Effectiveness, immunogenicity, and safety of the quadrivalent HPV vaccine in women and men aged 27-45 years.

Among women aged 27-45 years, the quadrivalent human papillomavirus (qHPV; HPV6/11/16/18) vaccine was generally well tolerated, efficacious, and immunogenic in the placebo-controlled FUTURE III study (NCT00090220; n = 3253). The qHPV vaccine was also generally well tolerated and highly immunogenic in men aged 27-45 years who participated in the single-cohort mid-adult male (MAM) study (NCT01432574; n = 150). Here, we report results of a long-term follow up (LTFU) extension of FUTURE III with up to 10 years follow-up. To understand the relevance of the mid-adult women LTFU study in the context of mid-adult men vaccination, we report results from post-hoc, cross-study immunogenicity analyses conducted to compare immunogenicity (geometric mean titers; GMTs) at 1-month post-qHPV vaccine dose 3 in women and men aged 27-45 years versus women and men aged 16-26 years from prior efficacy studies. The qHPV vaccine demonstrated durable protection against the combined endpoint of HPV6/11/16/18-related high-grade cervical dysplasia and genital warts up to 10 years (median 8.9) post-dose 3 and sustained HPV6/11/16/18 antibody responses through approximately 10 years in women aged 27-45 years. Efficacy of qHPV vaccine in men aged 27-45 years was inferred based on the cross-study analysis of qHPV vaccine immunogenicity demonstrating non-inferior HPV6/11/16/18 antibody responses in men aged 27-45 years versus 16-26 years. In conclusion, durable effectiveness of the qHPV vaccine was demonstrated in women 27-45 years of age, and vaccine efficacy was inferred in men 27-45 years of age based on the serological results.

Safety and Immunogenicity of V114, a 15-valent Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine, Compared with 13-valent Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine in Japanese Adults Aged ≥65 Years: Subgroup Analysis of a Randomized Phase III Trial (PNEU-AGE).

The safety and immunogenicity of V114, a 15-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV), were assessed in a pivotal phase III trial conducted in healthy adults ≥50 years of age (NCT03950622, Japic-CTI 194845). We performed a subgroup analysis of 245 Japanese participants (all ≥65 years of age). The participants were randomized 1:1 to receive a single dose of V114 or 13-valent PCV (PCV13). Immune responses were evaluated at baseline and at 30 days post-vaccination. Non-serious and serious adverse events (AEs) were evaluated at 14 days and 6 months after vaccination, respectively. The proportions of participants experiencing solicited and serious AEs were comparable for both vaccines, and all solicited AEs were mild or moderate in severity. Geometric mean titers of serotype-specific opsonophagocytic activity (OPA) at 30 days post-vaccination were comparable between groups for all 13 shared serotypes and were higher with V114 for the unique serotypes 22F and 33F. The proportion of participants with a ≥4-fold increase in serotype-specific OPA responses from pre-vaccination to 30 days post-vaccination was higher for V114 than for PCV13 for serotypes 3, 22F, and 33F. V114 was well tolerated and immunogenic in Japanese adults ≥65 years of age, showing safety and immunogenicity profiles consistent with those seen in the overall study population.

The Japanese 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine randomized clinical trial: Further reflections on the design and results.

The recent article by Gessner et al. discussed several concerns regarding the design and results of the clinical trial by Maruyama et al. in 2010 on the vaccine efficacy (VE) of 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine. First, Gessner et al. questioned the integrity of the study randomization and blinding. Maruyama et al. have indicated that study participants were individually randomized and blinding was maintained throughout the study. Second, Gessner et al. questioned the internal validity of the trial results. Gessner et al. applied the reported VE against pneumococcal pneumonia and assumptions to estimate how much all-cause pneumonia could be prevented resulting in a "VE" estimate of 19.5%. This estimate does not truly qualify as a VE estimate, but as vaccine effectiveness estimate from a hypothetical cohort. The randomized, placebo-controlled trial conducted by Maruyama et al. met the methodological standards for a randomized control trial and its results are unquestionably valid.