Search

Background Vaccines are now available for the prevention of HPV-16/18-related cervical infections and pre-cancers, primarily targeting adolescent girls. Since the risk of HPV exposure potentially persists throughout a woman's sexual life, vaccine-derived immunity should be long-term. The current study, HPV-024 ( NCT00546078 , http://clinicaltrials.gov ), assessed the immune memory in North American women who received three doses of HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine 7 years earlier in HPV-001 ( NCT00689741 ). Methods Women vaccinated in HPV-001 received a 4th-dose of the HPV-16/18 vaccine (024-4DV group, N = 65). Post 4th-dose immune responses were compared with post 1st-dose immune responses in cross-vaccination controls (024-3DV group, N = 50). Reactogenicity was compared between the 4th-dose and the 1st-dose administration. Results Pre 4th-dose, 100% of subjects in the 024-4DV group remained seropositive for anti-HPV-16/18 antibodies (ELISA). Compared to pre 4th-dose, GMTs for anti-HPV-16 and anti-HPV-18 antibodies were respectively 9.3-fold and 8.7-fold higher at day 7, and 22.7-fold and 17.2-fold higher at month 1. Compared to post 1st-dose, GMTs for anti-HPV-16 and anti-HPV-18 were respectively 80.5-fold and 205.4-fold higher at day 7, and 11.8-fold and 20.5-fold higher at month 1. Furthermore, 68.2% and 77.3% of women had HPV-16/18 specific memory B-cells, respectively, pre 4th-dose, rising to 100% one month post 4th-dose vaccination. The 4th-dose was generally well tolerated. Conclusion A 4th-dose of HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine triggered a rapid and strong anamnestic response in previously vaccinated women, demonstrating vaccine-induced immune memory.

Background H7 influenza strains can cause severe and often fatal human infections, especially in the elderly. This phase II, observer-blind, randomized trial ( www.ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT01949090 ) assessed the immunogenicity and safety of a novel AS03-adjuvanted H7N1 vaccine that may serve as a model H7-subtype vaccine. Methods 360 adults ≥65 years of age in stable health received either 1 of 4 adjuvanted A/mallard/Netherlands/12/2000 split virion vaccine formulations (3.75 μg or 7.5 μg hemagglutinin adjuvanted with either AS03A or AS03B) or saline placebo, given as a 2-dose series. Immunogenicity was assessed using hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) and microneutralization (MN) assays for the per-protocol cohort, comprising 332 participants at 21 days post-each dose, 332 at month 6, and 309 at month 12 (HI assay only). Safety was assessed up to month 12 for all participants who had received ≥1 dose (360 participants). Results For H7N1 HI antibody assessment at day 42 (21 days post-dose 2), seroprotection rates (SPR) in the vaccinated groups were 69.6%–88.7%, seroconversion rates (SCR) 69.6%–88.5%, mean geometric increase (MGI) 11.0–18.9, and HI geometric mean titers (GMTs) 55.0–104.8. These parameters declined by month 6 and month 12. Microneutralization GMTs were 46.2–74.7 in the vaccinated groups at day 42, while vaccine response rate (VRR; proportion with ≥4-fold increase in MN titer) was 46.4%–81.5%. For the cross-reactive H7N9 strain, at day 42, HI GMT were 64.3–201.3, SPR 78.6%–96.3%, SCR 79.3%–96.3%, and MGI 14.1–37.7; MN GMTs were 44.0–85.6, and VRR 46.4–85.2%. The most frequent solicited symptom was injection site pain (41.7%–65.0% of vaccine recipients). In total, 40 participants reported 67 serious adverse events; none were considered causally related to vaccination. Conclusions In adults aged ≥65 years, the adjuvanted H7N1 vaccine was immunogenic after 2 doses, and had an acceptable safety profile. www.ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT01949090 .

mmunization site pain: Case definition and guidelines for collection, analysis, nd presentation of immunization safety data ane F. Gidudua,∗, Gary A. Walcob, Anna Taddioc, William T. Zempskyd, Scott A. Halperine, ngela Calugara, Neville A. Gibbs f, Renald Hennigg, Milivoj Jovancevich, Eva Netterlid i, erri O’Connor j, James M. Oleskek, Frederick Varricchio l,1, Theodore F. Tsaim, Harry Seifertn, nne E. Schuindn, The Brighton Immunization Site Pain Working Group2

A combined immunization strategy for administration of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine with other routine vaccines may lead to better compliance. Reactions and immunologic interference with concomitantly administered vaccines are unpredictable, necessitating clinical evaluation.This was a randomized, open study conducted at 48 centers in the United States (NCT00369824). Healthy girls 11 to 18 years of age were randomized equally to 1 of 6 groups to receive 3 doses of HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine administered at 0, 1, and 6 or 1, 2, and 7 months, with or without 1 dose of tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid, and acellular pertussis vaccine (Tdap) and/or 1 dose of meningococcal polysaccharide diphtheria toxoid conjugate vaccine (MCV4) in different coadministration regimens (1283 girls vaccinated). Coadministered vaccines were injected at separate sites. Antibodies were measured for all vaccine components. Reactogenicity and safety were monitored.The prespecified criteria for noninferiority were met for all primary and secondary immunogenicity end points, demonstrating similar immunogenicity of Tdap and MCV4 when given alone or coadministered with the HPV vaccine. Immunogenicity of the HPV vaccine (in terms of seroconversion rates and geometric mean antibody titers to HPV antigens) was similar, regardless of whether it was given alone or coadministered with Tdap and/or MCV4. No differences were observed in the reactogenicity profile of the HPV vaccine administered alone or coadministered with either Tdap and/or MCV4 in different regimens.Concomitant administration of HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine with Tdap and/or MCV4 in different regimens did not interfere with the immune response to any of the vaccines and had an acceptable safety profile.

The immunogenicity of the human papillomavirus (HPV)-16/18 AS 04-adjuvanted vaccine (Cervarix®, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals) administered according to its licensed vaccination schedule (3-dose, 3D) and formulation (20 µg of each HPV antigen; 20/20F) has previously been demonstrated. This partially-blind, controlled, randomized trial (NCT00541970) evaluated 2-dose (2D) schedules using the licensed 20/20F or an alternative formulation containing 40 µg of each antigen (40/40F), compared with the licensed 3D schedule. Healthy females stratified by age (9–14, 15–19, 20–25 y) were randomized to receive 2 doses of 20/20F at Months (M) 0,6 (n = 240), 40/40F at M0,6 (n = 241) or 40/40F at M0,2 (n = 240), or 3 doses of 20/20F at M0,1,6 (licensed schedule/formulation, n = 239). One month after the last dose, the 3D schedule was not immunologically superior to 2D schedules except in the 40/40F M0,2 group for HPV-16 (lower limit of 95% CI geometric mean antibody titer (GMT) ratio [2D/3D]

To determine the prevalence of cervical human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and risk factors in young women from Brazil, Canada, and the USA. Cross-sectional study in 3204 healthy women, aged 15 to 25 years. Cervical samples were collected for cytology and for HPV DNA detection (SPF 10-LiPA 25 system). Serum samples were collected for the measurement of HPV-16 and HPV-18 antibodies by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Risk factors were obtained through a questionnaire. Overall, 26.6% of women had DNA detected for at least 1 HPV type. The prevalence for oncogenic HPV types was 21.7% (25% in Brazil, 16.9% in Canada, and 19.1% in the USA). HPV-16 was the most prevalent oncogenic type (5.2%). The next most common oncogenic HPV types were 51 (3.3%), 52 (3.3%), 31 (2.9%), 66 (2.3%), and 39 (2.0%). Multiple oncogenic types were detected in one-third of the infections. The prevalence of HPV-16 and/or HPV-18 infections detected by DNA and/or enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay was 24.8%. The majority of women (85%) had a normal cervical cytology. Sexual behavior was the main determinant for HPV-16/18 infections and squamous intraepithelial lesions. The prevalence of HPV oncogenic infections was high and linked to sexual behavior. Strategies to reduce the burden of oncogenic HPV infection, such as prophylactic vaccination programs, are likely to impact the burden of disease due to cervical precancer and cancer.

We report efficacy and immunogenicity of the HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine up to 7.3 years post-vaccination. The study was conducted in a population (N=433) of women enrolled in Brazilian centres from an initial placebo-controlled study. Women were aged 15-25 years at first vaccination. During the most recent year of follow-up, approximately 7 years after initial vaccination, no cases of infection or cytohistological lesions associated with HPV-16/18 were observed in the vaccinees. Vaccine efficacy (95% confidence interval) up to 7.3 years was 94.5% (82.9, 98.9) for incident infection, 100% (55.7, 100) for 12-month persistent infection and 100% (-129.8, 100) for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2+. Antibody titres for total IgG and neutralising antibodies remained several folds above natural infection levels and >or=96% of women were seropositive. Vaccine safety was similar to placebo. This is the longest follow-up study for a licensed cervical cancer vaccine.

Prophylactic human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines have to provide sustained protection. We assessed efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of the HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine up to 6.4 years.Women aged 15-25 years, with normal cervical cytology, who were HPV-16/18 seronegative and oncogenic HPV DNA-negative (14 types) at screening participated in a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled initial study (n=1113; 560 vaccine group vs 553 placebo group) and follow-up study (n=776; 393 vs 383). 27 sites in three countries participated in the follow-up study. Cervical samples were tested every 6 months for HPV DNA. Management of abnormal cytologies was prespecified, and HPV-16/18 antibody titres were assessed. The primary objective was to assess long-term vaccine efficacy in the prevention of incident cervical infection with HPV 16 or HPV 18, or both. We report the analyses up to 6.4 years of this follow-up study and combined with the initial study. For the primary endpoint, the efficacy analysis was done in the according-to-protocol (ATP) cohort; the analysis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 and above (CIN2+) was done in the total vaccinated cohort (TVC). The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00120848.For the combined analysis of the initial and follow-up studies, the ATP efficacy cohort included 465 women in the vaccine group and 454 in the placebo group; the TVC included 560 women in the vaccine group and 553 in the placebo group. Vaccine efficacy against incident infection with HPV 16/18 was 95.3% (95% CI 87.4-98.7) and against 12-month persistent infection was 100% (81.8-100). Vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ was 100% (51.3-100) for lesions associated with HPV-16/18 and 71.9% (20.6-91.9) for lesions independent of HPV DNA. Antibody concentrations by ELISA remained 12-fold or more higher than after natural infection (both antigens). Safety outcomes were similar between groups: during the follow-up study, 30 (8%) participants reported a serious adverse event in the vaccine group versus 37 (10%) in the placebo group. None was judged related or possibly related to vaccination, and no deaths occurred.Our findings show excellent long-term efficacy, high and sustained immunogenicity, and favourable safety of the HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine up to 6.4 years.GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals (Belgium).

This observer-blind study compared the prophylactic human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines, Cervarix (GlaxoSmithKline) and Gardasil (Merck), by assessing immunogenicity and safety through one month after completion of the three-dose vaccination course. Women (n = 1106) were stratified by age (18-26, 27-35, 36-45 years) and randomized (1:1) to receive Cervarix (Months 0, 1, 6) or Gardasil (Months 0, 2, 6). At Month 7 after first vaccination, all women in the according-to-protocol cohort who were seronegative/DNA negative before vaccination for the HPV type analyzed had seroconverted for HPV-16 and HPV-18 serum neutralizing antibodies, as measured by pseudovirion-based neutralization assay (PBNA), except for two women aged 27-35 years in the Gardasil group who did not seroconvert for HPV-18 (98%). Geometric mean titers of serum neutralizing antibodies ranged from 2.3-4.8-fold higher for HPV-16 and 6.8-9.1-fold higher for HPV-18 after vaccination with Cervarix compared with Gardasil, across all age strata. In the total vaccinated cohort (all women who received at least one vaccine dose, regardless of their serological and DNA status prior to vaccination), Cervarix induced significantly higher serum neutralizing antibody titers in all age strata (p0.0001). Positivity rates for anti-HPV-16 and -18 neutralizing antibodies in cervicovaginal secretions and circulating HPV-16 and -18 specific memory B-cell frequencies were also higher after vaccination with Cervarix compared with Gardasil. Both vaccines were generally well tolerated. The incidence of unsolicited adverse events was comparable between vaccinated groups. The incidence of solicited symptoms was generally higher after Cervarix, injection site reactions being most common. However, compliance rates with the three-dose schedules were similarly high (or= 84%) for both vaccines. Although the importance of differences in magnitude of immune response between these vaccines is unknown, they may represent determinants of duration of protection against HPV-16/18. Long-term studies evaluating duration of efficacy after vaccination are needed for both vaccines.

Background: We analyzed data from a cohort of 553 women enrolled in the placebo arm of a randomized controlled trial of the human papillomavirus (HPV) 16/18 vaccine to study the timing of the occurrence of squamous intraepithelial lesions (SIL) or cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) following incident HPV infection and its relation to persistence of the infection. Methods: At entry, women were cytologically negative, HPV 16/18 seronegative, and high-risk HPV (HR-HPV) DNA negative. Cervicovaginal samples were initially collected at 3-month and cervical samples at 6-month intervals. We estimated the mean time to SIL/CIN, relative risks of SIL/CIN following incident HPV, and odds ratios between persistent HPV and SIL/CIN. Results: The mean time for SIL/CIN detection was 43.3 [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 36.4-50.1] and 46.4 (95% CI, 42.0-50.7) months from first infection with HPV 16/18 and other HR-HPVs, respectively. Relative risks of SIL/CIN following incident HPV infection were 66.2 (95% CI, 14.9-295.1) for HPV 16/18 and 50.9 (95% CI, 11.5-225.4) for other HR-HPVs. The odds ratios of SIL/CIN for persistent HPV 16/18 infection, defined as a minimum of two and three (6 monthly) visits, were, respectively, 169.0 (95% CI, 37.2-768.6) and 169.1 (95% CI, 31.5-907.4). The majority of women with cervical infection with HPV 16/18 lasting >6 months (33 of 51, 65%) developed SIL and/or CIN. Conclusions: These analyses provide the first actuarial estimate of mean time between incident HR-HPV infection in previously uninfected women and onset of cervical lesion development. Persistent HR-HPV infection, particularly HPV 16/18, is a strong predictor of cervical lesion risk and potentially a reliable end point for clinical HPV research. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009;18(3):854–62)

The need for developing a case definition and guidelines for a local reaction at or near the injection site, methods for the development of the case definition and guidelines as an adverse event following immunization as well as the rationale for selected decisions about the case definition for a local reaction at or near the injection site are explained in the Preamble section. The case definition is structured in 2 levels of diagnostic certainty: level 1 includes any description of morphological or physiological change at or near the injection site that is described or identified by a healthcare provider. Level 2 is any description of morphological or physiological change at or near injection site that is described by any other person. In Guidelines section, the working group recommends to enable meaningful and standardized data collection, analysis, and presentation of information about a local reaction at or near the injection site. However, implementation of all guidelines might not be possible in all settings. The availability of information may vary depending upon resources, geographic region, and whether the source of information is a prospectively designed clinical trial, a post-marketing surveillance or epidemiologic study, or an individual report of a local reaction at injection site.

Background The incidence of local reactions to diphtheria-, tetanus and acellular pertussis (DTaP-) vaccines in infants and toddlers increases with each subsequent dose, and entire thigh swellings (ETS) have been reported. Lowering the amount of antigen or of adjuvant may decrease the reactogenicity of DTaP while maintaining a protective immune response. Objectives Following priming with three doses of a DTaP vaccine during infancy, the safety, reactogenicity and immunogenicity of nine different candidate DTaP-vaccines with reduced amounts of antigen and/or adjuvant given as fourth (booster) dose were evaluated. Methods Study participants were healthy infants aged 15–27 months at the time of booster vaccination. Each participant had received three doses of a DTaP vaccine (Infanrix™, GlaxoSmithKline, Rixensart, Belgium; “reference DTaP”) at age 3, 4, and 5 months as part of a previous clinical trial. More than 20,000 children were eligible for participation in the current study protocol at the time. In a first phase at a University hospital-based vaccination study center, nine sequential cohorts of 63–119 study subjects received one of nine different candidate vaccines. Patients and study personal were blinded with regard to which vaccine was currently in use. Reactogenicity was solicited from parents using diary cards. Blood was drawn prior to and 4 weeks after vaccination and immediately centrifuged. The serum was stored at −20 °C until serology was performed by ELISA tests. As soon as the first candidate vaccine with adequate reactogenicity and immunogenicity profile was identified in the first study phase, a second study phase was initiated in parallel, to evaluate the safety and reactogenicity of the respective candidate vaccine in private practices in large cohorts (1613–2095 study subjects per group). Results In the first study phase, DTaP with no aluminum induced the highest frequency of ETS and fever. All other candidate vaccines caused lower rates of local and general reactions than the reference DTaP. As a general rule, vaccines with less antigen induced fewer reactions, although there was no strict dose-response effect and the difference, e.g. between a one-tenth and a one-fifth DTaP dose (DTaP 1/5; DTaP 1/10) was not clinically relevant. Separate injections of Td and aP caused fewer general reactions than the respective TdaP combination and local reactions were higher at the aP than at the Td injection site. Again, as a general rule, reduced amounts of antigen induced lower antibody concentrations, although all vaccines induced “protective” anti-tetanus and anti-diphtheria antibody responses. A total of 92–100% of children showed seroresponses to pertussis antigens even when vaccinated with reduced amounts of the respective pertussis antigen. Elimination of aluminum from DTaP vaccine induced higher anti-tetanus-antibody concentrations and so did a reduction of the amount of diphtheria antigen. Additional examples for antigen interaction were increased antibody concentrations, observed with injection of Td and aP into different limbs. In the second study phase, all three vaccines evaluated (one with a reduced amount of diphtheria antigen, TdaP; one with reduced amounts of all antigens, tdap; and one with a fifth dose of the reference vaccine (DTaP 1/5)) were safe and had an acceptable reactogenicity profile in a total of 4871 study subjects. Conclusions Local reactions due to DTaP booster doses in the second year of life can be reduced by reducing the amount of antigen in the respective vaccine while an adequate immunogenicity is maintained. Aluminum-free vaccines induced ETS and fever most commonly. Any changes in vaccine composition should lead to a full evaluation of the new product.

Summary Background Effective vaccination against HPV 16 and HPV 18 to prevent cervical cancer will require a high level of sustained protection against infection and precancerous lesions. Our aim was to assess the long-term efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of a bivalent HPV-16/18 L1 virus-like particle AS04 vaccine against incident and persistent infection with HPV 16 and HPV 18 and their associated cytological and histological outcomes. Methods We did a follow-up study of our multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial reported in 2004. We included women who originally received all three doses of bivalent HPV-16/18 virus-like particle AS04 vaccine (0·5 mL; n=393) or placebo (n=383). We assessed HPV DNA, using cervical samples, and did yearly cervical cytology assessments. We also studied the long-term immunogenicity and safety of the vaccine. Findings More than 98% seropositivity was maintained for HPV-16/18 antibodies during the extended follow-up phase. We noted significant vaccine efficacy against HPV-16 and HPV-18 endpoints: incident infection, 96·9% (95% CI 81·3–99·9); persistent infection: 6 month definition, 94·3 (63·2–99·9); 12 month definition, 100% (33·6–100). In a combined analysis of the initial efficacy and extended follow-up studies, vaccine efficacy of 100% (42·4–100) against cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) lesions associated with vaccine types. We noted broad protection against cytohistological outcomes beyond that anticipated for HPV 16/18 and protection against incident infection with HPV 45 and HPV 31. The vaccine has a good long-term safety profile. Interpretation Up to 4·5 years, the HPV-16/18 L1 virus-like particle AS04 vaccine is highly immunogenic and safe, and induces a high degree of protection against HPV-16/18 infection and associated cervical lesions. There is also evidence of cross protection.

Rotavirus is a major cause of gastroenteritis in children worldwide and is estimated to be responsible for more than 500,000 physician visits, 50,000 hospitalizations and 20 deaths in the United States each year.To compare the safety and immunogenicity of 2 dosages of a live attenuated oral monovalent G1 human rotavirus (HRV) vaccine in healthy infants.In this randomized, double blind trial conducted in the United States and Canada, 529 healthy infants 5-15 weeks of age received HRV vaccine containing either 10 or 10 focus-forming units or placebo. Two doses were administered orally at a 2-month interval concomitantly with routine childhood vaccines. Symptoms of fever, irritability/fussiness, diarrhea, vomiting, loss of appetite and cough/runny nose were solicited for 15 days postvaccination, nonserious adverse events for 43 days postvaccination and serious adverse events throughout the study. Vaccine take was defined as appearance of serum antirotavirus IgA in postimmunization sera at a titer ofor =20 units/mL or vaccine virus shedding in any stool sample collected between the first dose and 2 months after the second dose.No serious adverse events considered related to vaccine were reported. The incidence of solicited symptoms was similar among treatment groups during the 15-day postvaccination surveillance periods. No significant difference in vaccine take after 2 doses (88.0% in high dose group and 81.5% in low dose group) was seen between vaccine groups (P = 0.153).Two doses of either dosage level of HRV vaccine administered concurrently with routine childhood vaccines to healthy infants 5-15 weeks of age were well-tolerated and were highly immunogenic.

Summary Background Vaccination against the most common oncogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) types, HPV-16 and HPV-18, could prevent development of up to 70% of cervical cancers worldwide. We did a randomised, double-blind, controlled trial to assess the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of a bivalent HPV-16/18 L1 virus-like particle vaccine for the prevention of incident and persistent infection with these two virus types, associated cervical cytological abnormalities, and precancerous lesions. Methods We randomised 1113 women between 15–25 years of age to receive three doses of either the vaccine formulated with AS04 adjuvant or placebo on a 0 month, 1 month, and 6 month schedule in North America and Brazil. Women were assessed for HPV infection by cervical cytology and self-obtained cervicovaginal samples for up to 27 months, and for vaccine safety and immunogenicity. Findings In the according-to-protocol analyses, vaccine efficacy was 91·6% (95% CI 64·5–98·0) against incident infection and 100% against persistent infection (47·0–100) with HPV-16/18. In the intention-to-treat analyses, vaccine efficacy was 95·1% (63·5–99·3) against persistent cervical infection with HPV-16/18 and 92·9% (70·0–98·3) against cytological abnormalities associated with HPV-16/18 infection. The vaccine was generally safe, well tolerated, and highly immunogenic. Interpretation The bivalent HPV vaccine was efficacious in prevention of incident and persistent cervical infections with HPV-16 and HPV-18, and associated cytological abnormalities and lesions. Vaccination against such infections could substantially reduce incidence of cervical cancer.

Background. Cell-culture-derived (CC) influenza vaccine production methods could provide benefits over classical embryonated-egg technology, including a higher production capacity and the faster creation of a supply that meets demand. Methods. ACC-inactivated split-virus influenza A/Indonesia/5/2005(H5N1) vaccine derived from the EB66 cell line (hereafter, “CC-H5N1”) was investigated in a phase 1 randomized, blinded study. Healthy adults (n = 521) received 2 vaccine doses (days 0 and 21) of either investigational CC-H5N1 vaccine (1.9 µg or 3.75 µg of hemagglutinin antigen [HA] with the AS03 adjuvant system or 15 µg of plain HA), embryonated-egg-derived vaccines (3.75 µg of HA with AS03 or 15 µg of plain HA), or placebo. Assessment of the adjuvant effect and immunogenicity was performed using Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research acceptability criteria 21 days after dose 2. Safety was assessed until month 12. Results. AS03-adjuvanted CC-H5N1 elicited a homologous hemagglutination inhibition antibody response that satisfied immunogenicity criteria 21 days after dose 2 and persisted at month 12. Adjuvant effect and immune response against a drift-variant strain were demonstrated. Novaccine-related serious adverse events were reported. The immunogenicity and safety of the CC-H5N1 formulation containing 3.75 µg of HA and AS03 appeared to be similar to those for the licensed egg-derived AS03-adjuvanted control vaccine. Conclusions. The feasibility of the EB66 cell line to produce an immunogenic influenza vaccine with acceptable safety profile was demonstrated. Antigen sparing was achieved through combination with AS03 adjuvant. This CCH5N1 might contribute to the rapid access of vaccine in the event of an influenza A(H5N1) pandemic. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT01236040.

After concern about the safety of diphtheria-tetanus toxoid-whole cell pertussis vaccines (DTPw), the recommendation to vaccinate children with DTPw was withdrawn in 1974 in the former West Germany. This led pertussis cases to increase to an estimated 100,000 annually. Despite renewal of the vaccination recommendation in 1991, vaccine use remained low. The German health care structure assures regular contact between most children and pediatricians. This enabled the conduct of a large efficacy trial with a diphtheria-tetanus toxoid-acellular pertussis (DTPa) vaccine. Because a placebo-controlled trial was not ethically possible, a prospective household contact study with a blinded clinical follow-up was done. Possible study participants were screened by their pediatrician, who also initiated diagnostic procedures. Clinical follow-up was done by another locally based but independent and blinded physician. Vaccine efficacy was calculated to be 89% (95% confidence interval, 76.6%-94.6%). None of the identified confounding factors biased results in favor of the DTPa vaccine.

Objectives Persistence of human papillomaviruses (HPVs) is necessary for cervical carcinogenesis. We evaluated incidence and duration of type-specific HPV infections and the influence of age and number of sexual partners. Methods Data were obtained from 553 women (15–25 years), who were seronegative and DNA-negative for high-risk HPV (HR-HPV) types and were enrolled in the placebo arm of a randomised trial of the HPV-16/18 vaccine (NCT00689741/NCT00120848). They were followed for 6.3 years. Cervicovaginal samples were self-collected at 3-month intervals for up to 27 months, and cervical samples were collected by clinicians at 6-month intervals until study end. Samples were tested for HPV types using a broad-spectrum PCR assay. Incidence rate ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs were used to estimate the association among age, sexual habits and HPV acquisition. Results Incidence rates (95% CI) using cervical samples were 11.8 (10.4 to 13.4) and 5.6 (4.7 to 6.6) per 1000 women-months for HR-HPVs and low-risk HPVs (LR-HPVs), respectively. Equivalent rates in combined cervicovaginal and cervical samples were 17.2 (15.4 to 19.2) and 6.9 (5.9 to 8.0), respectively. 54 per cent of HR-HPV types from combined cervicovaginal and cervical samples persisted for 1 year compared with 32.3% for LR-HPV types. The risk of acquiring any HPV infection was higher among women aged 1 sexual partner (RR=1.83, 95% CI 1.4 to 2.4) at baseline. Conclusions HR-HPV infections were more common and lasted longer on average than LR-HPV infections. HPV acquisition was more common in younger women with multiple sexual partners. Trial registration number NCT00689741, NCT00120848; Post-results.

Protection against oncogenic non-vaccine types (cross-protection) offered by human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines may provide a significant medical benefit. Available clinical efficacy data suggest the two licensed vaccines [HPV-16/18 vaccine, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals (GSK), and HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine, Merck and Co., Inc.,] differ in terms of protection against oncogenic non-vaccine HPV types -31/45. The immune responses induced by the two vaccines against these two non-vaccine HPV types (cross-reactivity) was compared in an observer-blind study up to Month 24 (18 mo postvaccination), in women HPV DNA-negative and seronegative prior to vaccination for the HPV type analyzed [HPV-010 (NCT00423046)]. Geometric mean antibody titers (GMTs) measured by pseudovirion-based neutralization assay (PBNA) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA ) were similar between vaccines for HPV-31/45. Seropositivity rates for HPV-31 were also similar between vaccines; however, there was a trend for higher seropositivity with the HPV-16/18 vaccine (13.0–16.7%) vs. the HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine (0.0–5.0%) for HPV-45 with PBNA, but not ELISA . HPV-31/45 cross-reactive memory B-cell responses were comparable between vaccines. Circulating antigen-specific CD4+ T-cell frequencies were higher for the HPV-16/18 vaccine than the HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine {HPV-31 [geometric mean ratio (GMR) = 2.0; p = 0.0002] and HPV-45 [GMR = 2.6; p = 0.0092]}, as were the proportion of T-cell responders (HPV-31, p = 0.0009; HPV-45, p = 0.0793). In conclusion, immune response to oncogenic non-vaccine HPV types -31/45 was generally similar for both vaccines with the exception of T-cell response which was higher with the HPV-16/18 vaccine. Considering the differences in cross-protective efficacy between the two vaccines, the results might provide insights into the underlying mechanism(s) of protection.

Combination vaccines represent one solution to the problem of increased numbers of injections during single clinic visits. A combined DTaP-IPV (Infanrix-IPV) vaccine has been developed for use as a pre-school booster. Four hundred healthy children aged 4-6 years previously primed with 4 doses of DTaP vaccine (Infanrix), 3 doses of poliovirus vaccine and 1 dose of MMR vaccine were randomized to receive single doses of either the combined DTaP-IPV vaccine or separate DTaP and IPV vaccines in a Phase II trial (DTaP-IPV-047). All children also received a second dose of MMR vaccine. Immunogenicity was assessed in serum samples taken before and 1 month after booster administration. Safety was actively assessed for 42 days post-vaccination. Non-inferiority of the DTaP-IPV vaccine to separate DTaP and IPV vaccines was demonstrated for all DTaP antigen booster response rates and poliovirus geometric mean titers of antibody ratios. Post-vaccination, > or =99.4% of children in both groups had seroprotective levels of anti-diphtheria and anti-tetanus antibodies (> or =0.1IU/mL) and seroprotective anti-poliovirus antibody titers (> or =1:8). All children in both groups were seropositive for measles, mumps and rubella antibodies, with similar post-vaccination geometric mean concentrations/titers. No significant differences were observed in the incidence of solicited local or general symptoms, unsolicited symptoms and serious adverse events between the two groups. This combined DTaP-IPV appeared safe and immunogenic when given as a booster dose at 4-6 years of age. The DTaP-IPV vaccine had no negative effect on the response to co-administered MMR vaccine, making it well-suited for use as a pre-school booster.

Objective: To examine the morphology and motility of the distal small bowel of infants with rotavirus gastroenteritis using non-invasive/non-ionizing imaging technology. Methods: Prospective, non-randomized observational study of five infants with symptomatic rotavirus infection. Infants were imaged by real-time magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound within 5 days of onset of gastroenteritis symptoms. Imaging studies were repeated in the convalescent period 5 to 9 weeks later. Results: Three of five infants had a significant increase in the ileal wall thickness visualized by ultrasound during acute rotavirus infection compared with convalescence. The number and size of mesenteric lymph nodes visualized by ultrasound appeared similar in the acute and convalescent phases, as did peristaltic activity assessed by MRI. Conclusion: Abdominal ultrasound can detect changes in ileal wall thickness in infants with rotavirus infection. These changes may reflect ileal inflammation elicited by viral infection. Such studies may prove useful in evaluating morphologic response to attenuated rotavirus vaccines.

Objectives: The primary objective was to assess the nature and incidence of adverse events after a fourth dose of a tricomponent acellular pertussis-diphtheria-tetanus vaccine given in the second year of life after primary vaccination with the same vaccine at 3, 4, and 5 months of age. A secondary objective was to analyze the immunogenicity of the booster vaccination. Design: Of the 5361 children enrolled (aged 14 to 28 months), adverse reactions were specifically solicited from the first 1863 enrollees for the first 4 days after vaccination and then were unsolicited for the remainder of the 4 weeks of follow-up (group 1). In the next 3498 subjects, safety and reactogenicity were entirely unsolicited for this 4-week period (group 2). Immunogenicity was analyzed by means of prebooster and postbooster serum antibody titers for all vaccine components in a random subgroup of 197 children from group 1. Results: Soliciting symptoms elicited reports of at least one symptom in 1314 of 1809 children in group 1 (72.6%), including 993 (54.9%) with local and 885 (48.9%) with general symptoms during the first 4 days after vaccination. When symptoms were gathered in an unsolicited fashion, only 580 of 3498 children in group 2 (16.6%) had a reported symptom during this time, consisting of 344 (9.8%) local and 319 (9.1%) general symptoms, respectively. An unsolicited symptom, areactive edematous swelling of the whole thigh, occurred in 62 children (1.1%), with 45 and 17 reports in groups 1 and 2, respectively. The vast majority of all reported symptoms were mild to moderate, and all children recovered without sequelae. Fourteen serious adverse events were reported, but none was considered to be related to the vaccination. Immunogenicity analysis showed a vaccine response to pertussis toxin in 99.5% of subjects, to filamentous hemagglutinin in 98.5%, and to pertactin (69 kd outer membrane protein) in 99%. All subjects had postvaccination antibody titers of 0.1 IU/ml or greater against diphtheria and tetanus toxoids. Conclusions: A fourth dose of acellular pertussis-diphtheria-tetanus vaccine as a booster dose is safe and well tolerated, although adverse events were higher than after primary vaccination. Soliciting adverse events increases the reports by a factor of 4 to 20, which suggests that the perceived clinical relevance of these events is low. The vaccine was highly immunogenic and induced a booster response. (J Pediatr 1997;130:616-23)

OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety and tolerability of 12 lots of SmithKline Beecham Biologicals' diphtheria-tetanus-tricomponent acellular pertussis vaccine (DTaP) in a large cohort of 22,000 vaccinees, with detailed analyses of reactivity, immunogenicity, and immune response to pertussis toxin in subsets. METHODS: In a prospective, double-blind, multicenter trial in Germany, 22,505 healthy infants received three vaccinations of DTaP at age 3, 4, and 5 months. Serious adverse events were followed for 1 month after each vaccination, and neurologic events for 1 year or longer. Serum IgG antibodies were assayed before vaccination and 1 month after vaccination. RESULTS: After 67,000 doses, 153 serious adverse events (0.23%) were reported, 8 considered possibly related, and 5 related to vaccination, including 1 hypotonic-hyporesponsive episode. Incidence rates of sudden infant death syndrome (7; 0.01%) or acute neurologic events (20; 0.030%) were no higher than expected and not considered to be related to vaccination. Redness and swelling of 20 mm or greater occurred after 44 (0.6%) and 40 (0.6%) of the 7270 doses, respectively, and high fever (>39.5° C) in 6 (0.08%) subjects within 48 hours of vaccination. In the immunogenicity analysis of 580 infants, 98% responded to pertussis toxin, 96% to filamentous hemagglutinin, and 98% to pertactin. In an additional 5712 infants, the response rate to pertussis toxin was 99%. CONCLUSIONS: In a large cohort of 22,505 infants vaccinated, SmithKline Beecham Biologicals' tricomponent DTaP vaccine was shown to be safe, well-tolerated, and immunogenic for all component antigens. (J Pediatr 1996;129:695-701)

Background AS03-adjuvanted H5N1 pandemic influenza vaccines have been assessed in an extensive clinical development program conducted in North America, Europe, and Asia including children from 6 months of age, adults, and elderly adults. We evaluated AS03-H5N1 in Korean adults 18 through 60 years of age. Methods This Phase IV, randomized, study was conducted to assess the immunogenicity, reactogenicity, and safety of two doses (3.75 μg of hemagglutinin antigen) of A/Indonesia/5/2005 (H5N1) adjuvanted with AS03 given 21 days apart in Korean adults. Antibody responses were assessed using hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assays against the vaccine strain and a vaccine-heterologous strain (A/Vietnam/1194/2004) 21 days after the second dose. A control group (safety) received a licensed seasonal inactivated trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV). Reactogenicity was assessed for 7 days after each vaccination, and unsolicited adverse events were assessed for 182 days following vaccination in both study groups (NCT01730378). Results AS03-H5N1 was immunogenic and elicited robust HI antibody responses with seroconversion rates of 100% for the vaccine strain and 69.1% for the heterologous strain ( N = 81). HI antibody responses fulfilled the European licensure criteria for immunogenicity (primary endpoint). The incidence of local and systemic solicited adverse events (reactogenicity) was higher with AS03-H5N1 than TIV. There was no apparent difference in the rate of unsolicited adverse events in the AS03-H5N1 and TIV groups. Conclusion The results indicate that AS03-H5N1 vaccine is immunogenic with reactogenicity and safety findings that are consistent with the established profile of AS03-H5N1 vaccine.