Could less be more? Accounting for fractional-dose regimens and different number of vaccine doses when measuring the impact of the RTS, S/AS01E malaria vaccine

BACKGROUND

The RTS, S/AS01E malaria vaccine (RTS, S) is recommended for children in moderate-to-high Plasmodium falciparum malaria transmission areas. This phase 2b trial (NCT03276962) evaluates RTS, S fractional- and full-dose regimens in Ghana and Kenya.

METHODS

1500 children aged 5-17 months were randomised (1:1:1:1:1) to receive RTS, S or rabies control vaccine. RTS, S groups received two full RTS, S doses at month (M)0/M1 followed by either full (groups R012-20, R012-14-26) or fractional (1/5) doses (groups Fx012-14-26, Fx017-20-32).

RESULTS

At M32 post-first dose, vaccine efficacy (VE) against clinical malaria (all episodes) ranged from 38% (R012-20; 95%CI: 24-49) to 53% (R012-14-26; 95%CI: 42-62). Vaccine impact estimates (cumulative number of malaria cases averted/1000 children vaccinated) were 1344 (R012-20), 2450 (R012-14-26), 2273 (Fx012-14-26), 2112 (Fx017-20-32). To account for differences in vaccine volume (fractional- versus full-dose), in a post-hoc analysis, we also estimated cases averted/1000 RTS, S full-dose equivalents: 336 (R012-20), 490 (R012-14-26), 874 (Fx012-14-26), 880 (Fx017-20-32).

CONCLUSIONS

VE against clinical malaria was similar in all RTS, S groups. Vaccine impact accounting for full-dose equivalence suggests that using fractional-dose regimens could be a viable dose-sparing strategy. If borne out through trial end (M50), these observations underscore the means to reduce cost per regimen with a goal of maximising impact and optimising supply.

Seasonal vaccination with RTS,S/AS01E vaccine with or without seasonal malaria chemoprevention in children up to the age of 5 years in Burkina Faso and Mali: a double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Seasonal vaccination with the RTS,S/AS01E vaccine combined with seasonal malaria chemoprevention (SMC) prevented malaria in young children more effectively than either intervention given alone over a 3 year period. The objective of this study was to establish whether the added protection provided by the combination could be sustained for a further 2 years.

METHODS

This was a double-blind, individually randomised, controlled, non-inferiority and superiority, phase 3 trial done at two sites: the Bougouni district and neighbouring areas in Mali and Houndé district, Burkina Faso. Children who had been enrolled in the initial 3-year trial when aged 5-17 months were initially randomly assigned individually to receive SMC with sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine and amodiaquine plus control vaccines, RTS,S/AS01E plus placebo SMC, or SMC plus RTS,S/AS01E. They continued to receive the same interventions until the age of 5 years. The primary trial endpoint was the incidence of clinical malaria over the 5-year trial period in both the modified intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations. Over the 5-year period, non-inferiority was defined as a 20% increase in clinical malaria in the RTS,S/AS01E-alone group compared with the SMC alone group. Superiority was defined as a 12% difference in the incidence of clinical malaria between the combined and single intervention groups. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04319380, and is complete.

FINDINGS

In April, 2020, of 6861 children originally recruited, 5098 (94%) of the 5433 children who completed the initial 3-year follow-up were re-enrolled in the extension study. Over 5 years, the incidence of clinical malaria per 1000 person-years at risk was 313 in the SMC alone group, 320 in the RTS,S/AS01E-alone group, and 133 in the combined group. The combination of RTS,S/AS01E and SMC was superior to SMC (protective efficacy 57·7%, 95% CI 53·3 to 61·7) and to RTS,S/AS01E (protective efficacy 59·0%, 54·7 to 62·8) in preventing clinical malaria. RTS,S/AS01E was non-inferior to SMC (hazard ratio 1·03 [95% CI 0·95 to 1·12]). The protective efficacy of the combination versus SMC over the 5-year period of the study was very similar to that seen in the first 3 years with the protective efficacy of the combination versus SMC being 57·7% (53·3 to 61·7) and versus RTS/AS01E-alone being 59·0% (54·7 to 62·8). The comparable figures for the first 3 years of the study were 62·8% (58·4 to 66·8) and 59·6% (54·7 to 64·0%), respectively. Hospital admissions for WHO-defined severe malaria were reduced by 66·8% (95% CI 40·3 to 81·5), for malarial anaemia by 65·9% (34·1 to 82·4), for blood transfusion by 68·1% (32·6 to 84·9), for all-cause deaths by 44·5% (2·8 to 68·3), for deaths excluding external causes or surgery by 41·1% (-9·2 to 68·3), and for deaths from malaria by 66·8% (-2·7 to 89·3) in the combined group compared with the SMC alone group. No safety signals were detected.

INTERPRETATION

Substantial protection against malaria was sustained over 5 years by combining seasonal malaria vaccination with seasonal chemoprevention, offering a potential new approach to malaria control in areas with seasonal malaria transmission.

FUNDING

UK Joint Global Health Trials and PATH's Malaria Vaccine Initiative (through a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation).

TRANSLATION

For the French translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Baseline malaria infection status and RTS,S/AS01E malaria vaccine efficacy

Background

The only licensed malaria vaccine, RTS,S/AS01 E , confers moderate protection against symptomatic disease. Because many malaria infections are asymptomatic, we conducted a large-scale longitudinal parasite genotyping study of samples from a clinical trial exploring how vaccine dosing regimen affects vaccine efficacy (VE).

Methods

1,500 children aged 5-17 months were randomized to receive four different RTS,S/AS01 E regimens or a rabies control vaccine in a phase 2b clinical trial in Ghana and Kenya. We evaluated the time to the first new genotypically detected infection and the total number of new infections during two follow-up periods in over 36K participant specimens. We performed a post hoc analysis of VE based on malaria infection status at first vaccination and force of infection.

Results

We observed significant and comparable VE (25-43%, 95% CI union 9-53%) against first new infection for all four RTS,S/AS01 E regimens across both follow-up periods (12 and 20 months). Each RTS,S/AS01 E regimen significantly reduced the number of new infections in the 20-month follow-up period (control mean 4.1 vs. RTS,S/AS01 E mean 2.6-3.0). VE against first new infection was significantly higher in participants who were malaria-infected (68%; 95% CI, 50 to 80%) versus uninfected (37%; 95% CI, 23 to 48%) at the first vaccination (P=0.0053) and in participants experiencing greater force of infection between dose 1 and 3 (P=0.059).

Conclusions

All tested dosing regimens blocked some infections to a similar degree. Improved VE in participants infected during vaccination could suggest new strategies for highly efficacious malaria vaccine development and implementation. ( ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03276962 ).

The Anti-Circumsporozoite Antibody Response of Children to Seasonal Vaccination With the RTS,S/AS01E Malaria Vaccine

BACKGROUND

A trial in African children showed that combining seasonal vaccination with the RTS,S/AS01E vaccine with seasonal malaria chemoprevention reduced the incidence of uncomplicated and severe malaria compared with either intervention given alone. Here, we report on the anti-circumsporozoite antibody response to seasonal RTS,S/AS01E vaccination in children in this trial.

METHODS

Sera from a randomly selected subset of children collected before and 1 month after 3 priming doses of RTS,S/AS01E and before and 1 month after 2 seasonal booster doses were tested for anti-circumsporozoite antibodies using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. The association between post-vaccination antibody titer and incidence of malaria was explored.

RESULTS

A strong anti-circumsporozoite antibody response to 3 priming doses of RTS,S/AS01E was seen (geometric mean titer, 368.9 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay units/mL), but titers fell prior to the first booster dose. A strong antibody response to an annual, pre-malaria transmission season booster dose was observed, but this was lower than after the primary vaccination series and lower after the second than after the first booster dose (ratio of geometric mean rise, 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], .57-.77). Children whose antibody response was in the upper tercile post-vaccination had a lower incidence of malaria during the following year than children in the lowest tercile (hazard ratio, 0.43; 95% CI, .28-.66).

CONCLUSIONS

Seasonal vaccination with RTS,S/AS01E induced a strong booster antibody response that was lower after the second than after the first booster dose. The diminished antibody response to the second booster dose was not associated with diminished efficacy.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

NCT03143218.

Challenges and lessons learned from four years of planning and implementing pharmacovigilance enhancement in sub-Saharan Africa

Pharmacovigilance (PV) systems in many countries in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) are not fully functional. The spontaneous adverse events (AE) reporting rate in SSA is lower than in any other region of the world, and healthcare professionals (HCPs) in SSA countries have limited awareness of AE surveillance and reporting procedures. The GSK PV enhancement pilot initiative, in collaboration with PATH and national PV stakeholders, aimed to strengthen passive safety surveillance through a training and mentoring program of HCPs in healthcare facilities in three SSA countries: Malawi, Côte d’Ivoire, and Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Project implementation was country-driven, led by the Ministry of Health via the national PV center or department, and was adapted to each country’s needs. The implementation phase for each country was scheduled to last 18 months. At project start, low AE reporting rates reflected that awareness of PV practices was very low among HCPs in all three countries, even if a national PV center already existed. Malawi did not have a functional PV system nor a national PV center prior to the start of the initiative. After 18 months of PV training and mentoring of HCPs, passive safety surveillance was enhanced significantly as shown by the increased number of AE reports: from 22 during 2000–2016 to 228 in 18 months to 511 in 30 months in Malawi, and ~ 80% of AE reports from trained healthcare facilities in Côte d’Ivoire. In DRC, project implementation ended after 7 months because of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Main challenges encountered were delayed AE report transmission (1–2 months, due mainly to remoteness of healthcare facilities and complex procedures for transmitting reports to the national PV center), delayed or no causality assessment due to lack of expertise and/or funding, negative perceptions among HCPs toward AE reporting, and difficulties in engaging public health programs with the centralized AE reporting processes. This pilot project has enabled the countries to train more HCPs, increased reporting of AEs and identified KPIs that could be flexibly replicated in each country. Country ownership and empowerment is essential to sustain these improvements and build a stronger AE reporting culture.

Impact of seasonal RTS,S/AS01E vaccination plus seasonal malaria chemoprevention on the nutritional status of children in Burkina Faso and Mali

BACKGROUND

A recent trial in Burkina Faso and Mali showed that combining seasonal RTS,S/AS01_E malaria vaccination with seasonal malaria chemoprevention (SMC) substantially reduced the incidence of uncomplicated and severe malaria in young children compared to either intervention alone. Given the possible negative effect of malaria on nutrition, the study investigated whether these children also experienced lower prevalence of acute and chronic malnutrition.

METHODS

In Burkina Faso and Mali 5920 children were randomized to receive either SMC alone, RTS,S/AS01_E alone, or SMC combined with RTS,S/AS01_E for three malaria transmission seasons (2017-2019). After each transmission season, anthropometric measurements were collected from all study children at a cross-sectional survey and used to derive nutritional status indicators, including the binary variables wasted and stunted (weight-for-height and height-for-age z-scores below - 2, respectively). Binary and continuous outcomes between treatment groups were compared by Poisson and linear regression.

RESULTS

In 2017, compared to SMC alone, the combined intervention reduced the prevalence of wasting by approximately 12% [prevalence ratio (PR) = 0.88 (95% CI 0.75, 1.03)], and approximately 21% in 2018 [PR = 0.79 (95% CI 0.62, 1.01)]. Point estimates were similar for comparisons with RTS,S/AS01_E, but there was stronger evidence of a difference. There was at least a 30% reduction in the point estimates for the prevalence of severe wasting in the combined group compared to the other two groups in 2017 and 2018. There was no difference in the prevalence of moderate or severe wasting between the groups in 2019. The prevalence of stunting, low-MUAC-for-age or being underweight did not differ between groups for any of the three years. The prevalence of severe stunting was higher in the combined group compared to both other groups in 2018, and compared to RTS,S/AS01_E alone in 2017; this observation does not have an obvious explanation and may be a chance finding. Overall, malnutrition was very common in this cohort, but declined over the study as the children became older.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a high burden of malnutrition and malaria in the study populations, and a major reduction in the incidence of malaria in children receiving both interventions, this had only a modest impact on nutritional status. Therefore, other interventions are needed to reduce the high burden of malnutrition in these areas.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03143218 , registered 8th May 2017.

A phase IIA extension study evaluating the effect of booster vaccination with a fractional dose of RTS,S/AS01E in a controlled human malaria infection challenge

BACKGROUND

We previously demonstrated that RTS,S/AS01_B and RTS,S/AS01_E vaccination regimens including at least one delayed fractional dose can protect against Plasmodium falciparum malaria in a controlled human malaria infection (CHMI) model, and showed inferiority of a two-dose versus three-dose regimen. In this follow-on trial, we evaluated whether fractional booster vaccination extended or induced protection in previously protected (P-Fx) or non-protected (NP-Fx) participants.

METHODS

49 participants (P-Fx: 25; NP-Fx: 24) received a fractional (1/5th dose-volume) RTS,S/AS01_E booster 12 months post-primary regimen. They underwent P. falciparum CHMI three weeks later and were then followed for six months for safety and immunogenicity.

RESULTS

Overall vaccine efficacy against re-challenge was 53% (95% CI: 37-65%), and similar for P-Fx (52% [95% CI: 28-68%]) and NP-Fx (54% [95% CI: 29-70%]). Efficacy appeared unaffected by primary regimen or previous protection status. Anti-CS (repeat region) antibody geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) increased post-booster vaccination. GMCs were maintained over time in primary three-dose groups but declined in the two-dose group. Protection after re-challenge was associated with higher anti-CS antibody responses. The booster was well-tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

A fractional RTS,S/AS01_E booster given one year after completion of a primary two- or three-dose RTS,S/AS01 delayed fractional dose regimen can extend or induce protection against CHMI.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03824236. linked to this article can be found on the Research Data as well as Figshare https://figshare.com/s/ee025150f9d1ac739361.

Seasonal Malaria Vaccination with or without Seasonal Malaria Chemoprevention

BACKGROUND

Malaria control remains a challenge in many parts of the Sahel and sub-Sahel regions of Africa.

METHODS

We conducted an individually randomized, controlled trial to assess whether seasonal vaccination with RTS,S/AS01_E was noninferior to chemoprevention in preventing uncomplicated malaria and whether the two interventions combined were superior to either one alone in preventing uncomplicated malaria and severe malaria-related outcomes.

RESULTS

We randomly assigned 6861 children 5 to 17 months of age to receive sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine and amodiaquine (2287 children [chemoprevention-alone group]), RTS,S/AS01_E (2288 children [vaccine-alone group]), or chemoprevention and RTS,S/AS01_E (2286 children [combination group]). Of these, 1965, 1988, and 1967 children in the three groups, respectively, received the first dose of the assigned intervention and were followed for 3 years. Febrile seizure developed in 5 children the day after receipt of the vaccine, but the children recovered and had no sequelae. There were 305 events of uncomplicated clinical malaria per 1000 person-years at risk in the chemoprevention-alone group, 278 events per 1000 person-years in the vaccine-alone group, and 113 events per 1000 person-years in the combination group. The hazard ratio for the protective efficacy of RTS,S/AS01_E as compared with chemoprevention was 0.92 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84 to 1.01), which excluded the prespecified noninferiority margin of 1.20. The protective efficacy of the combination as compared with chemoprevention alone was 62.8% (95% CI, 58.4 to 66.8) against clinical malaria, 70.5% (95% CI, 41.9 to 85.0) against hospital admission with severe malaria according to the World Health Organization definition, and 72.9% (95% CI, 2.9 to 92.4) against death from malaria. The protective efficacy of the combination as compared with the vaccine alone against these outcomes was 59.6% (95% CI, 54.7 to 64.0), 70.6% (95% CI, 42.3 to 85.0), and 75.3% (95% CI, 12.5 to 93.0), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Administration of RTS,S/AS01_E was noninferior to chemoprevention in preventing uncomplicated malaria. The combination of these interventions resulted in a substantially lower incidence of uncomplicated malaria, severe malaria, and death from malaria than either intervention alone. (Funded by the Joint Global Health Trials and PATH; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03143218.).

A Phase IIa Controlled Human Malaria Infection and Immunogenicity Study of RTS,S/AS01E and RTS,S/AS01B Delayed Fractional Dose Regimens in Malaria-Naive Adults

Background

A previous RTS,S/AS01_B vaccine challenge trial demonstrated that a 3-dose (0-1-7–month) regimen with a fractional third dose can produce high vaccine efficacy (VE) in adults challenged 3 weeks after vaccination. This study explored the VE of different delayed fractional dose regimens of adult and pediatric RTS,S/AS01 formulations.

Methods

A total of 130 participants were randomized into 5 groups. Four groups received 3 doses of RTS,S/AS01_B or RTS,S/AS01_E on a 0-1-7–month schedule, with the final 1 or 2 doses being fractional (one-fifth dose volume). One group received 1 full (month 0) and 1 fractional (month 7) dose of RTS,S/AS01_E. Immunized and unvaccinated control participants underwent Plasmodium falciparum–infected mosquito challenge (controlled human malaria infection) 3 months after immunization, a timing chosen to potentially discriminate VEs between groups.

Results

The VE of 3-dose formulations ranged from 55% (95% confidence interval, 27%–72%) to 76% (48%–89%). Groups administered equivalent formulations of RTS,S/AS01_E and RTS,S/AS01_B demonstrated comparable VE. The 2-dose group demonstrated lower VE (29% [95% confidence interval, 6%–46%]). All regimens were well tolerated and immunogenic, with trends toward higher anti-circumsporozoite antibody titers in participants protected against infection.

Conclusions

RTS,S/AS01_E can provide VE comparable to an equivalent RTS,S/AS01_B regimen in adults, suggesting a universal formulation may be considered. Results also suggest that the 2-dose regimen is inferior to the 3-dose regimens evaluated.

Clinical Trial Registration

NCT03162614

Whole blood can be used as an alternative to isolated peripheral blood mononuclear cells to measure in vitro specific T-cell responses in human samples

Vaccinology is confronted with diseases for which the control of T-cell responses by the vaccine is essential. Among the assays that have been designed to assess T-cell responses, intracellular cytokine staining (ICS) combined with flow cytometry is well-suited in the frame of clinical trials. This assay can be used starting from isolated peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) or from whole blood (WB), but firm equivalence between the two sample preparation methods has yet to be established. Therefore, we compared both methods by analyzing the frequency of antigen-specific CD4⁺ T cells expressing at least two of four immune markers in human samples taken from two independent clinical trials (NCT00397943 and NCT00805389) with a qualified ICS assay. In the first study, M72-specific CD4⁺ T-cell responses were analyzed using WB-ICS and PBMC-ICS in 293 samples. Of these, 128 were double positive (value ≥ lower limit of quantification [LLOQ] with both methods), 130 were double negative and only 35 sample results were discordant, leading to an overall agreement of 88.05%. When analyzing the 128 double positive samples, it was found that the geometric mean of ratios (GMR) for paired observations was 0.98, which indicates a very good alignment between the two methods. The Deming regression fitted between the methods also showed a good correlation with an estimated slope being 1.1085. In the second study, HBsAg-specific CD4⁺ T-cell responses were analyzed in 371 samples. Of these, 100 were double positive, 195 were double negative and 76 sample results were discordant, leading to an overall agreement of 79.51%. The GMR for paired observations was equal to 1.20, caused by a trend for overestimation in favor of the WB samples in the very high frequencies. The estimated slope of the Deming regression was 1.3057. In conclusion, we demonstrated that WB and PBMC methods of sample collection led to statistically concordant ICS results, indicating that WB-ICS is a suitable alternative to PBMC-ICS to analyze clinical trial samples.

Seasonal malaria vaccination: protocol of a phase 3 trial of seasonal vaccination with the RTS,S/AS01E vaccine, seasonal malaria chemoprevention and the combination of vaccination and chemoprevention

INTRODUCTION

Seasonal malaria chemoprevention (SMC), with sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine plus amodiaquine (SP+AQ) is effective but does not provide complete protection against clinical malaria. The RTS,S/AS01_E malaria vaccine provides a high level of protection shortly after vaccination, but this wanes rapidly. Such a vaccine could be an alternative or additive to SMC. This trial aims to determine whether seasonal vaccination with RTS,S/AS01_E vaccine could be an alternative to SMC and whether a combination of the two interventions would provide added benefits.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is an individually randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. 5920 children aged 5-17 months were enrolled in April 2017 in Mali and Burkina Faso. Children in group 1 received three priming doses of RTS,S/AS01_E vaccine before the start of the 2017 malaria transmission season and a booster dose at the beginning of two subsequent transmission seasons. In addition, they received SMC SP+AQ placebo on four occasions each year. Children in group 2 received three doses of rabies vaccine in year 1 and hepatitis A vaccine in years 2 and 3 together with four cycles of SMC SP+AQ each year. Children in group 3 received RTS,S/AS01_E vaccine and four courses of SMC SP+AQ. Incidence of clinical malaria is determined by case detection at health facilities. Weekly active surveillance for malaria is undertaken in a randomly selected subset of children. The prevalence of malaria is measured in surveys at the end of each transmission season. The primary endpoint is the incidence of clinical malaria confirmed by a positive blood film with a minimum parasite density of 5000 /µL. Primary analysis will be by modified intention to treat defined as children who have received the first dose of the malaria or control vaccine.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The protocol was approved by the national ethics committees of Mali and Burkina Faso and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. The results will be presented to all stakeholders and published in open access journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03143218; Pre-results.

Immunogenicity and safety of the RTS,S/AS01 malaria vaccine co-administered with measles, rubella and yellow fever vaccines in Ghanaian children: A phase IIIb, multi-center, non-inferiority, randomized, open, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

To optimize vaccine implementation visits for young children, it could be efficient to administer the first RTS,S/AS01 malaria vaccine dose during the Expanded Programme on Immunization (EPI) visit at 6 months of age together with Vitamin A supplementation and the third RTS,S/AS01 dose on the same day as yellow fever (YF), measles and rubella vaccines at 9 months of age. We evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of RTS,S/AS01 when co-administered with YF and combined measles-rubella (MR) vaccines.

METHODS

In this phase 3b, open-label, controlled study (NCT02699099), 709 Ghanaian children were randomized (1:1:1) to receive RTS,S/AS01 at 6, 7.5 and 9 months of age, and YF and MR vaccines at 9 or 10.5 months of age (RTS,S coad and RTS,S alone groups, respectively). The third group received YF and MR vaccines at 9 months of age and will receive RTS,S/AS01 at 10.5, 11.5 and 12.5 months of age (Control group). All children received Vitamin A at 6 months of age. Non-inferiority of immune responses to the vaccine antigens was evaluated 1 month following co-administration versus RTS,S/AS01 or EPI vaccines (YF and MR vaccines) alone using pre-defined non-inferiority criteria. Safety was assessed until Study month 4.5.

RESULTS

Non-inferiority of antibody responses to the anti-circumsporozoite and anti-hepatitis B virus surface antigens when RTS,S/AS01 was co-administered with YF and MR vaccines versus RTS,S/AS01 alone was demonstrated. Non-inferiority of antibody responses to the measles, rubella, and YF antigens when RTS,S/AS01 was co-administered with YF and MR vaccines versus YF and MR vaccines alone was demonstrated. The safety profile of all vaccines was clinically acceptable in all groups.

CONCLUSIONS

RTS,S/AS01 can be co-administered with Vitamin A at 6 months and with YF and MR vaccines at 9 months of age during EPI visits, without immune response impairment to any vaccine antigen or negative safety effect.

Safety profile of the RTS,S/AS01 malaria vaccine in infants and children: additional data from a phase III randomized controlled trial in sub-Saharan Africa

A phase III, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial (NCT00866619) in sub-Saharan Africa showed RTS,S/AS01 vaccine efficacy against malaria. We now present in-depth safety results from this study. 8922 children (enrolled at 5–17 months) and 6537 infants (enrolled at 6–12 weeks) were 1:1:1-randomized to receive 4 doses of RTS,S/AS01 (R3R) or non-malaria control vaccine (C3C), or 3 RTS,S/AS01 doses plus control (R3C). Aggregate safety data were reviewed by a multi-functional team. Severe malaria with Blantyre Coma Score ≤2 (cerebral malaria [CM]) and gender-specific mortality were assessed post-hoc. Serious adverse event (SAE) and fatal SAE incidences throughout the study were 24.2%–28.4% and 1.5%–2.5%, respectively across groups; 0.0%–0.3% of participants reported vaccination-related SAEs. The incidence of febrile convulsions in children was higher during the first 2–3 days post-vaccination with RTS,S/AS01 than with control vaccine, consistent with the time window of post-vaccination febrile reactions in this study (mostly the day after vaccination). A statistically significant numerical imbalance was observed for meningitis cases in children (R3R: 11, R3C: 10, C3C: 1) but not in infants. CM cases were more frequent in RTS,S/AS01-vaccinated children (R3R: 19, R3C: 24, C3C: 10) but not in infants. All-cause mortality was higher in RTS,S/AS01-vaccinated versus control girls (2.4% vs 1.3%, all ages) in our setting with low overall mortality. The observed meningitis and CM signals are considered likely chance findings, that – given their severity – warrant further evaluation in phase IV studies and WHO-led pilot implementation programs to establish the RTS,S/AS01 benefit-risk profile in real-life settings.

Long-term safety and immunogenicity of the M72/AS01E candidate tuberculosis vaccine in HIV-positive and -negative Indian adults: Results from a phase II randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To assess the long-term safety and immunogenicity of the M72/ Adjuvant System (AS01E) candidate tuberculosis (TB) vaccine up to 3 years post-dose 2 (Y3) in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive (HIV+) and HIV-negative (HIV-) Indian adults.

METHODS

This phase II, double-blind, randomised, controlled clinical trial (NCT01262976) was conducted at YRG CARE Medical Centre, in Chennai, India, between January 2011 and June 2015.Three cohorts (HIV+ participants stable on antiretroviral therapy [ART; HIV+ART+], HIV+ ART-naïve [HIV+ART-], and HIV- participants) were randomised (1:1) to receive 2 doses of M72/AS01E (M72/AS01E groups) or saline (control groups) 1 month apart and were followed up toY3. Latent TB infection was assessed at screening using an interferon-gamma (IFN-γ) release assay (IGRA). Safety and immunogenicity results up to Y1 post-vaccination were reported elsewhere. Here, we report serious adverse events (SAEs), humoral and cell-mediated immune (CMI) responses to M72 recorded at Y2 and Y3.

RESULTS

Of 240 enrolled and vaccinated participants, 214 completed the long-term follow-up part of the study.In addition to SAEs previously described, between Y1 and Y2 1 M72/AS01E recipient in the HIV+ART+ cohort reported 2 SAEs (sinus cavernous thrombosis and gastroenteritis) that were not considered as causally related to the study vaccine.Vaccination elicited persistent humoral immune responses against M72. At Y3, seropositivity rates were 97.1%, 66.7%, and 97.3% and geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) were 22.0  ELISA units (EU)/mL, 4.9 EU/mL, and 24.3 EU/mL in the HIV+ART+, HIV+ART-, and HIV- cohorts, respectively. Humoral immune response was lowest in the HIV+ART- cohort.In M72/AS01E recipients, no notable decrease in the frequency of M72-specific CD4 T-cells expressing ≥2 immune markers among interleukin-2 (IL-2), IFN-γ, tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) and CD40 ligand (CD40L) was observed at Y3 post-vaccination. Median values (interquartile range) of 0.35% (0.13-0.49), 0.05% (0.01-0.10), and 0.15% (0.09-0.22) were recorded in the HIV+ART+, HIV+ART- and HIV- cohorts, respectively. CD4 T-cell response was lowest in the HIV+ART- cohort.No CD8 T-cell response was observed.

CONCLUSION

The cellular and humoral immune responses induced by M72/AS01E in HIV+ and HIV- adults persisted up to Y3 post-vaccination. No safety concerns were raised regarding administration of M72/AS01E to HIV+ adults.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01262976 (www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Immunogenicity and safety of an inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine co-administered with a 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine versus separate administration, in adults ≥50years of age: Results from a phase III, randomized, non-inferiority trial

INTRODUCTION

We compared co-administration versus separate administration of an inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine (IIV4) with a 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV23) in adults at high risk of complications of influenza and pneumococcal infection.

METHODS

This phase III, placebo-controlled, observer-blind trial (NCT02218697) was conducted in France and Belgium during the 2014-2015 influenza season. Adults≥50years of age meeting their country's vaccination recommendations were randomized 1:1 to co-administration or separate administration. Immunogenicity was assessed by hemagglutination inhibition (HI) titers for IIV4 and 22F-inhibition ELISA for PPV23. Co-primary objectives were to demonstrate non-inferiority of co-administration versus separate administration in terms of geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio for each influenza strain in the IIV4 and geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio for six pneumococcal serotypes (1, 3, 4, 7F, 14, 19A) in the PPV23 in the per-protocol cohort (N=334).

RESULTS

The study met its co-primary objectives, with the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT and GMC ratios (separate administration over co-administration) being ≤2.0 for all four antigens of the IIV4 and the six pre-selected serotypes of the PPV23, respectively. Immunogenicity of the IIV4 and PPV23 was similar regardless of administration schedule. In a post hoc analysis pooling participants ≥60years of age from the co-administration and separate administration groups, IIV4 immunogenicity was similar in higher risk adults with comorbidities (diabetes; respiratory, heart, kidney, liver, or neurological diseases; morbid obesity) versus those without. Both vaccines had an acceptable safety and reactogenicity profile; pain was the most common symptom, occurring more often with co-administration than separate administration.

CONCLUSION

The IIV4 and PPV23 can be co-administered without reducing antibody responses reflecting protection against influenza or pneumococcal disease. Co-administration of PPV23 at the annual influenza vaccination visit may improve uptake. Comorbidities had no impact on IIV4 immunogenicity, supporting its value in older adults with chronic medical conditions. Clinical Trial Registry Number: NCT02218697.

Time to Change Dosing of Inactivated Quadrivalent Influenza Vaccine in Young Children: Evidence From a Phase III, Randomized, Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND.

Children under 3 years of age may benefit from a double-dose of inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine (IIV4) instead of the standard-dose.

METHODS.

We compared the only United States-licensed standard-dose IIV4 (0.25 mL, 7.5 µg hemagglutinin per influenza strain) versus double-dose IIV4 manufactured by a different process (0.5 mL, 15 µg per strain) in a phase III, randomized, observer-blind trial in children 6-35 months of age (NCT02242643). The primary objective was to demonstrate immunogenic noninferiority of the double-dose for all vaccine strains 28 days after last vaccination. Immunogenic superiority of the double-dose was evaluated post hoc. Immunogenicity was assessed in the per-protocol cohort (N = 2041), and safety was assessed in the intent-to-treat cohort (N = 2424).

RESULTS.

Immunogenic noninferiority of double-dose versus standard-dose IIV4 was demonstrated in terms of geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and seroconversion rate difference. Superior immunogenicity against both vaccine B strains was observed with double-dose IIV4 in children 6-17 months of age (GMT ratio = 1.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.64-2.17, B/Yamagata; GMT ratio = 2.13, 95% CI = 1.82-2.50, B/Victoria) and in unprimed children of any age (GMT ratio = 1.85, 95% CI = 1.59-2.13, B/Yamagata; GMT ratio = 2.04, 95% CI = 1.79-2.33, B/Victoria). Safety and reactogenicity, including fever, were similar despite the higher antigen content and volume of the double-dose IIV4. There were no attributable serious adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS.

Double-dose IIV4 may improve protection against influenza B in some young children and simplifies annual influenza vaccination by allowing the same vaccine dose to be used for all eligible children and adults.

Immunogenicity and safety of Southern Hemisphere inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine: a Phase III, open-label study of adults in Brazil

The World Health Organization influenza forecast now includes an influenza B strain from each of the influenza B lineages (B/Yamagata and B/Victoria) for inclusion in seasonal influenza vaccines. Traditional trivalent influenza vaccines include an influenza B strain from one lineage, but because two influenza B lineages frequently co-circulate, the effectiveness of trivalent vaccines may be reduced in seasons of influenza B vaccine-mismatch. Thus, quadrivalent vaccines may potentially reduce the burden of influenza compared with trivalent vaccines.

In this Phase III, open-label study, we assessed the immunogenicity and safety of Southern Hemisphere inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine (Fluarix™ Tetra) in Brazilian adults (NCT02369341). The primary objective was to assess hemagglutination-inhibition antibody responses against each vaccine strain 21 days after vaccination in adults (aged ≥18–60 years) and older adults (aged >60 years). Solicited adverse events for four days post-vaccination, and unsolicited adverse events and serious adverse events for 21 days post-vaccination were also assessed.

A total of 63 adults and 57 older adults received one dose of inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine at the beginning of the 2015 Southern Hemisphere influenza season. After vaccination, in adults and older adults, the hemagglutination-inhibition titers fulfilled the European licensure criteria for immunogenicity. In adults, the seroprotection rates with HI titer ≥1:40 were 100% (A/H1N1), 98.4% (A/H3N2), 100% (B/Yamagata), and 100% (B/Victoria); in older adults were 94.7% (A/H1N1), 96.5% (A/H3N2), 100% (B/Yamagata), and 100% (B/Victoria). Pain was the most common solicited local adverse events in adults (27/62) and in older adults (13/57), and the most common solicited general adverse events in adults was myalgia (9/62), and in older adults were myalgia and arthralgia (both 2/57). Unsolicited adverse events were reported by 11/63 adults and 10/57 older adults.

The study showed that inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine was immunogenic and well-tolerated in Brazilian adults and older adults.

A Randomized, Controlled Safety, and Immunogenicity Trial of the M72/AS01 Candidate Tuberculosis Vaccine in HIV-Positive Indian Adults

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-associated tuberculosis is a major public health threat. We evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of the candidate tuberculosis vaccine M72/AS01 in HIV-positive and HIV-negative Indian adults.Randomized, controlled observer-blind trial (NCT01262976).We assigned 240 adults (1:1:1) to antiretroviral therapy (ART)-stable, ART-naive, or HIV-negative cohorts. Cohorts were randomized 1:1 to receive M72/AS01 or placebo following a 0, 1-month schedule and followed for 12 months (time-point M13). HIV-specific and laboratory safety parameters, adverse events (AEs), and M72-specific T-cell-mediated and humoral responses were evaluated.Subjects were predominantly QuantiFERON-negative (60%) and Bacille Calmette-Guérin-vaccinated (73%). Seventy ART-stable, 73 ART-naive, and 60 HIV-negative subjects completed year 1. No vaccine-related serious AEs or ART-regimen adjustments, or clinically relevant effects on laboratory parameters, HIV-1 viral loads or CD4 counts were recorded. Two ART-naive vaccinees died of vaccine-unrelated diseases. M72/AS01 induced polyfunctional M72-specific CD4 T-cell responses (median [interquartile range] at 7 days postdose 2: ART-stable, 0.9% [0.7-1.5]; ART-naive, 0.5% [0.2-1.0]; and HIV-negative, 0.6% [0.4-1.1]), persisting at M13 (0.4% [0.2-0.5], 0.09% [0.04-0.2], and 0.1% [0.09-0.2], respectively). Median responses were higher in the ART-stable cohort versus ART-naive cohort from day 30 onwards (P ≤ 0.015). Among HIV-positive subjects (irrespective of ART-status), median responses were higher in QuantiFERON-positive versus QuantiFERON-negative subjects up to day 30 (P ≤ 0.040), but comparable thereafter. Cytokine-expression profiles were comparable between cohorts after dose 2. At M13, M72-specific IgG responses were higher in ART-stable and HIV-negative vaccinees versus ART-naive vaccinees (P ≤ 0.001).M72/AS01 was well-tolerated and immunogenic in this population of ART-stable and ART-naive HIV-positive adults and HIV-negative adults, supporting further clinical evaluation.

Evaluation of the immune response to RTS,S/AS01 and RTS,S/AS02 adjuvanted vaccines: randomized, double-blind study in malaria-naïve adults

This phase II, randomized, double-blind study evaluated the immunogenicity of RTS,S vaccines containing Adjuvant System AS01 or AS02 as compared with non-adjuvanted RTS,S in healthy, malaria-naïve adults (NCT00443131). Thirty-six subjects were randomized (1:1:1) to receive RTS,S/AS01, RTS,S/AS02, or RTS,S/saline at months 0, 1, and 2. Antibody responses to Plasmodium falciparum circumsporozoite (CS) and hepatitis B surface (HBs) antigens were assessed and cell-mediated immune responses evaluated by flow cytometry using intracellular cytokine staining on peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Anti-CS antibody avidity was also characterized. Safety and reactogenicity after each vaccine dose were monitored. One month after the third vaccine dose, RTS,S/AS01 (160.3 EU/mL [95%CI: 114.1-225.4]) and RTS,S/AS02 (77.4 EU/mL (95%CI: 47.3-126.7)) recipients had significantly higher anti-CS antibody geometric mean titers (GMTs) than recipients of RTS,S/saline (12.2 EU/mL (95%CI: 4.8-30.7); P < 0.0001 and P = 0.0011, respectively). The anti-CS antibody GMT was significantly higher with RTS,S/AS01 than with RTS,S/AS02 (P = 0.0135). Anti-CS antibody avidity was in the same range in all groups. CS- and HBs-specific CD4(+) T cell responses were greater for both RTS,S/AS groups than for the RTS,S/saline group. Reactogenicity was in general higher for RTS,S/AS compared with RTS,S/saline. Most grade 3 solicited adverse events (AEs) were of short duration and grade 3 solicited general AEs were infrequent in the 3 groups. No serious adverse events were reported. In conclusion, in comparison with non-adjuvanted RTS,S, both RTS,S/AS vaccines exhibited better CS-specific immune responses. The anti-CS antibody response was significantly higher with RTS,S/AS01 than with RTS,S/AS02. The adjuvanted vaccines had acceptable safety profiles.

Safety and immunogenicity of candidate vaccine M72/AS01E in adolescents in a TB endemic setting

BACKGROUND

Vaccination that prevents tuberculosis (TB) disease, particularly in adolescents, would have the greatest impact on the global TB epidemic. Safety, reactogenicity and immunogenicity of the vaccine candidate M72/AS01E was evaluated in healthy, HIV-negative adolescents in a TB endemic region, regardless of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (M.tb) infection status.

METHODS

In a phase II, double-blind randomized, controlled study (NCT00950612), two doses of M72/AS01E or placebo were administered intramuscularly, one month apart. Participants were followed-up post-vaccination, for 6 months. M72-specific immunogenicity was evaluated by intracellular cytokine staining analysis of T cells and NK cells by flow cytometry.

RESULTS

No serious adverse events were recorded. M72/AS01E induced robust T cell and antibody responses, including antigen-dependent NK cell IFN-γ production. CD4 and CD8 T cell responses were sustained at 6 months post vaccination. Irrespective of M.tb infection status, vaccination induced a high frequency of M72-specific CD4 T cells expressing multiple combinations of Th1 cytokines, and low level IL-17. We observed rapid boosting of immune responses in M.tb-infected participants, suggesting natural infection acts as a prime to vaccination.

CONCLUSIONS

The clinically acceptable safety and immunogenicity profile of M72/AS01E in adolescents living in an area with high TB burden support the move to efficacy trials.

Safety and immunogenicity of the M72/AS01 candidate tuberculosis vaccine when given as a booster to BCG in Gambian infants: an open-label randomized controlled trial

We evaluated the candidate tuberculosis vaccine M72/AS01 in Bacille-Calmette-Guérin (BCG)-vaccinated infants after or concomitantly with Expanded-Programme-on-Immunization (EPI) vaccines.

METHODS

In a Phase-II study in The Gambia (NCT01098474), 2 cohorts of 150 BCG-vaccinated infants each were randomized 1:1:1. The 'Outside-EPI' cohort received one or two M72/AS01 doses, or meningitis vaccine, 1-2 months after primary EPI vaccination. The 'Within-EPI' cohort received one or two M72/AS01 doses concomitantly with the third or last two doses of their primary EPI-regimen, respectively, or EPI vaccines alone. Safety, M72-specific humoral (ELISA) and cell-mediated (whole-blood ICS) responses, and humoral responses to EPI vaccines were assessed.

RESULTS

M72/AS01 was acceptably tolerated with no vaccine-related serious adverse events reported. Seropositivity/seroprotection rates against EPI antigens in the Within-EPI cohort were comparable between groups, irrespective of M72/AS01 co-administration. Up to one year post M72/AS01 vaccination, M72-specific humoral and CD4(+) T-cell responses were higher after 2 doses versus 1 dose in both cohorts (p < 0.0001), and comparable between cohorts after either 1 or 2 doses (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

M72/AS01 given to infants after or concomitantly with EPI vaccines had an acceptable safety profile. Our results suggest no interference of immunogenicity profiles occurred following co-administration of M72/AS01 and EPI vaccines. Two M72/AS01 doses elicited higher immune responses than one dose.

Sequential Phase 1 and Phase 2 randomized, controlled trials of the safety, immunogenicity and efficacy of combined pre-erythrocytic vaccine antigens RTS,S and TRAP formulated with AS02 Adjuvant System in healthy, malaria naïve adults

In an attempt to improve the efficacy of the candidate malaria vaccine RTS,S/AS02, two studies were conducted in 1999 in healthy volunteers of RTS,S/AS02 in combination with recombinant Plasmodium falciparum thrombospondin-related anonymous protein (TRAP). In a Phase 1 safety and immunogenicity study, volunteers were randomized to receive TRAP/AS02 (N=10), RTS,S/AS02 (N=10), or RTS,S+TRAP/AS02 (N=20) at 0, 1 and 6-months. In a Phase 2 challenge study, subjects were randomized to receive either RTS,S+TRAP/AS02 (N=25) or TRAP/AS02 (N=10) at 0 and 1-month, or to a challenge control group (N=8). In both studies, the combination vaccine had an acceptable safety profile and was acceptably tolerated. Antigen-specific antibodies, lymphoproliferative responses, and IFN-γ production by ELISPOT assay elicited with the combination vaccine were qualitatively similar to those generated by the single component vaccines. However, post-dose 2 anti-CS antibodies in the RTS,S+TRAP/AS02 vaccine recipients were lower than in the RTS,S/AS02 vaccine recipients. After challenge, 10 of 11 RTS,S+TRAP/AS02 vaccinees, 5 of 5 TRAP/AS02 vaccinees, and 8 of 8 infectivity controls developed parasitemia, with median pre-patent periods of 13.0, 11.0, and 12.0 days, respectively. The absence of any prevention or delay of parasitemia by TRAP/AS02 suggests no apparent added value of TRAP/AS02 as a candidate vaccine. The absence of significant protection or delay of parasitemia in the 11 RTS,S+TRAP/AS02 vaccine recipients contrasts with previous 2 dose studies of RTS,S/AS02. The small sample size did not permit identifying statistically significant differences between the study arms. However, we speculate, within the constraints of the challenge study, that the presence of the TRAP antigen may have interfered with the vaccine efficacy previously observed with this regimen of RTS,S/AS02, and that any future TRAP-based vaccines should consider employing alternative vaccine platforms.