Search

Background: Rotavirus vaccines given to infants are safe and efficacious. A booster dose of rotavirus vaccine could extend protection into the second year of life in low-resource countries.Methods: We conducted an open-label, individual-randomized trial in Bamako, Mali. We assigned 600 infants aged 9-11 months to receive measles vaccine (MV), yellow fever vaccine (YFV), and meningococcal A conjugate vaccine (MenAV) with or without pentavalent rotavirus vaccine (PRV). We assessed the noninferiority (defined as a difference of ≤10%) of seroconversion and seroresponse rates to MV, YFV, and MenAV. We compared the seroresponse to PRV.Results: Seroconversion to MV occurred in 255 of 261 PRV recipients (97.7%) and 246 of 252 control infants (97.6%; difference, 0.1% [95% confidence interval {CI}, -4.0%-4.2%]). Seroresponse to YFV occurred in 48.1% of PRV recipients (141 of 293), compared with 52.2% of controls (153 of 293; difference, -4.1% [95% CI, -12.2%-4.0%]). A 4-fold rise in meningococcus A bactericidal titer was observed in 273 of 292 PRV recipients (93.5%) and 276 of 293 controls (94.2%; difference, -0.7% [95% CI, -5.2%-3.8%]). Rises in geometric mean concentrations of immunoglobulin A and immunoglobulin G antibodies to rotavirus were higher among PRV recipients (118 [95% CI, 91-154] and 364 [95% CI, 294-450], respectively), compared with controls (68 [95% CI, 50-92] and 153 [95% CI, 114-207], respectively).Conclusions: PRV did not interfere with MV and MenAV; this study could not rule out interference with YFV. PRV increased serum rotavirus antibody levels.Clinical Trials Registration: NCT02286895. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: rVSV-ZEBOV is a recombinant, replication competent vesicular stomatitis virus-based candidate vaccine expressing a surface glycoprotein of Zaire Ebolavirus. We tested the effect of rVSV-ZEBOV in preventing Ebola virus disease in contacts and contacts of contacts of recently confirmed cases in Guinea, west Africa.Methods: We did an open-label, cluster-randomised ring vaccination trial (Ebola ça Suffit!) in the communities of Conakry and eight surrounding prefectures in the Basse-Guinée region of Guinea, and in Tomkolili and Bombali in Sierra Leone. We assessed the efficacy of a single intramuscular dose of rVSV-ZEBOV (2×107 plaque-forming units administered in the deltoid muscle) in the prevention of laboratory confirmed Ebola virus disease. After confirmation of a case of Ebola virus disease, we definitively enumerated on a list a ring (cluster) of all their contacts and contacts of contacts including named contacts and contacts of contacts who were absent at the time of the trial team visit. The list was archived, then we randomly assigned clusters (1:1) to either immediate vaccination or delayed vaccination (21 days later) of all eligible individuals (eg, those aged ≥18 years and not pregnant, breastfeeding, or severely ill). An independent statistician generated the assignment sequence using block randomisation with randomly varying blocks, stratified by location (urban vs rural) and size of rings (≤20 individuals vs >20 individuals). Ebola response teams and laboratory workers were unaware of assignments. After a recommendation by an independent data and safety monitoring board, randomisation was stopped and immediate vaccination was also offered to children aged 6-17 years and all identified rings. The prespecified primary outcome was a laboratory confirmed case of Ebola virus disease with onset 10 days or more from randomisation. The primary analysis compared the incidence of Ebola virus disease in eligible and vaccinated individuals assigned to immediate vaccination versus eligible contacts and contacts of contacts assigned to delayed vaccination. This trial is registered with the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry, number PACTR201503001057193.Findings: In the randomised part of the trial we identified 4539 contacts and contacts of contacts in 51 clusters randomly assigned to immediate vaccination (of whom 3232 were eligible, 2151 consented, and 2119 were immediately vaccinated) and 4557 contacts and contacts of contacts in 47 clusters randomly assigned to delayed vaccination (of whom 3096 were eligible, 2539 consented, and 2041 were vaccinated 21 days after randomisation). No cases of Ebola virus disease occurred 10 days or more after randomisation among randomly assigned contacts and contacts of contacts vaccinated in immediate clusters versus 16 cases (7 clusters affected) among all eligible individuals in delayed clusters. Vaccine efficacy was 100% (95% CI 68·9-100·0, p=0·0045), and the calculated intraclass correlation coefficient was 0·035. Additionally, we defined 19 non-randomised clusters in which we enumerated 2745 contacts and contacts of contacts, 2006 of whom were eligible and 1677 were immediately vaccinated, including 194 children. The evidence from all 117 clusters showed that no cases of Ebola virus disease occurred 10 days or more after randomisation among all immediately vaccinated contacts and contacts of contacts versus 23 cases (11 clusters affected) among all eligible contacts and contacts of contacts in delayed plus all eligible contacts and contacts of contacts never vaccinated in immediate clusters. The estimated vaccine efficacy here was 100% (95% CI 79·3-100·0, p=0·0033). 52% of contacts and contacts of contacts assigned to immediate vaccination and in non-randomised clusters received the vaccine immediately; vaccination protected both vaccinated and unvaccinated people in those clusters. 5837 individuals in total received the vaccine (5643 adults and 194 children), and all vaccinees were followed up for 84 days. 3149 (53·9%) of 5837 individuals reported at least one adverse event in the 14 days after vaccination; these were typically mild (87·5% of all 7211 adverse events). Headache (1832 [25·4%]), fatigue (1361 [18·9%]), and muscle pain (942 [13·1%]) were the most commonly reported adverse events in this period across all age groups. 80 serious adverse events were identified, of which two were judged to be related to vaccination (one febrile reaction and one anaphylaxis) and one possibly related (influenza-like illness); all three recovered without sequelae.Interpretation: The results add weight to the interim assessment that rVSV-ZEBOV offers substantial protection against Ebola virus disease, with no cases among vaccinated individuals from day 10 after vaccination in both randomised and non-randomised clusters.Funding: WHO, UK Wellcome Trust, the UK Government through the Department of International Development, Médecins Sans Frontières, Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (through the Research Council of Norway's GLOBVAC programme), and the Canadian Government (through the Public Health Agency of Canada, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, International Development Research Centre and Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite the heightened risk of serious influenza during infancy, vaccination is not recommended in infants younger than 6 months. We aimed to assess the safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of maternal immunisation with trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine for protection of infants against a first episode of laboratory-confirmed influenza.Methods: We did this prospective, active-controlled, observer-blind, randomised phase 4 trial at six referral centres and community health centres in Bamako, Mali. Third-trimester pregnant women (≥28 weeks' gestation) were randomly assigned (1:1), via a computer-generated, centre-specific list with alternate block sizes of six or 12, to receive either trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine or quadrivalent meningococcal vaccine. Study personnel administering vaccines were not masked to treatment allocation, but allocation was concealed from clinicians, laboratory personnel, and participants. Infants were visited weekly until age 6 months to detect influenza-like illness; laboratory-confirmed influenza diagnosed with RT-PCR. We assessed two coprimary objectives: vaccine efficacy against laboratory-confirmed influenza in infants born to women immunised any time prepartum (intention-to-treat population), and vaccine efficacy in infants born to women immunised at least 14 days prepartum (per-protocol population). The primary outcome was the occurrence of a first case of laboratory-confirmed influenza by age 6 months. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01430689.Findings: We did this trial from Sept 12, 2011, to Jan 28, 2014. Between Sept 12, 2011, and April 18, 2013, we randomly assigned 4193 women to receive trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (n=2108) or quadrivalent meningococcal vaccine (n=2085). There were 4105 livebirths; 1797 (87%) of 2064 infants in the trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine group and 1793 (88%) of 2041 infants in the quadrivalent meningococcal vaccine group were followed up until age 6 months. We recorded 5279 influenza-like illness episodes in 2789 (68%) infants, of which 131 (2%) episodes were laboratory-confirmed influenza. 129 (98%) cases of laboratory-confirmed influenza were first episodes (n=77 in the quadrivalent meningococcal vaccine group vs n=52 in the trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine group). In the intention-to-treat population, overall infant vaccine efficacy was 33·1% (95% CI 3·7-53·9); in the per-protocol population, vaccine efficacy was 37·3% (7·6-57·8). Vaccine efficacy remained robust during the first 4 months of follow-up (67·9% [95% CI 35·1-85·3] by intention to treat and 70·2% [35·7-87·6] by per protocol), before diminishing during the fifth month (57·3% [30·6-74·4] and 60·7 [33·8-77·5], respectively). Adverse event rates in women and infants were similar among groups. Pain at the injection site was more common in women given quadrivalent meningococcal vaccine than in those given trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (n=253 vs n=132; p<0·0001), although 354 [92%] reactions were mild. Obstetrical and non-obstetrical serious adverse events were reported in 60 (3%) women in the quadrivalent meningococcal vaccine group and 61 (3%) women in the trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine group. Presumed neonatal infection was more common in infants in the trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine group than in those in the quadrivalent meningococcal vaccine group (n=60 vs n=37; p=0·02). No serious adverse events were related to vaccination.Interpretation: Vaccination of pregnant women with trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine in Mali-a poorly resourced country with high infant mortality-was technically and logistically feasible and protected infants from laboratory-confirmed influenza for 4 months. With adequate financing to procure the vaccine, implementation will parallel the access to antenatal care and immunisation coverage of pregnant women with tetanus toxoid.Funding: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The 2014 west African Zaire Ebola virus epidemic prompted worldwide partners to accelerate clinical development of replication-defective chimpanzee adenovirus 3 vector vaccine expressing Zaire Ebola virus glycoprotein (ChAd3-EBO-Z). We aimed to investigate the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of ChAd3-EBO-Z in Malian and US adults, and assess the effect of boosting of Malians with modified vaccinia Ankara expressing Zaire Ebola virus glycoprotein and other filovirus antigens (MVA-BN-Filo).Methods: In the phase 1, single-blind, randomised trial of ChAd3-EBO-Z in the USA, we recruited adults aged 18-65 years from the University of Maryland medical community and the Baltimore community. In the phase 1b, open-label and double-blind, dose-escalation trial of ChAd3-EBO-Z in Mali, we recruited adults 18-50 years of age from six hospitals and health centres in Bamako (Mali), some of whom were also eligible for a nested, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of MVA-BN-Filo. For randomised segments of the Malian trial and for the US trial, we randomly allocated participants (1:1; block size of six [Malian] or four [US]; ARB produced computer-generated randomisation lists; clinical staff did randomisation) to different single doses of intramuscular immunisation with ChAd3-EBO-Z: Malians received 1 × 10(10) viral particle units (pu), 2·5 × 10(10) pu, 5 × 10(10) pu, or 1 × 10(11) pu; US participants received 1 × 10(10) pu or 1 × 10(11) pu. We randomly allocated Malians in the nested trial (1:1) to receive a single dose of 2 × 10(8) plaque-forming units of MVA-BN-Filo or saline placebo. In the double-blind segments of the Malian trial, investigators, clinical staff, participants, and immunology laboratory staff were masked, but the study pharmacist (MK), vaccine administrator, and study statistician (ARB) were unmasked. In the US trial, investigators were not masked, but participants were. Analyses were per protocol. The primary outcome was safety, measured with occurrence of adverse events for 7 days after vaccination. Both trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT02231866 (US) and NCT02267109 (Malian).Findings: Between Oct 8, 2014, and Feb 16, 2015, we randomly allocated 91 participants in Mali (ten [11%] to 1 × 10(10) pu, 35 [38%] to 2·5 × 10(10) pu, 35 [38%] to 5 × 10(10) pu, and 11 [12%] to 1 × 10(11) pu) and 20 in the USA (ten [50%] to 1 × 10(10) pu and ten [50%] to 1 × 10(11) pu), and boosted 52 Malians with MVA-BN-Filo (27 [52%]) or saline (25 [48%]). We identified no safety concerns with either vaccine: seven (8%) of 91 participants in Mali (five [5%] received 5 × 10(10) and two [2%] received 1 × 10(11) pu) and four (20%) of 20 in the USA (all received 1 × 10(11) pu) given ChAd3-EBO-Z had fever lasting for less than 24 h, and 15 (56%) of 27 Malians boosted with MVA-BN-Filo had injection-site pain or tenderness.Interpretation: 1 × 10(11) pu single-dose ChAd3-EBO-Z could suffice for phase 3 efficacy trials of ring-vaccination containment needing short-term, high-level protection to interrupt transmission. MVA-BN-Filo boosting, although a complex regimen, could confer long-lived protection if needed (eg, for health-care workers).Funding: Wellcome Trust, Medical Research Council UK, Department for International Development UK, National Cancer Institute, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Federal Funds from National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]