Immunogenicity and safety of booster CYD-TDV dengue vaccine after alternative primary vaccination schedules in healthy individuals aged 9-50 years: a randomised, controlled, phase 2, non-inferiority study.

BACKGROUND: Dengue is endemic in many countries throughout the tropics and subtropics, and the disease causes substantial morbidity and health-care burdens in these regions. We previously compared antibody responses after one-dose, two-dose, or three-dose primary regimens with the only approved dengue vaccine CYD-TDV (Dengvaxia; Sanofi Pasteur, Lyon, France) in individuals aged 9 years and older with previous dengue exposure. In this study, we assessed the need for a CYD-TDV booster after these primary vaccination regimens. METHODS: In this randomised, controlled, phase 2, non-inferiority study, healthy individuals aged 9-50 years recruited from three sites in Colombia and three sites in the Philippines (excluding those with the usual contraindications to vaccinations) were randomly assigned 1:1:1 via a permuted block method with stratification by site and by age group using an independent voice response system to receive, at 6-month intervals, three doses of CYD-TDV (three-dose group), one dose of placebo followed by two doses of CYD-TDV (two-dose group), or two doses of placebo followed by one dose of CYD-TDV (one-dose group). Participants were also randomly assigned (1:1) to receive a CYD-TDV booster at 1 year or 2 years after the last primary dose. Each CYD-TDV dose was 0·5 mL and administered subcutaneously in the deltoid region of the upper arm. The investigators and sponsor, study staff interacting with the investigators, and participants and their parents or legally acceptable representatives were masked to group assignment. Neutralising antibodies were measured by 50% plaque reduction neutralisation testing, and geometric mean titres (GMTs) were calculated. Due to a change in study protocol, only participants who were dengue seropositive at baseline in the Colombian cohort received a booster vaccination. The primary outcome was to show non-inferiority of the booster dose administered at 1 year or 2 years after the two-dose and three-dose primary regimens; non-inferiority was shown if the lower limit of the two-sided adjusted 95% CI of the between-group (day 28 post-booster dose GMT from the three-dose or two-dose group vs day 28 GMT post-dose three of the three-dose primary regimen [three-dose group]) geometric mean ratio (GMR) was higher than 0·5 for each serotype. Non-inferiority of the 1-year or 2-year booster was shown if all four serotypes achieved non-inferiority. Safety was assessed among all participants who received the booster. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02628444, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between May 2 and Sept 16, 2016, we recruited and enrolled 1050 individuals who received either vaccine or placebo. Of the 350, 348, and 352 individuals randomly assigned to three-dose, two-dose, and one-dose groups, respectively, 108, 115, and 115 from the Colombian cohort were dengue seropositive at baseline and received a booster; 55 and 53 in the three-dose group received a booster after 1 year and 2 years, respectively, as did 59 and 56 in the two-dose group, and 62 and 53 in the one-dose group. After the three-dose primary schedule, non-inferiority was shown for serotypes 2 (GMR 0·746; 95% CI 0·550-1·010) and 3 (1·040; 0·686-1·570) but not serotypes 1 (0·567; 0·399-0·805) and 4 (0·647; 0·434-0·963) for the 1-year booster, and again for serotypes 2 (0·871; 0·673-1·130) and 3 (1·150; 0·887-1·490) but not serotypes 1 (0·688; 0·479-0·989) and 4 (0·655; 0·471-0·911) for the 2-year booster. Similarly, after the two-dose primary schedule, non-inferiority was shown for serotypes 2 (0·809; 0·505-1·300) and 3 (1·19; 0·732-1·940) but not serotypes 1 (0·627; 0·342-1·150) and 4 (0·499; 0·331-0·754) for the 1-year booster, and for serotype 3 (0·911; 0·573-1·450) but not serotypes 1 (0·889; 0·462-1·710), 2 (0·677; 0·402-1·140), and 4 (0·702; 0·447-1·100) for the 2-year booster. Thus, non-inferiority of the 1-year or 2-year booster was not shown after the three-dose or two-dose primary vaccination regimen in dengue-seropositive participants. No safety concerns occurred with the 1-year or 2-year CYD-TDV booster. INTERPRETATION: CYD-TDV booster 1 year or 2 years after the two-dose or three-dose primary vaccination regimen does not elicit a consistent, meaningful booster effect against all dengue serotypes in participants who are seropositive for dengue at baseline. FUNDING: Sanofi Pasteur. TRANSLATION: For the Spanish translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Immunogenicity and safety of simplified vaccination schedules for the CYD-TDV dengue vaccine in healthy individuals aged 9-50 years (CYD65): a randomised, controlled, phase 2, non-inferiority study.

BACKGROUND: Three doses of the licensed tetravalent dengue vaccine CYD-TDV (Dengvaxia, Sanofi Pasteur, Lyon France) are immunogenic and effective against symptomatic dengue in individuals aged 9 years and older who are dengue seropositive. Previous trials have provided some evidence that antibody responses elicited after just one dose or two doses of CYD-TDV might be similar to those elicited after three doses. We compared antibody responses following one-dose, two-dose, and three-dose vaccination regimens in individuals who were dengue seropositive at baseline up to 1 year after the last injection. METHODS: In this randomised, controlled, phase 2, non-inferiority study (CYD65), healthy individuals aged 9-50 years were recruited from the community in three sites in Colombia and three sites in the Philippines. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1), using a permuted block method with stratification by site and age group, to receive, at 6-month intervals (on day 0, month 6, and month 12), three doses of CYD-TDV (three-dose group), one dose of placebo (on day 0) and two doses of CYD-TDV (at months 6 and 12; two-dose group), or two doses of placebo (on day 0 and month 6) and one dose of CYD-TDV (at month 12; one-dose group). Each dose of CYD-TDV was 0·5 mL, administered subcutaneously into the deltoid of the upper arm. Participants, study staff, investigators, and the funder were masked to group assignment. The co-primary endpoints were geometric mean titres (GMTs) of neutralising antibodies against each dengue virus serotype at 28 days and 1 year after the last vaccine injection. After a protocol amendment during the conduct of the study, the original co-primary objectives of non-inferiority of the one-dose and two-dose groups to the three-dose group were altered to include non-inferiority of the two-dose group to the three-dose group only, to be assessed in individuals who were dengue seropositive at baseline. Non-inferiority was shown if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs (GMR) at 28 days and 1 year between groups was more than 0·5 for each serotype. The analysis of the coprimary objectives was done in the per-protocol analysis dataset, which included all participants who had been vaccinated, had no protocol deviations, and had a valid serology test result for at least one dengue serotype at 28 days after the third injection. Safety was assessed throughout in all participants who received at least one injection of study drug, regardless of serostatus. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02628444, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between May 2, 2016, and Sept 16, 2016, we recruited and enrolled 1050 individuals, of whom 1048 received at least one injection and 993 had at least one blood sample taken (full-analysis dataset; 333 in three-dose group, 328 in two-dose group, and 332 in one-dose group). 860 (86·6%) of 993 participants in the full-analysis dataset were dengue seropositive at baseline. Non-inferiority (two dose vs three dose) was shown for each serotype at both 28 days and 1 year among dengue-seropositive participants (number of participants assessed: 272 [two-dose group], 265 [three-dose group] at 28 days; and 190 [two-dose group], 185 [three-dose group] at 1 year). At 28 days after the last injection, neutralising antibody GMTs were 899 (95% CI 752-1075) in the two-dose group versus 822 (700-964) in the three dose group against dengue serotype 1 (GMR 1·09 [95% CI 0·86-1·39]); 869 (754-1002) versus 875 (770-995) against serotype 2 (GMR 0·99 [0·82-1·20]); 599 (524-685) versus 610 (535-694) against serotype 3 (GMR 0·98 [0·82-1·18]); and 510 (453-575) versus 531 (470-601) against serotype 4 (GMR 0·96 [0·81-1·14]). At year 1, GMTs had decreased but remained above baseline for all serotypes: 504 (95% CI 403-630) in the two-dose group versus 490 (398-604) in the three-dose group against serotype 1 (GMR 1·03 [0·76-1·40]); 737 (611-888) versus 821 (704-957) against serotype 2 (GMR 0·90 [0·71-1·14]); 437 (368-519) versus 477 (405-561) against serotype 3 (GMR 0·92 [0·72-1·16]); and 238 (205-277) versus 270 (235-310) against serotype 4 (GMR 0·88 [0·72-1·09]). Reactogenicity profiles were similar across treatment groups. Most unsolicited adverse events after any injection were non-serious and systemic in nature. During the study, 60 serious adverse events were reported in 58 participants (14 in three-dose group, 26 in two-dose group, 18 in one-dose group), mostly infection and infestations or injury, poisoning, and procedural complications. No serious adverse events of special interest or admissions to hospital for dengue occurred. Two deaths occurred, unrelated to study treatment. INTERPRETATION: A two-dose CYD-TDV regimen might be an alternative to the licensed three-dose regimen in individuals who are dengue seropositive at baseline and aged 9 years and older. Vaccination with a reduced number of doses could lead to improved vaccine compliance and coverage, especially in low-resource settings. FUNDING: Sanofi Pasteur.

Discrepancia entre los diagnósticos clínicos y por autopsia en un hospital pediátrico de tercer nivel / Discrepancy between clinical diagnoses versus autopsy findings in a third-level pediatric hospital

Introducción. La utilidad de la autopsia ha sido reconocida ampliamente para fines de educación médica y en la evaluación de la calidad diagnóstica y terapéutica. Desde 1972 hasta 2002, no se ha demostrado un descenso en el número de discrepancias entre los diagnósticos clínicos y de autopsia. El presente estudio permite determinar la concordancia entre los diagnósticos clínicos y de autopsia en una institución pediátrica de tercer nivel, como una herramienta para mejorar la calidad de atención médica. Los objetivos fueron: 1. Obtener el porcentaje de discordancia entre los diagnósticos clínicos y por autopsia en el Hospital Infantil de México Federico Gómez en el período de un año. 2. Determinar, de acuerdo a la clasificación de Goldman modificada por Battle, cuáles son las discrepancias más frecuentes. 3. Calcular la posible asociación entre número de ingresos, tiempo de hospitalización, edad del médico tratante y edad del paciente con el grado de discordancia entre los diagnósticos. Material y métodos. Se efectuó un estudio retrospectivo, observacional, comparativo y transversal. Se analizaron todos los casos de autopsia atendidos entre el 1 de enero y el 31 de diciembre de 2004. Las variables estudiadas fueron: edad, género, número de ingresos y su duración, principal servicio tratante, tipo de autopsia, diagnóstico clínico principal, probable causa de muerte clínica y por autopsia. Resultados. En 2004 se registraron 209 defunciones, con 62 autopsias (29.7%). Hubo discrepancia en 15 casos (24.6%), y de acuerdo a los criterios de Goldman modificados por Battle, se encontró error clase I en 5 casos (8.2%) y clase II en 4 casos (6.6%). No hubo diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre los tipos de error cuando se compararon los pacientes por grupo de edad, duración de la hospitalización, número de ingresos y edad del médico tratante. Conclusión. El mayor número de discrepancias entre diagnósticos clínicos y por autopsia se observó en casos con enfermedades infecciosas. Esta discordancia es similar a la reportada en otros sitios del mundo.

Introduction. The autopsy has been recognized as a useful tool for medical education and for quality improvement, evaluating therapeutic and diagnostic measures. In the last 50 years, the autopsy rates have constantly declined. Interestingly, between 1972 and 2002, the discrepancies between clinical diagnoses and autopsy findings haven't diminished, even with all the technological improvements now available. This research enables us to determine the discrepancy rate between our clinical diagnosis and autopsy results, as well as the main diseases that need diagnostic or therapeutic improvements in our hospital. Our objectives were: 1. To obtain the discrepancy rate between clinical diagnoses and autopsy findings. 2. To determine the most frequent type of discrepancy, according with the Goldman criteria, modified by Battle, and 3. To evaluate the possible association of these discrepancies with the number of admissions, length of stay, patient's age and physician's age. Material and methods. A retrospective, observational, comparative and transversal study. Sample: all cases that had an autopsy between January 1st and December 31th 2004. Cases with an incomplete record were excluded. The main variables analyzed were: age, gender, number of admissions and their length of stay, main clinical service, type of autopsy, main clinical and autopsy diagnoses and probable cause of death. Results. In the year 2004 there were 209 deaths registered with 62 autopsies (29.7% rate). We found a discrepancy in the main clinical diagnosis in 15 cases (24.6%); and, according with the Goldman criteria, modified by Battle, we found a class I discrepancy in 5 cases (8.2%) and a class II discrepancy in 4 cases (6.6%). We didn't find significant statistical differences in patients older than a year compared with patients less than 1 year old. There were no significant differences regarding the number of admissions and their length of stay, or variations the artendiag with the attending physician's age. Conclusions. Our main discrepancies were in infectious diseases, similar to other studies. Our discrepancy numbers are similar to others reported in the world. It is important to analyze these cases with the physicians involved, and together learn from our mistakes, working to improve diagnostic and therapeutic measures, and overall, quality of care.

Miositis osificante progresiva con buena respuesta a tratamiento con esteroide intravenoso / Progressive myositis ossificans with good response to intravenous steroid treatment

Introducción. La miositis osificante progresiva es una causa rara de miositis en la infancia, se trata de una alteración que se hereda de forma autosómica dominante, caracterizada por inflamación muscular seguida de fibrosis y calcificación. Material y métodos. Dos pacientes con diagnóstico de miositis osificante cuyas manifestaciones fueron: acortamiento de pulgares y primeros ortejos, así como endurecimiento de tejidos blandos y calcificaciones en cuello y tórax. Recibieron tratamiento convencional con difosfonatos e isotretinoína, con pobre respuesta. Se decidió el empleo de metilprednisolona, se aplicaron tres dosis iniciales a 30 mg por kg de peso por dosis por vía intravenosa, y posteriormente cada mes. Resultados. Los pacientes presentaron mejoría clínica tanto en la clase funcional como en la sintomatología, la cual se ha mantenido a largo plazo. Conclusión. Se propone como alternativa de tratamiento la utilización de metilprednisolona por sus efectos inmunosupresores y antiinflamatorios, sobre todo en aquellos pacientes que no han tenido respuesta al manejo farmacológico convencional.

Introduction. Progressive myositis ossificans is a rare cause of myositis in childhood, is an autosomal dominant inflammatory disorder that results in swelling of muscle followed by fibrosis and calcification. Material and methods. We present 2 cases in which, the main clinical manifestations were congenitally short great toes and thumbs; and hardening of the soft tissues; in both cases calcifications of the neck and the thorax were demonstrated by roentgenograms. The 2 patients received conventional management with diphosphonates and isotretinoine, with poor response to these therapies; because of this we decided to use 3 initial doses of intravenous methylprednisolone (30 mg/kg/doses), and after that, we continued the treatment with monthly applications of methylprednisolone. Results. With this therapy our patients improved; and this was evidenciated by diminishing of calcifications and by improvement in their functional status. Conclusion. In this paper we propose an alternative pharmacological therapy with intravenous methylprednisolone, looking for its antiinflammatory and immunosuppressive effects of steroids; mainly in patients with poor response to conventional treatments.