Lot-to-lot consistency of a hexavalent DTwP-IPV-HB-PRP∼T vaccine and non-inferiority to separate DTwP-HB-PRP∼T and IPV antigen-matching vaccines at 6–8, 10–12, and 14–16 weeks of age co-administered with oral rotavirus vaccine in healthy infants in India: A multi-center, randomized, controlled study

Adverse events following immunization of co- and separate administration of DTaP-IPV/Hib vaccines: A real-world comparative study

To fully understand the safety of DTaP-IPV/Hib vaccination, we evaluated the differences between DTaP-IPV/Hib co-administration and separate administration of the DTaP, IPV and Hib vaccines (DTaP+IPV+Hib) based on adverse events following immunization (AEFI). All AEFI reported in Hebei Province, China, between 2020 and 2022 were included in this study. The risk difference (RD%), relative risk (RR), and Chi-square value were used to compare the differences in reported rates of AEFI between the DTaP-IPV/Hib and DTaP+IPV+Hib groups. From 2020 to 2022, 130 AEFI cases were reported in Hebei Province after DTaP-IPV/Hib vaccination, corresponding to an AEFI reported rate of 66.9/million doses, which was significantly lower than that for DTaP+IPV+Hib (9836 AEFI with a reported rate of 637.8/million doses). The overall reported rate of non-severe AEFI for DTaP+IPV+Hib vaccines was 9.5 times that of DTaP-IPV/Hib vaccination [95% confidence interval (CI): 8.0, 11.3]. Meanwhile, the reported rate of AEFI among infants aged 0-1 y was 9.8 times higher for DTaP+IPV+Hib than for DTaP-IPV/Hib (95% CI: 8.2, 11.7). DTaP+IPV+Hib vaccination also resulted in higher risks of high fever, localized redness and swelling, localized induration, and allergic rash compared with DTaP-IPV/Hib vaccination. The risk of AEFI, which were mostly mild reaction, was higher after vaccination with DTaP+IPV+Hib than after DTaP-IPV/Hib vaccination.

A phase III randomized-controlled study of safety and immunogenicity of DTwP-HepB-IPV-Hib vaccine (HEXASIIL®) in infants

A fully liquid hexavalent containing Diphtheria (D), Tetanus (T) toxoids, whole cell Pertussis (wP), Hepatitis B (Hep B), type 1, 2, 3 of inactivated poliovirus (IPV) and Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) conjugate vaccine (DTwP-HepB-IPV-Hib vaccine, HEXASIIL®) was tested for lot-to-lot consistency and non-inferiority against licensed DTwP-HepB-Hib + IPV in an open label, randomized Phase II/III study. In Phase III part, healthy infants received DTwP-HepB-IPV-Hib or DTwP-HepB-Hib + IPV vaccines at 6, 10 and 14 weeks of age. Blood samples were collected prior to the first dose and 28 days, post dose 3. Non inferiority versus DTwP-HepB-Hib + IPV was demonstrated with 95% CIs for the treatment difference for seroprotection/seroconversion rates. For DTwP-HepB-IPV-Hib lots, limits of 95% CI for post-vaccination geometric mean concentration ratios were within equivalence limits (0.5 and 2). Vaccine was well-tolerated and no safety concerns observed.Clinical Trial Registration - CTRI/2019/11/022052.

Antibody Persistence Following Administration of a Hexavalent DTwP-IPV-HB-PRP~T Vaccine Versus Separate DTwP-HB-PRP~T and IPV Vaccines and Safety and Immunogenicity of a Booster Dose of DTwP-IPV-HB-PRP~T Administered With an MMR Vaccine in Healthy Infants in India

BACKGROUND

Antibody persistence of a whole-cell pertussis-containing hexavalent vaccine (DTwP-IPV-HB-PRP~T) and its co- or sequential administration with measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine were evaluated.

METHODS

Phase III, open-label, randomized, multicenter study in India. Healthy toddlers 12-24 months of age who had received DTwP-IPV-HB-PRP~T or separate DTwP-HB-PRP~T+IPV primary vaccination at 6-8, 10-12 and 14-16 weeks of age received a DTwP-IPV-HB-PRP~T booster concomitantly with MMR (N = 336) or 28 days before MMR (N = 340). Participants had received a first dose of measles vaccine. Immunogenicity assessment used validated assays and safety was by parental reports. All analyses were descriptive.

RESULTS

All participants had prebooster anti-T ≥0.01 IU/mL and anti-polio 1 and 3 ≥8 1/dil, and ≥96.5% had anti-D ≥0.01 IU/mL, anti-HBs ≥10 mIU/mL, anti-polio 2 ≥8 1/dil and anti-PRP ≥0.15 µg/mL; for pertussis, antibody persistence was similar in each group. Postbooster immunogenicity for DTwP-IPV-HB-PRP~T was similar for each antigen in each group: ≥99.5% of participants had anti-D ≥0.01 IU/mL, anti-T ≥0.01 IU/mL, anti-polio 1, 2 and 3 >8 1/dil, anti-HBs ≥10 mIU/mL and anti-PRP ≥1 µg/mL; for pertussis, vaccine response was similar in each group [72.0%-75.9% (anti-PT), 80.8%-81.4% (anti-FIM), 77.6%-79.5% (anti-PRN), 78.2%-80.8% (anti-FHA)]. There was no difference in MMR immunogenicity between groups, and no difference in DTwP-IPV-HB-PRP~T booster immunogenicity based on the primary series. There were no safety concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

DTwP-IPV-HB-PRP~T antibody persistence was similar to licensed comparators. Booster immunogenicity was robust after DTwP-IPV-HB-PRP~T with or without MMR, and MMR immunogenicity was not affected by coadministration with DTwP-IPV-HB-PRP~T.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY INDIA NUMBER

CTRI/2020/04/024843.

Immunogenicity and Safety of a Hexavalent DTwP-IPV-HB-PRP~T Vaccine Versus Separate DTwP-HB-PRP~T, bOPV, and IPV Vaccines Administered at 2, 4, 6 Months of Age Concomitantly With Rotavirus and Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccines in Healthy Infants in Thailand

BACKGROUND

This study investigated the immunogenicity and safety of a fully liquid, hexavalent, diphtheria (D)-tetanus (T)-whole-cell pertussis (wP)-inactivated poliovirus (IPV)-hepatitis B (HB)-Haemophilus influenzae b (PRP-T) vaccine compared to licensed DTwP-HB-PRP~T, IPV, and bivalent oral poliovirus (bOPV) vaccines following co-administration with other pediatric vaccines [pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) and rotavirus vaccine].

METHODS

Phase III, randomized, open-label study in Thailand. Healthy infants received DTwP-IPV-HB-PRP~T at 2, 4 and 6 months of age (N = 228), or DTwP-HB-PRP~T and bOPV (2, 4 and 6 months of age) and IPV (4 months of age) (N = 231). All participants received PCV13 (2, 4 and 6 months of age) and rotavirus vaccine (2 and 4 months of age). Immunogenicity for all antigens was assessed using validated assays, and noninferiority post-third dose was evaluated for anti-D, anti-T, anti-pertussis [anti-pertussis toxin (anti-PT) and anti-fimbriae 2/3 (anti-FIM)], anti-polio 1, 2, 3, anti-HB, and anti-PRP~T. Safety was assessed using parental reports.

RESULTS

Noninferiority was demonstrated for each antigen, and overall noninferiority of DTwP-IPV-HB-PRP~T versus DTwP-HB-PRP~T+bOPV+IPV was concluded. Similarity in each group was observed for the GMC ratio for antirotavirus antibodies (20.9 and 17.3, respectively) and anti-PCV13 antibodies (range: 8.46-32.6 and 7.53-33.1, respectively). Two serious adverse events were related to DTwP-IPV-HB-PRP~T (febrile convulsion and acute febrile illness) and 1 was related to DTwP-HB-PRP~T+bOPV+IPV (febrile seizure), but overall there were no safety concerns with similar rates of participants experiencing solicited (99.1% and 98.3%) and unsolicited (19.3% and 19.5%) adverse events in each group.

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirmed the suitability of DTwP-IPV-HB-PRP~T primary series vaccination in combination with rotavirus and PCV13 vaccines.