Search

Background: SYN023 is an anti-rabies monoclonal antibody mixture administered as part of post-exposure prophylaxis regimens. The rabies virus neutralizing antibody (RVNA) concentration generally accepted as an adequate immune response to vaccination is ≥ 0.5 IU/mL., Methods: Within 54 h of potential rabies exposure, 448 patients in two risk substrata of WHO Category III exposure were randomized to receive either 0.3 mg/kg SYN023 or 0.133 mL/kg human rabies immunoglobulin (HRIG) injected in and around the wound site(s) plus a course of rabies vaccination. Patients were followed for safety and absence of rabies for ≥ 365 days., Results: GMT RVNA was higher with SYN023 throughout the 2-week post-treatment period. In the primary analysis group (n = 368), 99.4 % of SYN023 recipients versus 4.5 % of HRIG recipients had protective RVNA levels on Day 4. On Day 8, 98.1 % SYN023 versus 12.2 % HRIG recipients were protected. The SYN023:HRIG ratio of geometric mean titer of RVNA (RVNA GMTs) on Day 8 (19.42) exceeded the 10 % superiority margin (P < 0.0001) indicating higher Day 8 RVNA with SYN023. On Day 99, the SYN023:HRIG RVNA GMT ratio (0.66) was below the non-inferiority margin of 20 % (P = 0.9485) suggesting some moderation of vaccine immune response by SYN023 relative to HRIG. The ratio of percent SYN023:HRIG recipients achieving RVNA ≥ 0.5 IU/mL on Day 99 (0.98) met the non-inferiority margin of 20 % (P = 0.013) indicating anti-rabies immune response with SYN023 was non-inferior to HRIG despite this effect. There were no probable/confirmed rabies cases in any patient. Study regimens were well tolerated., Conclusions: SYN023 provided higher RVNA than HRIG soon after rabies exposure. By Day 99 post-treatment, GM RVNA with SYN023 was lower than HRIG, however, the percent of SYN023 recipients with a protective response was not inferior at this time point. No rabies cases were reported in the study. The SYN023 safety profile was acceptable., Clinicaltrials: gov ID: NCT03961555., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: [A.C. and E.T. are employed by Synermore Biologics (Suzhou) Co. C.R. and J.B.M. are paid consultants to Synermore Biologics (Suzhou) Co.]., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: We evaluated immunogenicity of SCB-2019, a subunit vaccine candidate containing a pre-fusion trimeric form of the SARS-CoV-2 spike (S)-protein adjuvanted with CpG-1018/alum., Methods: The phase 2/3, double-blind, randomized SPECTRA trial was conducted in five countries in participants aged ≥ 18 years, either SARS-CoV-2-naïve or previously exposed. Participants were randomly assigned to receive two doses of SCB-2019 or placebo administered intramuscularly 21 days apart. In the phase 2 part of the study, on days 1, 22, and 36, neutralizing antibodies were measured by pseudovirus and wild-type virus neutralization assays to SARS-CoV-2 prototype and variants, and ACE2-receptor-binding antibodies and SCB-2019-binding antibodies were measured by ELISA. Cell-mediated immunity was measured by intracellular cytokine staining via flow cytometry., Results: 1601 individuals were enrolled between 24 March and 13 September 2021 and received at least one vaccine dose. Immunogenicity analysis was conducted in a phase 2 subset of 691 participants, including 428 SARS-CoV-2-naïve (381 vaccine and 47 placebo recipients) and 263 SARS-CoV-2-exposed (235 vaccine and 28 placebo recipients). In SARS-CoV-2-naïve participants, GMTs of neutralizing antibodies against prototype virus increased 2 weeks post-second dose (day 36) compared to baseline (224 vs 12.7 IU/mL). Seroconversion rate was 82.5 %. In SARS-CoV-2-exposed participants, one SCB-2019 dose increased GMT of neutralizing antibodies by 48.3-fold (1276.1 IU/mL on day 22) compared to baseline. Seroconversion rate was 92.4 %. Increase was marginal post-second dose. SCB-2019 also showed cross-neutralization capability against nine variants, including Omicron, in SARS-CoV-2-exposed participants at day 36. SCB-2019 stimulated Th1-biased cell-mediated immunity to the S-protein in both naïve and exposed participants. The vaccine was well tolerated, no safety concerns were raised from the study., Conclusions: A single dose of SCB-2019 was immunogenic in SARS-CoV-2-exposed individuals, whereas two doses were required to induce immune response in SARS-CoV-2-naïve individuals. SCB-2019 elicited a cross-neutralizing response against emergent SARS-CoV-2 variants at antibody levels associated with clinical protection, underlining its potential as a booster., Clinicaltrials: gov: NCT04672395; EudraCT: 2020-004272-17., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: MH received financial support from Clover Biopharmaceuticals, grants from the European Union, the Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre, and Université Libre de Bruxelles, travel fees from Gilead and Pfizer, financial support from INSMED, is involved in the Belgian Society of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, the working group on Belgian COVID-19 therapeutic guidelines, and the Belgian Task Force on therapeutics for COVID-19. GS served as a Scientific Advisory Board Member and received consulting fees from Clover Biopharmaceuticals, AdVaccine, CanSino, Everest Medicines, Valneva, Vaxart, Affinivax, Genocea, and Vaxxess. DA received consulting fees from Clover Biopharmaceuticals, Vaxxinity, Everest Medicines, Senda, served as a Scientific Advisory Board Member for Clover Biopharmaceuticals, Vaxxinity, Senda, Everest Medicines, and Inventprise, and served as a board member for Clover Biopharmaceuticals and Inventprise. RC received funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, consulting fees from Icosavax, Hillevax, honoraria from AstraZeneca, served as a board member for Clover Biopharmaceuticals, Curevac, IVI, Inventprise, and owns stocks in Icosavax, Hillevax, Curevac, Novartis, Roche, GSK, and Clover Biopharmaceuticals. EB had contracts with Clover Biopharmaceuticals, Astra-Zeneca, Janssen, GSK, Merck, and Moderna. ERA, JCC, LFBF, and MEBM declare that they have no competing financial interests. BH, HHH, HQ, and HLC are employees of Clover Biopharmaceuticals. CB is an employee of Clover Biopharmaceuticals owns stocks in Clover Biopharmaceuticals, GSK, and Sanofi. PL and IS are employees of Clover Biopharmaceuticals and own stocks in the company., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: A quadrivalent split-virion inactivated influenza vaccine (VaxigripTetra™, Sanofi Pasteur; IIV4) containing two A strains (H1N1 and H3N2) and B strains from both lineages (Victoria and Yamagata) was approved in Europe in 2016 for individuals aged ≥ 3 years. This study examined the efficacy and safety of IIV4 in children aged 6-35 months., Methods: This was a phase III randomised controlled trial conducted in Latin America, Asia, Africa, and Europe during the Northern Hemisphere 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 and Southern Hemisphere 2014 and 2015 influenza seasons. Healthy children aged 6-35 months not previously vaccinated against influenza were randomised to receive two full doses 28 days apart of IIV4, placebo, the licensed trivalent split-virion inactivated vaccine (IIV3), an investigational IIV3 containing a B strain from the alternate lineage. The primary objective was to demonstrate efficacy against influenza illness caused by any strain or vaccine-similar strains., Results: The study enrolled 5806 participants. Efficacy, assessed in 4980 participants completing the study according to protocol, was demonstrated for IIV4. Vaccine efficacy was 50.98% (97% CI, 37.36-61.86%) against influenza caused by any A or B type and 68.40% (97% CI, 47.07-81.92%) against influenza caused by vaccine-like strains. Safety profiles were similar for IIV4, placebo, and the IIV3s, although injection-site reactions were slightly more frequent for IIV4 than placebo., Conclusions: IIV4 was safe and effective for protecting children aged 6-35 months against influenza illness caused by vaccine-similar or any circulating strains., Clinical Trial Registration: EudraCT no. 2013-001231-51., (Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine (IIV4) containing two influenza A strains and one strain from each B lineage (Yamagata and Victoria) may offer broader protection against seasonal influenza than inactivated trivalent influenza vaccine (IIV3), containing a single B strain. This study examined the safety, immunogenicity, and lot consistency of an IIV4 candidate., Methods: This phase III, randomized, controlled, multicenter trial in children/adolescents (9 through 17 years) and adults (18 through 60 years) was conducted in Australia and in the Philippines in 2012. The study was double-blind for IIV4 lots and open-label for IIV4 vs IIV3. Children/adolescents were randomized 2:2:2:1 and adults 10:10:10:1 to receive one of three lots of IIV4 or licensed IIV3. Safety data were collected for up to 6 months post-vaccination. Hemagglutination inhibition and seroneutralization antibody titers were assessed pre-vaccination and 21 days post-vaccination., Results: 1648 adults and 329 children/adolescents received IIV4, and 56 adults and 55 children/adolescents received IIV3. Solicited reactions, unsolicited adverse events, and serious adverse events were similar for IIV3 and IIV4 recipients in both age groups. Injection-site pain, headache, malaise, and myalgia were the most frequently reported solicited reactions, most of which were mild and resolved within 3 days. No vaccine-related serious adverse events or deaths were reported. Post-vaccination antibody responses, seroconversion rates, and seroprotection rates for the 3 strains common to both vaccines were comparable for IIV3 and IIV4 in both age groups. Antibody responses to IIV4 were equivalent among vaccine lots and comparable between age groups for each of the 4 strains. IIV4 met all European Medicines Agency immunogenicity criteria for adults for all 4 strains., Conclusions: In both age groups, IIV4 was well tolerated and caused no safety concerns, induced robust antibody responses to all 4 influenza strains, and met all EMA immunogenicity criteria for adults., Clinical Trial Registry Number: NCT01481454., (Copyright © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Children aged 11 to <24 months received 2 intranasal doses of live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) or placebo, 35+/-7 days apart. Dose 1 was administered concomitantly with a combined measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine (Priorix). Seroresponses to measles and mumps were similar between groups. Compared with placebo, response rates to rubella in LAIV+Priorix recipients were statistically lower at a 15 IU/mL threshold (83.9% vs 78.0%) and the prespecified noninferiority criteria were not met. In a post hoc analysis using an alternate widely accepted threshold of 10 IU/mL, the noninferiority criteria were met (93.4% vs 89.8%). Concomitant administration with Priorix did not affect the overall influenza protection rate of LAIV (78.4% and 63.8% against antigenically similar influenza strains and any strain, respectively)., (Copyright (c) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) provides a useful tool to rapidly immunize populations in the developing world to prevent influenza outbreaks. In this noninferiority trial conducted in Asia and South America, where oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) is still used, 2503 children aged 6 to <36 months with three polio immunizations were randomized to receive LAIV+OPV, placebo+OPV, or LAIV only. Immune responses in children receiving concomitant LAIV+OPV were noninferior to those observed in recipients of either vaccine alone. Response rates for different poliovirus types were similar in recipients of LAIV+OPV and placebo+OPV. Response rates to all influenza strains were similar in LAIV+OPV and LAIV-only recipients. Concomitant OPV and LAIV were safely administered to young children.