Immunogenicity and safety following one dose of AS01E-adjuvanted respiratory syncytial virus prefusion F protein vaccine in older adults: a phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The recently approved AS01E-adjuvanted respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) prefusion F protein-based vaccine (RSVPreF3 OA) demonstrated high efficacy against RSV-related disease in ≥60-year-olds. METHODS: This ongoing phase 3 study in ≥60-year-olds evaluates the immune persistence until three years post-RSVPreF3 OA vaccination. Here, we describe interim results on humoral and cell-mediated immunogenicity, reactogenicity, and safety until one year post-dose 1. RESULTS: In total, 1653 participants were vaccinated. One month post-dose 1, neutralization titers increased 10.5-fold (RSV-A) and 7.8-fold (RSV-B) versus pre-dose 1. Titers then declined to levels 4.4-fold (RSV-A) and 3.5-fold (RSV-B) above pre-dose 1 at month 6, and remained 3.1-fold (RSV-A) and 2.3-fold (RSV-B) above pre-dose 1 levels after one year. RSVPreF3-binding immunoglobulin G levels and CD4+ T-cell frequencies showed similar kinetics. Solicited administration-site and systemic adverse events (mostly mild to moderate and transient) were reported by 62.2% and 49.5% of participants. Serious adverse events were reported by 3.9% of participants within 6 months post-dose 1; one case was considered vaccine-related. CONCLUSIONS: One RSVPreF3 OA dose elicited cell-mediated and RSV-A and RSV-B-specific humoral immune responses that declined over time but remained above pre-dose 1 levels for at least one year. The vaccine was well tolerated with an acceptable safety profile.Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04732871.

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a major cause of illness and hospitalization in older adults. An RSV vaccine for older adults developed by GSK was recently approved. The vaccine was well tolerated and provided protection against RSV disease in adults aged 60 years and older during at least one RSV season. In this ongoing study, we are evaluating the magnitude and durability of the immune response, as well as vaccine safety, until three years after vaccination of adults aged 60 years and older from five countries. Here, we report the results of an interim analysis until one year after vaccination with one dose. In total, 1653 participants were vaccinated. We found that the vaccine induced a strong immune response that was evident one month after vaccination, after which it declined, but persisted for at least one year. Study participants most often reported pain at the injection site, muscle pain, tiredness, and headache as adverse reactions, which were mostly mild to moderate and of short duration. One serious adverse reaction was considered related to the vaccine. The long-term immune response that was observed in this study is consistent with the vaccine providing protection during at least one RSV season.

Safety and immunogenicity of a respiratory syncytial virus prefusion F protein (RSVPreF3) candidate vaccine in older Japanese adults: A phase I, randomized, observer-blind clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) causes lower respiratory tract infection, with a high burden of disease among adults ≥60 years. This study assessed the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of an investigational adjuvanted RSV vaccine (RSVPreF3/AS01B) in Japanese adults aged 60-80 years. METHODS: Forty participants were randomized to receive two doses of RSVPreF3/AS01B or the placebo, in a 1:1 ratio, two months apart, in this placebo-controlled study. Solicited administration-site and systemic adverse events (AEs) were collected within 7 days and unsolicited AEs within 30 days post-vaccination. Serious AEs (SAEs) and potential immune-mediated diseases (pIMDs) were collected throughout the study (12 months post-dose 2). RSVPreF3-specific immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody concentrations and neutralizing antibody (nAb) titers against RSV-A were evaluated on day (D)1, D31, D61, D91 and those against RSV-B on D1, D31, D91. RESULTS: Solicited AEs were reported more frequently in RSVPreF3/AS01B recipients (80.0%-90.0%) than in placebo recipients (10.0%-20.0%). Two RSVPreF3/AS01B recipients experienced grade 3 solicited AEs. Rate of unsolicited AEs were similar (30.0%-35.0%) in both groups. No RSVPreF3/AS01B recipient reported SAEs/pIMDs, while one placebo recipient reported two SAEs that were unrelated to vaccination. Baseline RSVPreF3-specific IgG and RSV-A/-B nAb levels were above the assay cut-off values. In the RSVPreF3/AS01B group, RSVPreF3-specific IgG concentrations increased 12.8-fold on D31 and 9.2-fold on D91 versus baseline while nAb titers increased 7.3-fold (RSV-A) and 8.4-fold (RSV-B) on D31 and 6.3-fold (RSV-A) and 9.9-fold (RSV-B) on D91. CONCLUSIONS: The RSVPreF3/AS01B vaccine was well tolerated and immunogenic in older Japanese adults. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04090658.

Causal inference concepts applied to three observational studies in the context of vaccine development: from theory to practice.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials are considered the gold standard to evaluate causal associations, whereas assessing causality in observational studies is challenging. METHODS: We applied Hill's Criteria, counterfactual reasoning, and causal diagrams to evaluate a potentially causal relationship between an exposure and outcome in three published observational studies: a) one burden of disease cohort study to determine the association between type 2 diabetes and herpes zoster, b) one post-authorization safety cohort study to assess the effect of AS04-HPV-16/18 vaccine on the risk of autoimmune diseases, and c) one matched case-control study to evaluate the effectiveness of a rotavirus vaccine in preventing hospitalization for rotavirus gastroenteritis. RESULTS: Among the 9 Hill's criteria, 8 (Strength, Consistency, Specificity, Temporality, Plausibility, Coherence, Analogy, Experiment) were considered as met for study c, 3 (Temporality, Plausibility, Coherence) for study a, and 2 (Temporary, Plausibility) for study b. For counterfactual reasoning criteria, exchangeability, the most critical assumption, could not be tested. Using these tools, we concluded that causality was very unlikely in study b, unlikely in study a, and very likely in study c. Directed acyclic graphs provided complementary visual structures that identified confounding bias and helped determine the most accurate design and analysis to assess causality. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our assessment we found causal Hill's criteria and counterfactual thinking valuable in determining some level of certainty about causality in observational studies. Application of causal inference frameworks should be considered in designing and interpreting observational studies.