Search

Background: The adjuvanted respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) prefusion F protein-based vaccine (RSVPreF3 OA) is approved in adults aged ≥60 years. We evaluated RSVPreF3 OA immunogenicity and safety in adults aged 50-59 years without or with increased risk for RSV disease due to specific chronic medical conditions., Methods: This observer-blind, phase 3, noninferiority trial included adults aged 50-59 years, stratified into 2 subcohorts: those with and those without predefined, stable, chronic medical conditions leading to an increased risk for RSV disease. Participants in both subcohorts were randomized 2:1 to receive RSVPreF3 OA or placebo. A control group of adults aged ≥60 years received RSVPreF3 OA. Primary outcomes were RSV-A and RSV-B neutralization titers (geometric mean titer ratios and sero-response rate differences) 1 month post-vaccination in 50-59-year-olds versus ≥60-year-olds. Cell-mediated immunity and safety were also assessed., Results: The exposed population included 1152 participants aged 50-59 years and 381 participants aged ≥60 years. RSVPreF3 OA was immunologically noninferior in 50-59-year-olds versus ≥60-year-olds; noninferiority criteria were met for RSV-A and RSV-B neutralization titers in those with and those without increased risk for RSV disease. Frequencies of RSVPreF3-specific polyfunctional CD4+ T cells increased substantially from pre- to 1 month post-vaccination. Most solicited adverse events had mild-to-moderate intensity and were transient. Unsolicited and serious adverse event rates were similar in all groups., Conclusions: RSVPreF3 OA was immunologically noninferior in 50-59-year-olds compared to ≥60-year-olds, in whom efficacy was previously demonstrated. The safety profile in 50-59-year-olds was consistent with that in ≥60-year-olds., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05590403., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest . H. A. H., M. d. H., B. S., S. D., M.-P. D., D. D., J. H., C. V., and V. H. are/were GSK employees at the time when the study was designed and/or conducted. H. A. H., M. d. H., B. S., S. D., M.-P. D., D. D., J. H., and V. H. hold shares in GSK as part of their employee remuneration. M.-P. D. is a co-applicant on a pending patent filed by GSK. M. F. received study-related payments for training and study conduct from GSK. T. F. S. received honoraria for lectures from AstraZeneca, Bavarian Nordic, Biogen, CSL-Seqirus, GSK, Janssen-Cilag, Merck-Serono, Moderna, Novavax, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, and Takeda; he participated on advisory boards for Bavarian Nordic, CSL-Seqirus, BioNTech, GSK, Moderna, Novavax, and Takeda. S. A. N. declares study-related payments to his institution from GSK and support from GSK to attend investigators meetings. J. R.-G. declares study-related payments from GSK and honoraria and support for attending meetings and/or travel from GSK, Pfizer, and Sanofi-MSD; he also participated on data and safety monitoring boards or advisory boards from GSK and Pfizer. C. Z. received grants from GSK for the conduct of this study and support from GSK for attending meetings. J. G. declares study-related payments from GSK; grants from Novartis, Pharmalog, New Amsterdam Pharma, Syneos, Winecker Pharma, and Lilly; and consulting fees, honoraria, payment for expert testimony, and support for attending meetings and/or travel from GSK. C. V.-P. is a former employee of QPS Netherlands B.V. The other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Background: The recently approved AS01E-adjuvanted respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) prefusion F protein-based vaccine for older adults (RSVPreF3 OA) demonstrated high efficacy against RSV-related disease in ≥60-year-olds., Methods: This ongoing phase 3 study in ≥60-year-olds evaluates immune persistence until 3 years after RSVPreF3 OA vaccination. Here, we describe interim results on humoral and cell-mediated immunogenicity, reactogenicity, and safety until 1 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) vs 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 1 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; 1 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 1 year. The vaccine was well tolerated with an acceptable safety profile. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT04732871 (ClinicalTrials.gov)., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. T. F. S. reports having received payment or honoraria for lecturing or advisory boards from GSK, AstraZeneca, Bavarian Nordic, Biogen, BioNTech, Janssen-Cilag, Merck-Serono, Moderna, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Seqirus, Takeda, and for conducting clinical vaccine trials from GSK, Pfizer, and Serum Institute of India. S.-J. H. received research support and consultation fees from GSK. P. Y. assisted as Site Principal Investigator for the current study. C. P. A. was a paid Site Principal Investigator for the study and has received consulting fees from Merck and Boehringer Ingelheim. D. C., M. d. H., N. D. S., B. S., A. L., C. M., A. O., P. N., M. L., and V. H. were employees of GSK at the time the study was designed, initiated, and/or conducted. D. C., M. d. H., N. D. S., B. S., C.M., A. O., M. L., and V. H. hold shares of stock in the company as part of their employee remuneration. A. O. is a co-applicant on a pending patent filed by GSK. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Background: The adjuvanted RSV prefusion F protein-based vaccine (RSVPreF3 OA) was efficacious against RSV-related lower respiratory tract disease (RSV-LRTD) in ≥60-years-olds over 1 RSV season. We evaluated efficacy and safety of 1 RSVPreF3 OA dose and of 2 RSVPreF3 OA doses given 1 year apart against RSV-LRTD over 2 RSV seasons post-dose 1., Methods: In this phase 3, blinded trial, ≥60-year-olds were randomized (1:1) to receive RSVPreF3 OA or placebo pre-season 1. RSVPreF3 OA recipients were re-randomized (1:1) to receive a second RSVPreF3 OA dose (RSV_revaccination group) or placebo (RSV_1dose group) pre-season 2; participants who received placebo pre-season 1 received placebo pre-season 2 (placebo group). Efficacy of both vaccine regimens against RSV-LRTD was evaluated over 2 seasons combined (confirmatory secondary objective, success criterion: lower limits of 2-sided CIs around efficacy estimates >20%)., Results: The efficacy analysis comprised 24 967 participants (RSV_1dose: 6227; RSV_revaccination: 6242; placebo: 12 498). Median efficacy follow-up was 17.8 months. Efficacy over 2 seasons of 1 RSVPreF3 OA dose was 67.2% (97.5% CI: 48.2-80.0%) against RSV-LRTD and 78.8% (95% CI: 52.6-92.0%) against severe RSV-LRTD. Efficacy over 2 seasons of a first dose followed by revaccination was 67.1% (97.5% CI: 48.1-80.0%) against RSV-LRTD and 78.8% (95% CI: 52.5-92.0%) against severe RSV-LRTD. Reactogenicity/safety of the revaccination dose were similar to dose 1., Conclusions: One RSVPreF3 OA dose was efficacious against RSV-LRTD over 2 RSV seasons in ≥60-year-olds. Revaccination 1 year post-dose 1 was well tolerated but did not seem to provide additional efficacy benefit in the overall study population., Clinical Trials Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04886596., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest . M. G. I. declares that research support from GSK was paid to his previous institution, Northwestern University; he received consulting fees from Adagio Therapeutics, ADMA Biologics, Adamis Pharmaceuticals, AlloVir, Atea, Cidara Therapeutics, Genentech/Roche, Janssen, Shionogi, Takeda, Talaris, and Eurofins Viracor; and payment for participating in data safety monitoring boards or advisory boards from Adamis Pharmaceuticals, AlloVir, National Institutes of Health, CSL Behring, Janssen, Merck, Seqirus, Takeda, and Talaris; all of these ended in December 2022; M. G. I. also receives author royalties from UpToDate, which is ongoing, and serves as Chair of the International Society for Influenza and other Respiratory Virus Diseases Antiviral Group and was Editor-in-Chief of Transplant Infectious Disease. A. P. declares funding from GSK for conducting the trial. A. P. also declares that his institution received grants from Chiesi, AstraZeneca, GSK, Sanofi, and Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco; that he received consulting fees from Chiesi, AstraZeneca, GSK, Novartis, Sanofi, Avillion, and ELPEN Pharmaceuticals; payment for participation in advisory boards from Chiesi, AstraZeneca, GSK, Novartis, Sanofi, IQVIA, Avillion, and ELPEN Pharmaceuticals; and honoraria from Chiesi, AstraZeneca, GSK, Menarini, Novartis, Zambon, Mundipharma, Sanofi, Edmond Pharmaceuticals, IQVIA, Avillion, and ELPEN Pharmaceuticals. R. G. F. declares having received payment from GSK for lectures and support for travel related to these activities. J. M. L. reports grants from GSK paid to her institution for the conduct of the trial and from GSK, Pfizer, Merck, Moderna, Sanofi, Inventprise, and VBI Vaccines for other trials; J. M. L. also reports being a board member of Seqirus and participating on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Vaxcyte; she is an expert panelist for Canada's Drug and Health Technology Agency for the review of nirsevimab. I. L.-R. declares that her institution received funding from GSK for conducting this trial; from Icosavax, Virometix, Janssen Vaccines, Curevac, Moderna, Osivax, MSD, ICON Genetics, and OSE Immunotherapeutics for other vaccine trials; from Janssen Vaccines and MSD for consulting services; and from Janssen Vaccines for participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board. F. M.-T. declares that his institution received payment from GSK for conducting this trial and from Ablynx, Abbott, Seqirus, Sanofi, MSD, Merck, Pfizer, Roche, Regeneron, Janssen, Medimmune, Novavax, Novartis, and GSK for other vaccine trials; F. M.-T. also reports receiving honoraria for lectures from Sanofi, MSD, Moderna, GSK, Biofabri, AstraZeneca, Novavax, Janssen, and Pfizer; payment of travel expenses and meeting fees from Pfizer, MSD, GSK, and Sanofi; and participation on data safety monitoring boards or advisory boards for Pfizer and Biofabri; F. M.-T. is also a member of the World Health Organization’s (WHO's) European Technical Advisory Group of Experts, coordinator of the Spanish Pediatric Clinical Trials Network, and coordinator of the WHO Collaborating Center for Vaccine Safety of Santiago de Compostela. T. F. S. reports honoraria and/or participation on data safety monitoring boards or advisory boards from Alexion, AstraZeneca, Bavarian Nordic, Biogen, Biontech, GSK, Janssen-Cilag, Merck-Serono, Moderna, MSD, Novavax, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Seqirus, Synlab, Takeda, and va-Q-tec. R. N. v. Z.-S. reports that his institution received support from Boehringer Ingelheim for the Interstitial Lung Diseases (ILD) registry and that he received consulting fees from GSK and honoraria for lectures from Glenmark, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cipla, and Novartis; R. N. v. Z.-S. also participated on data safety monitoring boards or advisory boards for OnQ SA; he is president of the South African Thoracic Society and co-chair of the International Health Committee of the American Thoracic Society. C. V., N. D., O. G., L. F., M.-P. D., L. K., V. H., A. O., M. V. d. W., and D. D. are employed by GSK and have stock options or shares from GSK. N. D. is co-applicant on a pending patent for vaccination against RSV and has stock options from Haleon. L. F., M.-P. D., A. O., and M. V. d. W. are co-applicants on a pending patent filed by GSK. The other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Aim: Seasonal influenza poses a significant burden of disease, affecting not only older adults but also individuals under the age of 60. It carries a high economic burden, mainly driven by influenza-associated productivity losses in the working population. Conventional egg-based influenza vaccines may have reduced effectiveness due to antigen adaptation in eggs. In contrast, cell-based influenza vaccines are less likely to be affected by such antigen adaptation. This review aims to present real-world data (RWD) comparing the effectiveness of quadrivalent cell-based (QIVc) and egg-based (QIVe) influenza vaccines over three consecutive seasons., Methods: A comprehensive review was conducted, analyzing RWD from retrospective cohort and case-control studies on the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of QIVc versus QIVe during the 2017/18-2019/20 seasons., Results: This study included six retrospective cohort studies and one case-control study, with a combined total of approximately 29 million participants. A cohort study involving people aged ≥4 years during the 2017/18 season showed a statistically significant rVE of QIVc compared to QIVe in preventing influenza-like illness, with a value of 36.2%. QIVc demonstrated statistically significant superiority over QIVe in preventing outpatient and inpatient medical encounters as observed in two cohort studies conducted during the 2018/19 and 2019/20 seasons. The rVE of QIVc compared to QIVe was found to be 7.6% in individuals aged ≥4 years and 9.5% in individuals aged ≥18 years. Three additional cohort studies conducted between 2017/18-2019/20 reported a statistically significant improvement in rVE (5.3-14.4%) of QIVc compared to QIVe in preventing influenza-related hospitalizations and emergency department visits due to influenza in individuals aged 4-64 years. In a case-control study across all three seasons, QIVc showed statistically significantly higher effectiveness compared to QIVe in preventing test-confirmed influenza, with rVEs of 10.0-14.8%., Conclusions: RWD from the 2017/18-2019/20 seasons demonstrated that QIVc is more effective than QIVe in preventing influenza-related outcomes in individuals aged 4-64 years. Preferential use of cell-based influenza vaccines, as opposed to conventional egg-based vaccines, could reduce the burden of influenza-related symptoms on individuals and alleviate the economic impact on the German population under 60 years of age., Competing Interests: CSL Seqirus GmbH funded the publication.Dr. Dietmar Beier: Advisory Board for CSL Seqirus.Prof. Dr. Barbara C. Gärtner: Advisory Board and honoraria for lectures for CSL Seqirus, Sanofi, GSK, Moderna, BioNTech, Pfizer, Viatris.Dr. Gunther Gosch: Lecturing activities and participation in advisory boards for AstraZeneca, CLS Seqirus, GSK, MSD, Pfizer, Sanofi Aventis. Prof. Dr. Klaus Wahle: Lectures and participation in advisory boards on behalf of or for SPMSD, CSL Seqirus, Pfizer, GSK, BioNTech. Dr. Luise Wendt: -Dr. Laura-Christin Förster is employed by CSL Seqirus GmbH.Kim J. Schmidt is employed by Xcenda GmbH, which received funding from CSL Seqirus GmbH for the preparation of this manuscript.Prof. Dr. Tino F. Schwarz: Honoraria for consulting and lectures for Alexion, AstraZeneca, Bavarian Nordic, Biogen, BioNTech, GSK, Janssen-Cilag, Merck-Serono, Moderna, MSD, Novavax, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, CSL Seqirus, Synlab, Takeda and va-Q-tec., (Copyright © 2024 Gärtner et al.)

Influenza pandemics pose a serious risk to the global population, with the potential for high morbidity and mortality. An adjuvanted H5N1 vaccine (aH5N1) has been approved for prophylaxis against the avian influenza virus H5N1, which is a likely cause of future pandemics. In this phase-III, stratified, randomized, controlled, observer-blind, multicenter study, we evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of aH5N1 in four separate groups of adults: adults 18-60 years of age who were healthy or had high-risk medical conditions and older adults ≥61 years of age who were healthy or had high-risk medical conditions. Subjects were randomly assigned to aH5N1 or the comparator, adjuvanted trivalent seasonal influenza vaccine (aTIV). Antibody responses to aH5N1 were increased in all four subgroups and, within each age stratum, largely consistent between healthy subjects and those with medical conditions. Injection-site pain was reported by 66-73% of younger and 36-42% of older-aH5N1 recipients, and fatigue and myalgia were reported by 22-41% of subjects across age and health subgroups. No serious adverse events or deaths were considered related to the study vaccine. In conclusion, aH5N1 increased antibody responses regardless of age or health status and demonstrated a clinically acceptable safety and tolerability profile.

Background: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a contagious pathogen causing acute respiratory infections (ARIs). Symptoms range from mild upper respiratory tract infections to potentially life-threatening lower respiratory tract disease (LRTD). In adults ≥60 years old, vaccine efficacy of a candidate vaccine for older adults (RSVPreF3 OA) was 71.7% against RSV-ARI and 82.6% against RSV-LRTD (AReSVi-006/NCT04886596). We present the patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from the same trial at the end of the first RSV season in the northern hemisphere (April 2022)., Methods: In this phase 3 trial, adults aged ≥60 years were randomized (1:1) to receive one dose of RSVPreF3 OA vaccine or placebo. PROs were assessed using InFLUenza Patient-Reported Outcome (FLU-PRO), Short Form-12 (SF-12), and EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ-5D) questionnaires. Peak FLU-PRO Chest/Respiratory scores during the first 7 days from ARI episode onset were compared using a Wilcoxon test. Least squares mean (LSMean) of SF-12 physical functioning (PF) and EQ-5D health utility scores were estimated using mixed effects models., Results: In the RSVPreF3 OA group ( N  = 12,466), 27 first RSV-ARI episodes were observed versus 95 in the Placebo group ( N  = 12,494). Median peak FLU-PRO Chest/Respiratory scores were lower in RSVPreF3 OA (1.07) versus Placebo group (1.86); p  = 0.0258. LSMean group differences for the PF and EQ-5D health utility score were 7.00 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -9.86, 23.85; p  = 0.4125) and 0.0786 (95% CI: -0.0340, 0.1913; p  = 0.1695)., Conclusions: The RSVPreF3 OA vaccine, in addition to preventing infection, attenuated the severity of RSV-associated symptoms in breakthrough infections, with trends of reduced impact on PF and health utility., Competing Interests: During this study, Eliazar Sabater Cabrera, Desmond Curran, Veronica Hulstrøm, Lusine Kostanyan, and Daniel Molnar were GSK employees. Eliazar Sabater Cabrera, Desmond Curran, Veronica Hulstrøm, Lusine Kostanyan, and Daniel Molnar hold shares in GSK. Isabel Maria Galan Melendez was an investigator for the study of RSV OA‐006 and declares to have received payments from GSK per contract, as well as equipment on loan and study materials. Silvia Narejos Pérez participated as principal investigator (PI) in clinical trials with different sponsors, including GSK and received financial support during the present manuscript. As a PI, she collaborated in the presentation of the results of clinical trials of vaccines and received financial support for attending meetings and/or travel. Laura Helman received payment for completing the study work and was given financial support for attending meetings and/or travel as an investigator. During the development of the study, John H. Powers III was a consultant for GSK and Vir on the clinical study design. Besides that, he received consulting fees from Adaptive Phage, Arrevus, Atheln, Bavarian Nordic, Cellularity, Eicos, Evofem, Eyecheck, Gilead, Mustang, OPKO, Otsuka, Resolve, Romark, Spine BioPharma, and UTIlity. He is an unpaid board member of Health Literacy Media. Mika Rämet declares that his institute was sponsored by GSK to perform the current study. Tino Schwarz has received honoraria for lecturing or advisory boards from Alexion, AstraZeneca, Bavarian Nordic, Biogen, Biontech, CSL Seqirus, GSK, Janssen‐Cilag, Merck‐Serono, Moderna, MSD, Novavax, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi‐Aventis, and Takeda and for conducting clinical vaccine trials from GSK, Pfizer, Clover Biopharmaceuticals, and Serum Institute of India. Brigitte Stephan participated as investigator in clinical trials with different sponsors, including GSK. Sean Matthews, Lina Pérez Breva, Nathalie Roy, Dae Won Park, and Axel Schaefer have nothing to declare., (© 2024 GSK. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The population < 60 years of age is also affected by a significant disease burden from seasonal influenza. It carries a high economic burden, mainly driven by influenza-associated productivity losses in the working population. Conventional egg-based influenza vaccines may experience reduced effectiveness due to antigen adaptation in eggs. In contrast, cell-based influenza vaccines are less likely to be affected by antigenic adaptations to the host system and showed better effectiveness in individuals 4-64 years old over several seasons compared to conventional egg-based influenza vaccines under real-world conditions. Preferential use of cell-based influenza vaccines, as opposed to conventional egg-based vaccines, could reduce the burden of influenza-related symptoms on individuals and alleviate the economic impact on the German population < 60 years of age., (© 2024. The Author(s).)