Search

IMPORTANCE Human infections with the avian influenza A(H7N9) virus were first reported in China in 2013 and continue to occur. Hemagglutinin H7 administered alone is a poor immunogen necessitating evaluation of adjuvanted H7N9 vaccines. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the immunogenicity and safety of an inactivated H7N9 vaccine with and without AS03 adjuvant, as well as mixed vaccine schedules that included sequential administration of AS03- and MF59-containing formulations and of adjuvanted and unadjuvanted formulations. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Double-blind, phase 2 trial at 5 US sites enrolled 980 adults aged 19 through 64 years from September 2013 through November 2013; safety follow-up was completed in January 2015. INTERVENTIONS The H7N9 vaccine was given on days 0 and 21 at nominal doses of 3.75 µg, 7.5 µg, 15 µg, and 45 µg of hemagglutinin with or without AS03 or MF59 adjuvant mixed on site. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Proportions achieving a hemagglutination inhibition antibody (HIA) titer of 40 or higher at 21 days after the second vaccination; vaccine-related serious adverse events through 12 months after the first vaccination; and solicited signs and symptoms after vaccination through day 7. RESULTS Two doses of vaccine were required to induce detectable antibody titers in most participants. After 2 doses of an H7N9 formulation containing 15 µg of hemagglutinin given without adjuvant, with AS03 adjuvant, or with MF59 adjuvant, the proportion achieving an HIA titer of 40 or higher was 2% (95% CI, 0%-7%) without adjuvant (n = 94), 84% (95% CI, 76%-91%) with AS03 adjuvant (n = 96), and 57% (95% CI, 47%-68%) with MF59 adjuvant (n = 92) (P < .001 for comparison of the AS03 and MF59 schedules). The 2 schedules alternating AS03-and MF59-adjuvanted formulations led to lower geometric mean titers (GMTs) of (41.5 [95% CI, 31.7-54.4]; n = 92) and (58.6 [95% CI, 44.3-77.6]; n = 96) than the group induced by 2 AS03-adjuvanted formulations (n = 96) (103.4 [95% CI, 78.7-135.9]; P < .001) but higher GMTs than 2 doses of MF59-adjuvanted formulation (n = 94) (29.0 [95% CI, 22.4-37.6]; P < .001). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE The AS03 and MF59 adjuvants augmented the immune responses to 2 doses of an inactivated H7N9 influenza vaccine, with AS03-adjuvanted formulations inducing the highest titers. This study of 2 adjuvants used in influenza vaccine formulations with adjuvant mixed on site provides immunogenicity information that may be informative to influenza pandemic preparedness programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.)