Immunogenicity and safety of BPZE1, an intranasal live attenuated pertussis vaccine, versus tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis vaccine: a randomised, double-blind, phase 2b trial.

BACKGROUND: Bordetella pertussis epidemics persist as transmission remains unabated despite high acellular pertussis vaccination rates. BPZE1, a live attenuated intranasal pertussis vaccine, was designed to prevent B pertussis infection and disease. We aimed to assess the immunogenicity and safety of BPZE1 compared with the tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis vaccine (Tdap). METHODS: In this double-blind, phase 2b trial at three research centres in the USA, healthy adults aged 18-50 years were randomly assigned (2:2:1:1) via a permuted block randomisation schedule to receive BPZE1 vaccination followed by BPZE1 attenuated challenge, BPZE1 vaccination followed by placebo challenge, Tdap followed by BPZE1 attenuated challenge, or Tdap followed by placebo challenge. On day 1, lyophilised BPZE1 was reconstituted with sterile water and given intranasally (0·4 mL delivered to each nostril), whereas Tdap was given intramuscularly. To maintain masking, participants in the BPZE1 groups received an intramuscular saline injection, and those in the Tdap groups received intranasal lyophilised placebo buffer. The attenuated challenge took place on day 85. The primary immunogenicity endpoint was the proportion of participants achieving nasal secretory IgA seroconversion against at least one B pertussis antigen on day 29 or day 113. Reactogenicity was assessed up to 7 days after vaccination and challenge, and adverse events were recorded for 28 days after vaccination and challenge. Serious adverse events were monitored throughout the study. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03942406. FINDINGS: Between June 17 and Oct 3, 2019, 458 participants were screened and 280 were randomly assigned to the main cohort: 92 to the BPZE1-BPZE1 group, 92 to the BPZE1-placebo group, 46 to the Tdap-BPZE1 group, and 50 to the Tdap-placebo group. Seroconversion of at least one B pertussis-specific nasal secretory IgA was recorded in 79 (94% [95% CI 87-98]) of 84 participants in the BPZE1-BPZE1 group, 89 (95% [88-98]) of 94 in the BPZE1-placebo group, 38 (90% [77-97]) of 42 in the Tdap-BPZE1 group, and 42 (93% [82-99]) of 45 in the Tdap-placebo group. BPZE1 induced broad and consistent B pertussis-specific mucosal secretory IgA responses, whereas Tdap did not induce consistent mucosal secretory IgA responses. Both vaccines were well tolerated, with mild reactogenicity and no serious adverse events related to study vaccination. INTERPRETATION: BPZE1 induced nasal mucosal immunity and produced functional serum responses. BPZE1 has the potential to avert B pertussis infections, which ultimately could lead to reduced transmission and diminished epidemic cycles. These results should be confirmed in large phase 3 trials. FUNDING: ILiAD Biotechnologies.

Comparison of the safety and immunogenicity of a novel Matrix-M-adjuvanted nanoparticle influenza vaccine with a quadrivalent seasonal influenza vaccine in older adults: a phase 3 randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Improved seasonal influenza vaccines for older adults that can induce broadly cross-reactive antibodies and enhanced T-cell responses, particularly against A H3N2 viruses, while avoiding egg-adaptive antigenic changes, are needed. We aimed to show that the Matrix-M-adjuvanted quadrivalent nanoparticle influenza vaccine (qNIV) was immunologically non-inferior to a licensed, standard-dose quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV4) in older adults. METHODS: This was a phase 3 randomised, observer-blinded, active-comparator controlled trial done across 19 US community-based clinical research sites during the 2019-20 influenza season. Participants were clinically stable and community-dwelling, aged at least 65 years, and were randomised in a 1:1 ratio using an interactive web response system to receive a single intramuscular dose of qNIV or IIV4. The primary objective was to describe safety and show that qNIV was immunologically non-inferior to IIV4. The primary outcomes were adverse events by treatment group and comparative haemagglutination-inhibiting antibody responses (assayed with egg-propagated virus) on day 28, summarised in terms of the ratio of geometric mean titres (GMTRqNIV/IIV4) and seroconversion rate (SCR) difference between participants receiving qNIV or IIV4 for all four vaccine homologous influenza strains. The immunogenicity outcome was measured in the per-protocol population. Non-inferiority was shown if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the GMTRqNIV/IIV4 was at least 0·67 and the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the SCR difference -was at least -10%. The study is registered with clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04120194, and is active and not recruiting. FINDINGS: 2742 adults were assessed for eligibility and 2654 were enrolled and randomised between Oct 14, 2019, and Oct 25, 2019; 1333 participants were randomised to the qNIV group and 1319 to the IIV4 group (two participants withdrew consent before being assigned to a group). qNIV showed immunological non-inferiority to IIV4: GMTRqNIV/IIV4 for the four vaccine homologous influenza strains was A/Brisbane 1·09 (95% CI 1·03 to 1·15), A/Kansas 1·19 (1·11 to 1·27), B/Maryland 1·03 (0·99 to 1·07), and B/Phuket 1·23 (1·16 to 1·29); and SCR difference was A/Brisbane 5·0 (95% CI 1·9 to 8·1), A/Kansas 7·3 (3·6 to 11·1), B/Maryland 0·5 (-1·9 to 2·9), and B/Phuket 8·5 (5·0 to 11·9). 659 (49·4%) of 1333 of participants in the qNIV group and 551 (41·8%) of 1319 participants in the IIV4 group had at least one treatment-emergent adverse event. More solicited adverse events were reported by participants in the qNIV group (551 [41·3%] of 1333) than in the IIV4 group (420 [31·8%] of 1319), and were comprised primarily of mild to moderate transient injection site pain (341 [25·6%] in the qNIV group vs 212 [16·1%] in the IIV4 group). INTERPRETATION: qNIV was well tolerated and produced qualitatively and quantitatively enhanced humoral and cellular immune response in older adults compared with IIV4. qNIV might enhance the effectiveness of seasonal influenza vaccination, and future studies to show clinical efficacy are planned. FUNDING: Novavax.

Phase 1-2 Trial of a SARS-CoV-2 Recombinant Spike Protein Nanoparticle Vaccine.

BACKGROUND: NVX-CoV2373 is a recombinant severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (rSARS-CoV-2) nanoparticle vaccine composed of trimeric full-length SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoproteins and Matrix-M1 adjuvant. METHODS: We initiated a randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 1-2 trial to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of the rSARS-CoV-2 vaccine (in 5-µg and 25-µg doses, with or without Matrix-M1 adjuvant, and with observers unaware of trial-group assignments) in 131 healthy adults. In phase 1, vaccination comprised two intramuscular injections, 21 days apart. The primary outcomes were reactogenicity; laboratory values (serum chemistry and hematology), according to Food and Drug Administration toxicity scoring, to assess safety; and IgG anti-spike protein response (in enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay [ELISA] units). Secondary outcomes included unsolicited adverse events, wild-type virus neutralization (microneutralization assay), and T-cell responses (cytokine staining). IgG and microneutralization assay results were compared with 32 (IgG) and 29 (neutralization) convalescent serum samples from patients with Covid-19, most of whom were symptomatic. We performed a primary analysis at day 35. RESULTS: After randomization, 83 participants were assigned to receive the vaccine with adjuvant and 25 without adjuvant, and 23 participants were assigned to receive placebo. No serious adverse events were noted. Reactogenicity was absent or mild in the majority of participants, more common with adjuvant, and of short duration (mean, ≤2 days). One participant had mild fever that lasted 1 day. Unsolicited adverse events were mild in most participants; there were no severe adverse events. The addition of adjuvant resulted in enhanced immune responses, was antigen dose-sparing, and induced a T helper 1 (Th1) response. The two-dose 5-µg adjuvanted regimen induced geometric mean anti-spike IgG (63,160 ELISA units) and neutralization (3906) responses that exceeded geometric mean responses in convalescent serum from mostly symptomatic Covid-19 patients (8344 and 983, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: At 35 days, NVX-CoV2373 appeared to be safe, and it elicited immune responses that exceeded levels in Covid-19 convalescent serum. The Matrix-M1 adjuvant induced CD4+ T-cell responses that were biased toward a Th1 phenotype. (Funded by the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04368988).

A Phase 1 Randomized, Placebo-controlled, Observer-blinded Trial to Evaluate the Safety and Immunogenicity of Inactivated Streptococcus pneumoniae Whole-cell Vaccine in Adults.

BACKGROUND: Broadly protective pneumococcal vaccines that are affordable for low-resource countries are needed. Streptococcus pneumoniae whole cell vaccine (wSp) is an investigational vaccine that contains killed cells from a nonencapsulated strain of S. pneumoniae (SPn) with aluminum hydroxide adjuvant. Studies in mice demonstrated protection against nasopharyngeal carriage (T-cell-mediated) and invasive pneumococcal disease (antibody-mediated). The aim of this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 1 study was to assess safety, tolerability and immunogenicity of wSp in healthy adults. METHODS: Forty-two participants were randomized into 3 dose cohorts to receive 0.1, 0.3, or 0.6 mg of wSp or saline intramuscularly. Participants received a 3-dose vaccination schedule spaced by 4-week intervals. Postvaccination assessments included solicited reactogenicity events through day 7, blood chemistry and hematology assessments at day 7, and adverse events (AEs) through day 84. Participants were monitored for serum antibody and peripheral blood mononuclear cell cytokine responses to pneumococcal antigens. A 6-month telephone follow-up was completed to assess for any additional AEs. RESULTS: wSp was safe and well tolerated. Reactogenicity was acceptable and no untoward safety signals were observed. wSp elicited potentially clinically significant rises (defined arbitrarily as at least a 2-fold rise) in immunoglobulin G responses to multiple pneumococcal antigens, including pneumococcal surface protein A and pneumolysin. Functional antibody responses were observed with the highest dose of wSp (0.6 mg). Increases in T-cell cytokine responses, including interleukin 17A, were also seen among wSp vaccines. CONCLUSIONS: wSp was safe and well tolerated in healthy US adults, eliciting pneumococcal antigen-specific antibody and T-cell cytokine responses.

Advances in RSV vaccine research and development - A global agenda.

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is an important cause of viral lower respiratory tract illness in infants and children globally, but no vaccine is currently available to protect these vulnerable populations. Live-attenuated vaccine approaches have been in development for decades, but achieving the appropriate balance between immunogenicity and safety has proven difficult. Immunoprophylaxis with the neutralizing monoclonal antibody palivizumab is limited to high-risk infants, but cost requirements for multiple dosing make its use impractical in low- and middle-income countries. A growing number of RSV vaccine candidates using a variety of technologies and targeting diverse populations has emerged in recent years. There are now 60 RSV vaccine candidates in development that target pediatric and elderly populations. While most are at a preclinical stage, 16 candidates are in clinical development. This review summarizes current RSV vaccine research and development, including an overview of the vaccine platforms being used, the development stage of individual vaccine candidates, and gaps to be addressed to facilitate use of these vaccines to meet global health needs.

Carotid artery intima-media thickness after raloxifene treatment.

BACKGROUND: Raloxifene, a selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM), decreases total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in postmenopausal women and inhibits increases in intima-media thickness (IMT) in animal models. We tested whether up to 8 years exposure to raloxifene had an effect on subclinical atherosclerosis in the 4-year Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation (MORE) trial and the follow-up study, the 4-year Continuing Outcomes Relevant to Evista (CORE) trial. METHODS: A subsample of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, who had completed the MORE and CORE trials and were on average 68 years of age and 19 years postmenopausal at randomization into MORE, participated in this substudy. Within 6 months of cessation of study drug in CORE, right common carotid artery IMT (CIMT) and carotid artery stiffness and arterial compliance were measured at one of two sites (San Diego and San Francisco) using high-resolution B-mode ultrasound. CIMT and arterial stiffness measures were compared between women who had received raloxifene vs. placebo; the primary analysis included only women who were >or=80% drug compliant and had used

Effects of raloxifene on lipid and lipoprotein levels in postmenopausal osteoporotic women with and without hypertriglyceridemia.

This post hoc analysis reports the effects of raloxifene on lipids and lipoproteins in 2659 women with either normal (< or =150 mg/dL) or high (>150 mg/dL) triglyceride levels from a substudy of the Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation (MORE) trial. In both triglyceride subgroups, raloxifene significantly improved low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, total cholesterol, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), apolipoprotein B, apolipoprotein A-I, and fibrinogen compared with placebo (P < .05). After raloxifene treatment, women with high triglycerides experienced an equal or more robust reduction in cholesterol, lipoprotein parameters, and ratios of total cholesterol to HDL-C and non-HDL-C to HDL-C than was observed in women with normal triglycerides (P < .05). Mean levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and apolipoprotein B were reduced by 16.5% and 15.8%, respectively, in women with high triglycerides, and by 12.7% and 11.3%, respectively, in women with normal triglycerides. These findings further substantiate that raloxifene improves concentrations of both cholesterol and beta-lipoprotein. The subgroup of women with high triglycerides, who have elevated cardiovascular risk, appear to derive at least equal, if not greater, overall effect on lipid and lipoprotein lowering with raloxifene.

Safety assessment of raloxifene over eight years in a clinical trial setting.

OBJECTIVE: Osteoporosis is a chronic disorder that warrants long-term therapy. If benefits are to outweigh risks, the long-term safety profiles of these therapies must be favorable. The aim of this study was to assess the safety of raloxifene over 8 years in 4011 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis in a clinical trial setting through adverse event reporting. METHODS: Data analyzed comprised all reported adverse events collected at each visit of both the Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation (MORE) trial, and the subsequent Continuing Outcomes Relevant to Evista (CORE) trial. MORE was an international, 4-year double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study, designed to assess the effect of raloxifene on bone mineral density and vertebral fracture incidence in 7705 (placebo, 2576; raloxifene, 5129) postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Breast cancer was a secondary endpoint. Based on the breast cancer findings of MORE, the CORE trial, a 4-year double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of a subset of MORE participants, was subsequently conducted. CORE enrolled 4011 (placebo, 1286; raloxifene, 2725) participants and was designed to examine raloxifene's effect on breast cancer incidence. Safety analyses were performed using the intention-to-treat principle, and comparison between therapies was analyzed using a two-sided Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Over the 8 years of follow-up of 4011 women, there was no difference in all-cause mortality or hospitalization incidence between raloxifene and placebo groups (p > 0.1). Excluding breast cancer and non-melanoma skin cancer, cancer incidence was 4.6% and 6.3% in the raloxifene and placebo group, respectively (p = 0.027). Raloxifene was associated with a 1.7-fold increase in venous thromboembolism incidence (95% confidence interval 0.93-3.14), with an absolute risk difference of 0.9 per 1000 woman-years. There was no difference in the incidence of myocardial infarction, stroke, uterine cancer, endometrial hyperplasia, ovarian cancer or postmenopausal bleeding between the raloxifene and placebo treatment groups (p > 0.5). Uterine polyps, hot flushes and muscle cramps were more common in those receiving raloxifene versus placebo (p = 0.028, p < 0.001, and p = 0.008, respectively). CONCLUSION: These 8-year data support the known clinical safety profile of raloxifene, established in the MORE trial.

Effects of raloxifene and low-dose simvastatin coadministration on plasma lipids in postmenopausal women with primary hypercholesterolemia.

Abstract Raloxifene and low-dose simvastatin can each reduce low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol without affecting high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and triglycerides. The objective of this double-blind, 12-week study is to determine whether raloxifene and simvastatin coadministration gives added benefit beyond either monotherapy in affecting fasting lipoproteins and apolipoproteins. Ninety-five postmenopausal women with moderately elevated LDL cholesterol (mean, 146 mg/dL) were randomized to placebo, raloxifene 60 mg/d, simvastatin 10 mg/d, or raloxifene 60 mg/d coadministered with simvastatin 10 mg/d. Raloxifene, simvastatin, and coadministration therapy reduced mean LDL cholesterol by 10.5%, 23.3%, and 31.0% from baseline, respectively ( P < .003 vs baseline; P < .02 vs placebo), and mean apolipoprotein B by 10.4%, 24.2%, and 30.0% from baseline, respectively ( P < .003 vs baseline; P < .02 vs placebo). Each active treatment decreased non-HDL cholesterol compared with placebo ( P < .01). Coadministration treatment was more effective than either monotherapy in reducing LDL cholesterol ( P < .05). Coadministration treatment reduced mean apolipoprotein B ( P < .001) and non-HDL cholesterol ( P < .001) when compared with raloxifene, but was not significantly different when compared with simvastatin. Coadministration therapy increased HDL cholesterol and apolipoprotein A1 levels compared with placebo ( P < .02). No significant effect on triglycerides, very low density lipoprotein cholesterol, and lipoprotein (a) occurred with any active treatment. Raloxifene, simvastatin, and the coadministration therapy were generally well tolerated with clinical adverse effects similar to placebo. No woman had clinically significant elevated liver function tests requiring drug discontinuation. Further data on safety and lipid-lowering effects are needed before raloxifene and statin coadministration may be considered as therapeutic interventions for treating postmenopausal women to achieve National Cholesterol Education Program-Adult Treatment Panel III treatment guidelines.

Vascular events in the Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation (MORE) trial: incidence, patient characteristics, and effect of raloxifene.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the incidence of arterial and venous thromboembolic (VTE) events, to determine the effect of raloxifene on the incidence of combined vascular (arterial and VTE) events, and to identify patient characteristics associated with these vascular events, in women participating in the MORE trial. DESIGN: In a post hoc analysis using MORE data, arterial, VTE, and combined vascular event rates were compared between participants receiving placebo (n = 2,576) and those receiving 60 mg/d of raloxifene (n = 2,557). Baseline characteristics were compared between those who did and did not experience an arterial event. The same analysis was performed for VTE events. RESULTS: Overall, during a mean follow-up time of 41 months, 178 women experienced an arterial event and 40 experienced a VTE event. In the placebo group, the incidence of arterial events exceeded VTE events by at least sevenfold. Raloxifene had no significant effect on the incidence of combined vascular events in the overall cohort (hazard ratio 0.95, 95% CI, 0.73-1.24). In a subset of women retrospectively determined to be at increased cardiovascular risk, raloxifene was associated with a lower incidence of combined vascular events (hazard ratio 0.63, 95% CI, 0.40-0.97). Baseline characteristics differed between those who did and those who did not experience an arterial event, but this was generally not the case for VTE events. CONCLUSIONS: Arterial events were more common than VTE events. The characteristics of women experiencing an arterial event differed from those experiencing a VTE event. Raloxifene had a neutral effect on the risk of combined vascular events in the overall population, and was associated with a reduced combined vascular event rate in women at increased cardiovascular risk. Additional studies are needed to confirm the effect of raloxifene on overall vascular outcomes.

Year-by-year analysis of cardiovascular events in the Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation (MORE) trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of raloxifene 60 mg/day (RLX) on year-by-year cardiovascular (CV) events in postmenopausal women participating in the Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation (MORE) trial, a double-blind, placebo-controlled osteoporosis treatment trial. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Post hoc analysis, using data from participants receiving placebo (N = 2576) or RLX 60 mg/day (N = 2557) in MORE, was performed to determine the relative risk (RR, 95% CI) of CV events in each individual trial year. Analyses were performed for the overall cohort and for women in high and low risk subsets. Women were retrospectively assessed as high CV risk using established criteria and the remaining women were considered low CV risk. RESULTS: The incidence of CV events did not differ between the RLX and placebo groups in the overall cohort (RR 0.86, 95% Cl 0.64-1.15), or the low CV risk subset (RR 1.01, 95% Cl 0.70-1.46). In the high-risk subset, the incidence of CV events was less in the RLX group (RR 0.60, 95% Cl 0.38-0.95). There was no significant increase in CV risk during any single year in the RLX group for either the overall cohort or the low or high CV risk subsets. CONCLUSION: In this post hoc analysis, the risk of CV events was not increased in any single year of MORE in women taking RLX, either in the overall cohort or in the low and high CV risk subsets.