1. Safety and Immunogenicity of a Delayed Heterologous Avian Influenza A(H7N9) Vaccine Boost Following Different Priming Regimens: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
- Author
-
El Sahly HM, Yildirim I, Frey SE, Winokur P, Jackson LA, Bernstein DI, Creech CB, Chen WH, Rupp RE, Whitaker JA, Phadke V, Hoft DF, Ince D, Brady RC, Edwards KM, Ortiz JR, Berman MA, Weiss J, and Wegel A
- Subjects
- Humans, Adjuvants, Immunologic, Antibodies, Viral, China, Hemagglutination Inhibition Tests, Immunogenicity, Vaccine, Polysorbates, Squalene, Influenza A Virus, H7N9 Subtype, Influenza Vaccines, Influenza, Human prevention & control
- Abstract
Background: Influenza A (H7N9) has caused multiple disease waves with evidence of strain diversification. Optimal influenza A (H7N9) prime-boost vaccine strategies are unknown., Methods: We recruited participants who had received monovalent inactivated A/Shanghai/2/2013 (H7N9) vaccine (MIV) approximately 5 years earlier, as follows: MIV with MF59 (MF59 × 2 group), MIV with AS03 (AS03 × 2 group), unadjuvanted MIV (No Adj group), MIV with MF59 or AS03 followed by unadjuvanted MIV (Adjx1 group), and A/H7-naive (unprimed group). Participants were randomized to receive 1 dose of AS03-adjuvanted or unadjuvanted A/Hong Kong/125/2017 (H7N9) MIV and were followed for safety and immunogenicity using hemagglutination inhibition (HAI) and neutralizing antibody assays., Results: We enrolled 304 participants: 153 received the adjuvanted boost and 151 received the unadjuvanted boost. At 21 days postvaccination, the proportion of participants with HAI antibody titers against the boosting vaccine strain of ≥40 in the adjuvanted and unadjuvanted arms, respectively, were 88% and 49% in MF59 × 2 group, 89% and 75% in AS03 × 2 group, 59% and 20% in No Adj group, 94% and 55% in Adjx1group, and 9% and 11% in unprimed group., Conclusions: Serologic responses to a heterologous A(H7N9) MIV boost were highest in participants primed and boosted with adjuvant-containing regimens., Clinical Trials Registration: NCT03738241., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest . I. Y.’s institution received funding to conduct clinical research unrelated to this manuscript from Moderna and Pfizer; and I. Y. consults for Merck and Sanofi-Pasteur. P. W. has received research funding unrelated to this manuscript from Pfizer and Sanofi; and has consulted for Pfizer. C. B. C. serves as a consultant to Pfizer, Moderna, GSK, and Vir. K. M. E. serves as consultant to Bionet and IBM; and member of the Data Safety and Monitoring Boards for Sanofi, X-4 Pharma, Seqirus, Moderna, Pfizer, Merck, and Roche. 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. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)
- Published
- 2024
- Full Text
- View/download PDF