A dose-ranging study of MF59(®)-adjuvanted and non-adjuvanted A/H1N1 pandemic influenza vaccine in young to middle-aged and older adult populations to assess safety, immunogenicity, and antibody persistence one year after vaccination.

BACKGROUND: During development of an A/H1N1 pandemic influenza vaccine, this study was performed to identify the antigen and adjuvant content which would provide optimal antibody response and persistence in adults and the elderly. Dose-sparing strategies, such as inclusion of adjuvants, are critical in ensuring the widest possible population coverage in the event of an influenza pandemic, despite a limited global capacity for vaccine manufacture. METHODS: Healthy subjects aged 18-64 years (n = 1240) and ≥65 years (n = 1352) were vaccinated with 1 of 8 investigational vaccine formulations varying in antigen quantity (3.75 µg to 30 µg of hemagglutinin) and MF59(®) adjuvant (none, half dose, or full dose). All subjects received 2 vaccine doses administered 3 weeks apart. Antibody response was assessed by hemagglutination inhibition assay 1 and 3 weeks after administration of first and second doses. Antibody persistence was assessed after 6 and 12 mo. Vaccine safety was monitored over 12 mo. RESULTS: All 8 investigational A/H1N1 vaccine formulations were well tolerated, and rapidly induced high antibody titers which met all of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) and Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) licensure criteria 3 weeks after one dose. The highest antibody titers were observed in participants vaccinated with higher quantities of antigen and adjuvant. CONCLUSION: A single vaccine dose containing 3.75 µg of A/California/7/2009 (H1N1) antigen with MF59 adjuvant was identified as optimal for young to middle-aged (18-64 years) and older (≥65 years) adult populations.

Dose-range study of MF59-adjuvanted versus nonadjuvanted monovalent A/H1N1 pandemic influenza vaccine in six- to less than thirty-six-month-old children.

BACKGROUND: The successful vaccination of children 6 to 36 months of age against 2009 A/H1N1 influenza was essential to help reduce the burden of pandemic disease in both the pediatric and adult populations. OBJECTIVES: We compared the immunogenicity and safety of 4 alternative monovalent vaccine formulations to identify which provided optimal levels of seroprotection according to the US and European Union (EU) licensure criteria. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A total of 654 healthy subjects (6 to <36 months old) were given 2 vaccine doses 3 weeks apart. Participants were assigned to 1 of the 4 immunization groups, receiving MF59-adjuvanted (Novartis Vaccines, Marburg, Germany) vaccine either containing 3.75 µg or 7.5 µg of A/H1N1 California/7/2009 antigen, or nonadjuvanted vaccine containing 7.5 µg or 15 µg of antigen. Antibody titers were assessed by hemagglutination inhibition assay 3 weeks, 3 months and 1 year after immunization. Vaccine safety was monitored throughout the study. RESULTS: After 1 dose, both adjuvanted formulations met the US and EU criteria for seroconversion; the 15 µg nonadjuvanted vaccine met the EU criterion for seroconversion alone. The US and EU criteria for seroprotection were only met by adjuvanted groups. MF59-adjuvanted formulations alone resulted in clinically significant persisting antibody titers after 12 months. All vaccines were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: A single dose of MF59-adjuvanted vaccine containing 3.75 µg A/H1N1 antigen was highly immunogenic, met both the US and EU licensure criteria and was well tolerated. These data support the suitability of this monovalent vaccine formulation for pandemic use in children 6 to <36 months of age.

Subunit influenza vaccines produced from cell culture or in embryonated chicken eggs: comparison of safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity.

BACKGROUND: This study assessed the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of an injectable cell culture-derived influenza vaccine (CCIV), compared with those of an injectable egg-based trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV). METHODS: Adult subjects (n = 613; 18 to <50 years of age) were randomized (1:1) to receive either CCIV or TIV. The safety and reactogenicity of the 2 vaccines were assessed on the basis of solicited indicators and other adverse events (AEs) within 7 days of vaccination. All serious AEs and those AEs resulting in withdrawal were recorded throughout the study. Antibody titers were determined by the hemagglutination inhibition assay, using egg- and cell-derived antigens. Immunogenicity was assessed on the basis of the ratio of postvaccination (day 22) geometric mean titers (GMTs) between the 2 vaccines, seroprotection rates, and seroconversion rates. RESULTS: There was no clinically relevant difference between the safety and reactogenicity profiles of the 2 vaccines. The immunogenicity of CCIV was demonstrated to be noninferior to that of TIV on the basis of the ratio of postvaccination GMTs between the 2 vaccines. GMTs, seroprotection rates, and seroconversion rates were comparable between the 2 vaccines. CONCLUSIONS: The safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of the CCIV and the egg-based TIV are comparable.

Immunogenicity and safety of a combination diphtheria, tetanus toxoid, acellular pertussis, hepatitis B, and inactivated poliovirus vaccine coadministered with a 7-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine and a Haemophilus influenzae type b conjugate vaccine.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the immunogenicity and safety of a diphtheria and tetanus toxoids, acellular pertussis, hepatitis B, and inactivated poliovirus-containing vaccine (DTaP-HepB-IPV) coadministered with pneumococcal 7-valent conjugate vaccine (PCV-7) and Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine (Hib), with separate vaccines concurrently, or staggered (delayed) administration of PCV-7. STUDY DESIGN: At 2, 4, and 6 months of age, infants received either DTaP-HepB-IPV plus PCV-7 and Hib (n = 199), separate vaccines (n = 188), or DTaP-HepB-IPV plus Hib with PCV-7 administered 2 weeks later (n = 188). Blood was drawn before and after vaccination. Parents reported symptoms for 4 days after each dose and adverse events throughout the entire study. RESULTS: Immunogenicity in the Combination Vaccine Group was noninferior to that of the Separate and Staggered Vaccine Groups with respect to seroprotective rates for diphtheria, tetanus, and poliovirus and to geometric mean concentrations for pertussis. Seroprotective rates for HepB and Hib were not different between groups. Seropositivity for PCV-7 was high in all groups. Administration of combination vaccine appeared to be associated with higher rates of irritability, fever > or = 100.4 degrees F (38.0 degrees C) and some local symptoms compared with separate vaccines (exploratory P < .05). No group differences were observed in rates of symptoms for which parents sought medical advice. CONCLUSIONS: DTaP-HepB-IPV was highly immunogenic and well tolerated when coadministered with Hib and PCV-7 at 2, 4, and 6 months of age.

Safety of a combination diphtheria, tetanus toxoid, acellular pertussis, hepatitis B, and inactivated polio vaccine coadministered with a 7-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine and a Haemophilus influenzae type b conjugate vaccine.

The safety of DTaP-HepB-IPV vaccine coadministered with PCV and Hib was compared with separate administration of DTaP, HepB, IPV, Hib, and PCV at 2, 4, and 6 months of age. Healthy 2-month-old infants (N=1008) were randomized to the two groups. Following dose 1, there was no significant difference between the groups in the incidence of fever >101.3 degrees F. After each dose, the incidence of any fever (> or =100.4 degrees F) was significantly higher in the Combination Vaccine Group. The rate of fever >103.1 degrees F was < or =1.4% in both groups after any of the doses. Medical advice visits for fever were infrequent in both groups (< or =1.2%). DTaP-HepB-IPV was safe and well tolerated when coadministered with PCV and Hib.

Immunogenicity of a recombinant human cytomegalovirus gB vaccine in seronegative toddlers.

BACKGROUND: Immunization of young children against cytomegalovirus (CMV) might decrease child-to-child and child-to-adult transmission of CMV and thereby reduce maternal infection during pregnancy. We conducted a Phase I trial in CMV-seronegative toddlers to evaluate the reactogenicity and immunogenicity of a CMV gB vaccine administered with MF59, an oil and water adjuvant. METHODS: Eighteen children between 12 and 35 months of age received either 20 microg of CMV gB/MF59 (n = 15) or a control hepatitis A vaccine (n = 3) at 0, 1 and 6 months. The study was open-label for the first six children and then observer-blinded and randomized. Children were monitored for local and systemic reactions and for the development of antibodies to the envelope protein gB and CMV-neutralizing antibodies. RESULTS: Adverse reactions were uncommon and mild. Two children were excluded from the immunogenicity analysis because they had serologic evidence of CMV infection. Reciprocal geometric mean neutralizing titers were: 0 preimmunization (n = 18); 90 (range, 53 to 188) after Dose 2 (n = 6); and 638 (range, 210 to 1645) 1 month after Dose 3 (n = 13). The reciprocal geometric mean neutralizing titers of antibody to gB by EIA were: 0 preimmunization (n = 18); 857 (range, 307 to 2073) after Dose 1 (n = 12); 27 457 (range, 9312 to 55,080) after Dose 2 (n = 6); and 98,264 (range, 35,480 to 228,780) 1 month after Dose 3 (n = 5). After Dose 3 antibody responses of toddlers were greater than those of naturally infected adults and were notably higher than among 149 adults given 3 doses of the same vaccine in other trials. CONCLUSION: The CMV gB vaccine is well-tolerated and highly immunogenic in toddlers.

Safety and tolerability of cold-adapted influenza virus vaccine in children and adolescents with asthma.

BACKGROUND: Influenza infections can cause severe respiratory disease in high risk persons such as those with asthma, but immunization rates for high risk groups remain suboptimal. An investigational influenza virus vaccine, trivalent, types A and B, live, cold-adapted (CAIV-T) administered by intranasal spray was shown previously to be effective in healthy adults and healthy children. PURPOSE: To assess the safety and tolerability of CAIV-T in subjects 9 years of age and older with moderate to severe asthma. METHODS: In this randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled study, spirometry was performed twice before vaccination to establish a baseline forced expiratory volume at 1 s (FEV1) and once 2 to 5 days thereafter. The primary outcome index was the percent change in percent predicted FEV1 before and after vaccination. Peak flows, clinical asthma symptom scores and nighttime awakening scores were measured daily from 7 days pre- to 28 days postvaccination. RESULTS: The primary outcome index (percentage change in percent predicted FEV1) was not different between the two groups (0.2% vs. 0.4% for the treatment and placebo groups, respectively; P = 0.78). Secondary outcomes did not differ between the two groups; these included the number of subjects with a decrease in FEV1 > or =15% from baseline, reductions in peak flows > or =15%, > or =30% or > or =2 sd below baseline, use of beta-adrenergic rescue medications, asthma exacerbations and clinical asthma symptom scores before and after vaccination. The same proportion of subjects in each group experienced postvaccination symptoms within 10 days (92% and 91%, respectively; P = 1.0). No serious adverse event occurred. CONCLUSION: CAIV-T was generally safe and well-tolerated in children and adolescents with moderate to severe asthma.

Early home environment and retrospective recall: a test for concordance between siblings with and without psychiatric disorders.

Case control studies are a reasonably rapid and inexpensive method of developing causal hypotheses concerning the role of early environment on the development of psychiatric pathology. The current study tested an interview designed to assess early home environment on a group of patients with alcoholism or depression, on a control group free of psychiatric disorder, and on close-in-age siblings in each group. Findings demonstrated substantial agreement, suggesting that interviews requiring recall of childhood environment may be reasonably valid; patient status did not appear to influence agreement or, presumably, validity.