (50.3%) and 773 (49.7%) were diagnosed by tgPCR/toxigenic culture and toxin EIA/CCA, respectively. Participants diagnosed by toxin EIA/CCA were more likely to be inpatients, older, and have severe CDI. In bezlotoxumab recipients, ICC rates were slightly higher in the toxin EIA/CCA subgroup (81.7%) vs tgPCR/toxigenic culture (78.4%). Bezlotoxumab significantly reduced the rCDI rate vs placebo in both subgroups; however, the magnitude of reduction was substantially larger in participants diagnosed by toxin EIA/CCA (relative difference, -46.6%) vs tgPCR/toxigenic culture (-29.1%). In bezlotoxumab recipients, the rCDI rate was lower in the toxin EIA/CCA subgroup (17.6%) vs tgPCR/toxigenic culture (23.6%; absolute difference, -6.0%; 95% confidence interval, -12.4 to 0.3; relative difference, -25.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic tests that detect fecal C. difficile toxins are of fundamental importance to accurately diagnosing CDI, including in clinical trial design, ensuring that therapeutic efficacy is not underestimated.

Bezlotoxumab for Prevention of Recurrent Clostridium difficile Infection in Patients at Increased Risk for Recurrence.

Background: Bezlotoxumab is a human monoclonal antibody against Clostridium difficile toxin B indicated to prevent C. difficile infection (CDI) recurrence (rCDI) in adults at high risk for rCDI. This post hoc analysis of pooled monocolonal antibodies for C.difficile therapy (MODIFY) I/II data assessed bezlotoxumab efficacy in participants with characteristics associated with increased risk for rCDI. Methods: The analysis population was the modified intent-to-treat population who received bezlotoxumab or placebo (n = 1554) by risk factors for rCDI that were prespecified in the statistical analysis plan: age ≥65 years, history of CDI, compromised immunity, severe CDI, and ribotype 027/078/244. The proportion of participants with rCDI in 12 weeks, fecal microbiota transplant procedures, 30-day all cause and CDI-associated hospital readmissions, and mortality at 30 and 90 days after randomization were presented. Results: The majority of enrolled participants (75.6%) had ≥1 risk factor; these participants were older and a higher proportion had comorbidities compared with participants with no risk factors. The proportion of placebo participants who experienced rCDI exceeded 30% for each risk factor compared with 20.9% among those without a risk factor, and the rCDI rate increased with the number of risk factors (1 risk factor: 31.3%; ≥3 risk factors: 46.1%). Bezlotoxumab reduced rCDI, fecal microbiota transplants, and CDI-associated 30-day readmissions in participants with risk factors for rCDI. Conclusions: The risk factors prespecified in the MODIFY statistical analysis plan are appropriate to identify patients at high risk for rCDI. While participants with ≥3 risk factors had the greatest reduction of rCDI with bezlotoxumab, those with 1 or 2 risk factors may also benefit. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT01241552 (MODIFY I) and NCT01513239 (MODIFY II).

Bezlotoxumab for Prevention of Recurrent Clostridium difficile Infection.

BACKGROUND: Clostridium difficile is the most common cause of infectious diarrhea in hospitalized patients. Recurrences are common after antibiotic therapy. Actoxumab and bezlotoxumab are human monoclonal antibodies against C. difficile toxins A and B, respectively. METHODS: We conducted two double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials, MODIFY I and MODIFY II, involving 2655 adults receiving oral standard-of-care antibiotics for primary or recurrent C. difficile infection. Participants received an infusion of bezlotoxumab (10 mg per kilogram of body weight), actoxumab plus bezlotoxumab (10 mg per kilogram each), or placebo; actoxumab alone (10 mg per kilogram) was given in MODIFY I but discontinued after a planned interim analysis. The primary end point was recurrent infection (new episode after initial clinical cure) within 12 weeks after infusion in the modified intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: In both trials, the rate of recurrent C. difficile infection was significantly lower with bezlotoxumab alone than with placebo (MODIFY I: 17% [67 of 386] vs. 28% [109 of 395]; adjusted difference, -10.1 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -15.9 to -4.3; P<0.001; MODIFY II: 16% [62 of 395] vs. 26% [97 of 378]; adjusted difference, -9.9 percentage points; 95% CI, -15.5 to -4.3; P<0.001) and was significantly lower with actoxumab plus bezlotoxumab than with placebo (MODIFY I: 16% [61 of 383] vs. 28% [109 of 395]; adjusted difference, -11.6 percentage points; 95% CI, -17.4 to -5.9; P<0.001; MODIFY II: 15% [58 of 390] vs. 26% [97 of 378]; adjusted difference, -10.7 percentage points; 95% CI, -16.4 to -5.1; P<0.001). In prespecified subgroup analyses (combined data set), rates of recurrent infection were lower in both groups that received bezlotoxumab than in the placebo group in subpopulations at high risk for recurrent infection or for an adverse outcome. The rates of initial clinical cure were 80% with bezlotoxumab alone, 73% with actoxumab plus bezlotoxumab, and 80% with placebo; the rates of sustained cure (initial clinical cure without recurrent infection in 12 weeks) were 64%, 58%, and 54%, respectively. The rates of adverse events were similar among these groups; the most common events were diarrhea and nausea. CONCLUSIONS: Among participants receiving antibiotic treatment for primary or recurrent C. difficile infection, bezlotoxumab was associated with a substantially lower rate of recurrent infection than placebo and had a safety profile similar to that of placebo. The addition of actoxumab did not improve efficacy. (Funded by Merck; MODIFY I and MODIFY II ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT01241552 and NCT01513239 .).

Comparison of the safety and immunogenicity of a refrigerator-stable versus a frozen formulation of ProQuad (measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella virus vaccine live).

OBJECTIVE: A refrigerator-stable formulation of ProQuad has been developed to expand the utility of ProQuad to areas in which maintenance of a frozen cold chain (-15 degrees C or colder) during storage and transport may not be feasible. The objective of this study was to demonstrate that the immunogenicity and safety profiles of a refrigerator-stable formulation of ProQuad are similar to the recently licensed frozen formulation. METHODS: In this double-blind, randomized, multicenter study, healthy 12- to 23-month-old children with negative vaccination and clinical histories for measles, mumps, rubella, varicella, and zoster were vaccinated with either the refrigerator-stable formulation of ProQuad (N = 1006) or the frozen formulation of ProQuad (N = 513). Patients were followed for 42 days after vaccination for adverse experiences. Immunogenicity was evaluated 6 weeks after vaccination. RESULTS: The refrigerator-stable formulation of ProQuad was generally well tolerated. The incidence of adverse experiences was similar between groups. No vaccine-related serious adverse experiences were reported. For both groups, the response rate was > or = 97.7% for measles, mumps, and rubella, and the percentage of patients with a varicella zoster virus antibody titer of > or = 5 U/mL glycoprotein antigen-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay after vaccination was > or = 88.8%. The geometric mean titers for all antigens were numerically slightly higher in patients who received the refrigerator-stable formulation. CONCLUSIONS: The refrigerator-stable formulation of ProQuad is generally well tolerated, highly immunogenic, and noninferior in terms of postvaccination antibody responses. This refrigerator-stable formulation may improve ease of vaccine administration, increase use of the vaccine throughout the world because of its improved storage conditions, and replace the frozen formulation of ProQuad or any dose of M-M-RII and Varivax in routine practice.

Evaluation of a quadrivalent measles, mumps, rubella and varicella vaccine in healthy children.

BACKGROUND: A quadrivalent measles, mumps, rubella and varicella vaccine would facilitate universal immunization against all 4 diseases, improve compliance and immunization rates and decrease the number of injections given to children and visits to physicians' offices. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate 1- and 2-dose regimens of a combined measles, mumps, rubella and varicella vaccine (ProQuad, referred to as MMRV) manufactured with a varicella component of increased potency. METHODS: In this partially blind, multicenter study, 480 healthy 12- to 23-month-old children were randomized to receive either MMRV and placebo or M-M-RII and VARIVAX. Injections were given concomitantly at separate sites. Subjects randomized to receive MMRV and placebo received a second dose of MMRV 90 days later. Subjects were followed for 42 days after each vaccination for adverse experiences. Immunogenicity was evaluated 6 weeks after each vaccination. RESULTS: Measles-like rash and fever during days 5-12 were more common after the first dose of MMRV (rash, 5.9%; fever, 27.7%) than after M-M-RII and VARIVAX (rash, 1.9%; fever, 18.7%). The incidence of other adverse events were similar between groups. Response rates were >90% to all vaccine components in both groups. Geometric mean titers to measles and mumps were significantly higher after 1 dose of MMRV than after administration of M-M-RII and VARIVAX. The second dose of MMRV elicited slight to moderate increases in measles, mumps and rubella antibody titers and a substantial increase in varicella antibody titer (from 13.0 to 588.1 glycoprotein antigen-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay units/mL). CONCLUSION: A 1- or 2-dose regimen of MMRV is generally well-tolerated when administered to 12- to 23-month-old children and has a safety and immunogenicity profile similar to that of M-M-RII and VARIVAX administered concomitantly.

Field performance of VAQTA (inactivated, purified hepatitis a vaccine) in Chinese children in Jiangsu.

In Jiangsu, 30% of children between the ages of 5 and 8 years test seropositive for hepatitis A. The safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of a 2-dose regimen (0, 6 months) of VAQTA (0.5 ml of 25U) administered IM in 50 healthy children aged 5 to 8 years without prior serological screening was evaluated. Blood samples were collected prior to the first dose and after each additional dose of VAQTA to determine the initial anti-HAV serostatus and response rates to the vaccine. Twelve children (24%) were initially seropositive and 38 (76%) were initially seronegative. Four weeks after the primary dose of VAQTA, 34 of the 38 subjects (89.5%, 95% CI 75 to 97) were anti-HAV seropositive. The geometric mean titer was 33.1 mIU/ml (95% CI 22.4 to 49.0). After the booster dose at 6 months, all the subjects were seropositive (37/37), giving a seroconversion of 100% (95% CI: 90, 100). The geometric mean titer was 7585.8 mIU/ml (95% CI: 5623.4 to 10,471.3). Adverse experiences were generally mild and transient. Results of this study are consistent with results from a previous double-blind randomized trial of this vaccine and confirm that VAQTA is highly immunogenic, and generally well-tolerated.

An open randomized study of inactivated hepatitis A vaccine administered concomitantly with typhoid fever and yellow fever vaccines.

BACKGROUND: Concomitant administration of several vaccines is a common practice when travel clinics prepare persons for international travel. The purpose of the study was to compare the immunogenicity and safety of hepatitis A, typhoid fever, and yellow fever vaccines administered concomitantly with hepatitis A vaccine administered alone and typhoid fever and yellow fever vaccines administered alone. METHODS: Healthy adults 18 to 55 years of age were randomized to receive either VAQTA, TyphimVi, and YF-VAX on day 0 and VAQTA at week 24 (Group 1); TyphimVi and YF-VAX on day 0 and an optional dose of VAQTA 1 month later (Group 2); or VAQTA at day 0 and week 24 (Group 3). RESULTS: From March to December 1997, a total of 240 subjects were enrolled, 80 in each treatment group. Most were female and Caucasian, and the mean age was 29.4 years. Four weeks after vaccine dose 1, seroconversion to protective antibody levels against hepatitis A was 95.9% in Group 1 and 100% in Group 3. In Group 1, 93.4% of subjects demonstrated at least a 4-fold rise in neutralizing antibody levels against typhoid, compared with 90% in Group 2. Serum neutralizing antibody against yellow fever developed in 98.6% of subjects in Group 1 compared with 100% in Group 2. CONCLUSIONS: These findings were consistent with similarity in the immune responses between treatment groups as defined a priori. The adverse experience (AE) profile did not appear to be substantially affected by concomitant administration of all three vaccines. Providing these three vaccines concomitantly can simplify the process of obtaining pretravel prophylaxis and may help ensure that all needed vaccines are administered.