Comparative immunogenicity and safety of different multivalent component pertussis vaccine formulations and a 5-component acellular pertussis vaccine in infants and toddlers: a randomized, controlled, open-label, multicenter study

A New Electrochemiluminescence-Based Multiplex Assay for the Assessment of Human Antibody Responses to Bordetella pertussis Vaccines

Introduction

Commercially available enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) kits designed for pertussis diagnostic purposes are frequently used to assess antibody responses to pertussis vaccines in clinical trials, but have limited accuracy and are not calibrated against international standards. We developed a new electrochemiluminescence (ECL)-based multiplexed assay and compared its performance to two commercial Bordetella pertussis ELISA kits and to historical in-house ELISAs.

Methods

The ECL assay quantifies serum concentrations of antibodies against four B. pertussis antigens: pertussis toxin (PT), filamentous hemagglutinin (FHA), pertactin (PRN), and fimbrial agglutinogen (FIM). The assay was validated for precision, accuracy, dilutability, lower limit of quantification, and specificity. Sera from a clinical trial (CTRI/2016/11/007434) were used to compare the ECL assay to two commercial ELISA kits available from GenWay BioTech and Demeditec Diagnostics for accuracy, linearity, specificity, and concordance to both internal (WWO-2-043) and international (NIBSC 06/140) references. Sera from four clinical trials (NCT02587520, NCT00255047, NCT00347958, NCT01346293) were used to compare the concordance to clinical ELISAs. Informed consent was ensured prior to using any sera.

Results

Precision, accuracy, dilutability, lower limit of quantification, and specificity were demonstrated for the ECL assay. Concordance between the ECL assay and established clinical ELISAs was met for antibody responses to PT, FIM, and PRN, but not for FHA. The ECL assay demonstrated higher accuracy and linearity than the ELISA kits. While concordance between the ECL and commercial kits was low, the ECL assay better distinguished between pre- and post-vaccination clinical samples.

Conclusion

The new ECL assay was validated for the quantitative evaluation of anti-PT, anti-FHA, anti-FIM, and anti-PRN IgG antibodies in samples from clinical trials, and demonstrated equivalent or better performance than two commercially available ELISA kits.

Safety of pentavalent DTaP-IPV/Hib combination vaccine in post-marketing surveillance in Guangzhou, China, from 2011 to 2017

BACKGROUND

The DTaP-IPV/Hib combination vaccine can replace the acellular tetanus vaccine, polio vaccine, and the Haemophilus influenzae type B vaccine. Data on the safety of DTaP-IPV/Hib vaccines are required. We aimed to evaluate the safety of the vaccination program.

METHODS

Using the National Adverse Events Following Immunization (AEFI) surveillance system (CNAEFIS) in Guangzhou, China, a retrospective study was performed from May 11, 2011, to December 31, 2017. There were 376 cases of adverse events after vaccination with the DTaP IPV/Hib vaccine. The primary analysis indicators were the number of vaccines used, the number of AEFI reports received, and the reporting rate (per 100,000).

RESULTS

From May 1, 2011, to December 31, 2017, 516,000 doses of vaccine were inoculated, and 376 cases of adverse reactions were reported; the reporting rate was 72.8 per 100,000 vaccines. There were eight cases of serious AEFIs (1.5 per 100,000), with four cases of thrombocytopenic purpura (0.8 per 100,000); three cases of cyanosis of the lips, stiffness, and flexion of limbs, and convulsions (0.6 per 100,000); and one case of a high fever (0.2 per 100,000). The highest incidence of AEFIs occurred after the fourth dose (n = 207, 55.0%, 40.1 per 100,000), followed by the first dose (n = 81, 21.5%, 15.7 per 100,000), second dose (n = 48, 12.8%, 9.3 per 100,000) and third dose (n = 40, 10.6%, 7.7 per 100,000). The AEFI incidence was higher after injection of the vaccine into the deltoid muscle of the upper arm (n = 276, 73.4%, 53.5 per 100,000) than after injection of the vaccine into the thigh (n = 100, 26.6%, 19.4 per 100,000). There was a significant difference between AEFIs after injection into the deltoid of the upper arm deltoid and the thigh (x² = 164.8, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Most of the reported AEFIs after DTaP-IPV/Hib vaccination are not serious. There were four cases of TP in this study; vaccination may be a rare cause of thrombocytopenic purpura.

Vaccines for preventing rotavirus diarrhoea: vaccines in use

BACKGROUND

Rotavirus results in more diarrhoea-related deaths in children under five years than any other single agent in countries with high childhood mortality. It is also a common cause of diarrhoea-related hospital admissions in countries with low childhood mortality. Rotavirus vaccines that have been prequalified by the World Health Organization (WHO) include a monovalent vaccine (RV1; Rotarix, GlaxoSmithKline), a pentavalent vaccine (RV5; RotaTeq, Merck), and, more recently, another monovalent vaccine (Rotavac, Bharat Biotech).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate rotavirus vaccines prequalified by the WHO (RV1, RV5, and Rotavac) for their efficacy and safety in children.

SEARCH METHODS

On 4 April 2018 we searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL (published in the Cochrane Library), Embase, LILACS, and BIOSIS. We also searched the WHO ICTRP, ClinicalTrials.gov, clinical trial reports from manufacturers' websites, and reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in children comparing rotavirus vaccines prequalified for use by the WHO versus placebo or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and assessed risks of bias. One review author extracted data and a second author cross-checked them. We combined dichotomous data using the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We stratified the analysis by country mortality rate and used GRADE to evaluate evidence certainty.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-five trials met the inclusion criteria and enrolled a total of 216,480 participants. Thirty-six trials (119,114 participants) assessed RV1, 15 trials (88,934 participants) RV5, and four trials (8432 participants) Rotavac. RV1 Children vaccinated and followed up the first year of life In low-mortality countries, RV1 prevents 84% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.26; 43,779 participants, 7 trials; high-certainty evidence), and probably prevents 41% of cases of severe all-cause diarrhoea (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.74; 28,051 participants, 3 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). In high-mortality countries, RV1 prevents 63% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.60; 6114 participants, 3 trials; high-certainty evidence), and 27% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.95; 5639 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence). Children vaccinated and followed up for two years In low-mortality countries, RV1 prevents 82% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.23; 36,002 participants, 9 trials; high-certainty evidence), and probably prevents 37% of severe all-cause diarrhoea episodes (rate ratio 0.63, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.71; 39,091 participants, 2 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). In high-mortality countries RV1 probably prevents 35% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.83; 13,768 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence), and 17% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.96; 2764 participants, 1 trial; moderate-certainty evidence). No increased risk of serious adverse events (SAE) was detected (RR 0.88 95% CI 0.83 to 0.93; high-certainty evidence). There were 30 cases of intussusception reported in 53,032 children after RV1 vaccination and 28 cases in 44,214 children after placebo or no intervention (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.05; low-certainty evidence). RV5 Children vaccinated and followed up the first year of life In low-mortality countries, RV5 probably prevents 92% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.22; 4132 participants, 5 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). We did not identify studies reporting on severe all-cause diarrhoea in low-mortality countries. In high-mortality countries, RV5 prevents 57% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.62; 5916 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence), but there is probably little or no difference between vaccine and placebo for severe all-cause diarrhoea (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.11; 1 trial, 4085 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Children vaccinated and followed up for two years In low-mortality countries, RV5 prevents 82% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.39; 7318 participants, 4 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). We did not identify studies reporting on severe all-cause diarrhoea in low-mortality countries. In high-mortality countries, RV5 prevents 41% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.82; 5885 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence), and 15% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.98; 5977 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence). No increased risk of serious adverse events (SAE) was detected (RR 0.93 95% CI 0.86 to 1.01; moderate to high-certainty evidence). There were 16 cases of intussusception in 43,629 children after RV5 vaccination and 20 cases in 41,866 children after placebo (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.45; low-certainty evidence). Rotavac Children vaccinated and followed up the first year of life Rotavac has not been assessed in any RCT in countries with low child mortality. In India, a high-mortality country, Rotavac probably prevents 57% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.60; 6799 participants, moderate-certainty evidence); the trial did not report on severe all-cause diarrhoea at one-year follow-up. Children vaccinated and followed up for two years Rotavac probably prevents 54% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases in India (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.60; 6541 participants, 1 trial; moderate-certainty evidence), and 16% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.98; 6799 participants, 1 trial; moderate-certainty evidence). No increased risk of serious adverse events (SAE) was detected (RR 0.93 95% CI 0.85 to 1.02; moderate-certainty evidence). There were eight cases of intussusception in 5764 children after Rotavac vaccination and three cases in 2818 children after placebo (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.35 to 5.02; very low-certainty evidence). There was insufficient evidence of an effect on mortality from any rotavirus vaccine (198,381 participants, 44 trials; low- to very low-certainty evidence), as the trials were not powered to detect an effect at this endpoint.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

RV1, RV5, and Rotavac prevent episodes of rotavirus diarrhoea. Whilst the relative effect estimate is smaller in high-mortality than in low-mortality countries, there is a greater number of episodes prevented in these settings as the baseline risk is much higher. We found no increased risk of serious adverse events. 21 October 2019 Up to date All studies incorporated from most recent search All published trials found in the last search (4 Apr, 2018) were included and 15 ongoing studies are currently awaiting completion (see 'Characteristics of ongoing studies').

Randomized Controlled Trial of the Safety and Immunogenicity of Revaccination With Tetanus-Diphtheria-Acellular Pertussis Vaccine (Tdap) in Adults 10 Years After a Previous Dose

BACKGROUND

Reduced-antigen-content tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine is recommended in many countries for boosting immunity in adolescents and adults. Although immunity to these antigens wanes with time, currently available Tdap products are not labeled for repeat administration in the United States.

METHODS

We performed an observer-blinded, randomized controlled trial in 1330 adults aged 18 to <65 years who received either the Tdap (n = 1002) or tetanus-diphtheria (Td) (n = 328) vaccine 8 to 12 years after a dose of Tdap vaccine administered previously. Solicited adverse events following immunization were documented for 7 days after vaccination, and serious adverse events and adverse events of medical significance were documented for 6 months after vaccination. Levels of antibodies against component vaccine antigens were measured before and 1 month after vaccination.

RESULTS

A solicited adverse event was reported by 87.7% of Tdap and 88.0% of Td vaccine recipients. We found no significant differences in the rates of injection-site reactions, systemic reactions, or serious adverse events between the vaccine groups. A robust antibody response to each pertussis antigen in the Tdap-vaccinated group was found; postvaccination-to-prevaccination geometric mean antibody concentration ratios were 8:1 (pertussis toxoid), 5.9 (filamentous hemagglutinin), 6.4 (pertactin), and 5.2 (fimbriae 2 and 3). Postvaccination geometric mean concentrations of tetanus antibody (4.20 and 4.74 IU/mL, respectively) and diphtheria antibody (10.1 and 12.6 IU/mL, respectively) were similar in the Tdap and Td groups, and the rates of seroprotection against tetanus and diphtheria were >99% in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

A second dose of Tdap vaccine in adults approximately 10 years after a previous dose was well tolerated and immunogenic. These data might facilitate consideration of providing Tdap booster doses to adults.

Vaccines for preventing rotavirus diarrhoea: vaccines in use

BACKGROUND

Rotavirus results in more diarrhoea-related deaths in children under five years than any other single agent in countries with high childhood mortality. It is also a common cause of diarrhoea-related hospital admissions in countries with low childhood mortality. Rotavirus vaccines that have been prequalified by the World Health Organization (WHO) include a monovalent vaccine (RV1; Rotarix, GlaxoSmithKline), a pentavalent vaccine (RV5; RotaTeq, Merck), and, more recently, another monovalent vaccine (Rotavac, Bharat Biotech).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate rotavirus vaccines prequalified by the WHO (RV1, RV5, and Rotavac) for their efficacy and safety in children.

SEARCH METHODS

On 4 April 2018 we searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL (published in the Cochrane Library), Embase, LILACS, and BIOSIS. We also searched the WHO ICTRP, ClinicalTrials.gov, clinical trial reports from manufacturers' websites, and reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in children comparing rotavirus vaccines prequalified for use by the WHO versus placebo or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and assessed risks of bias. One review author extracted data and a second author cross-checked them. We combined dichotomous data using the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We stratified the analysis by country mortality rate and used GRADE to evaluate evidence certainty.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-five trials met the inclusion criteria and enrolled a total of 216,480 participants. Thirty-six trials (119,114 participants) assessed RV1, 15 trials (88,934 participants) RV5, and four trials (8432 participants) Rotavac.RV1 Children vaccinated and followed up the first year of life In low-mortality countries, RV1 prevents 84% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.26; 43,779 participants, 7 trials; high-certainty evidence), and probably prevents 41% of cases of severe all-cause diarrhoea (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.74; 28,051 participants, 3 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). In high-mortality countries, RV1 prevents 63% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.60; 6114 participants, 3 trials; high-certainty evidence), and 27% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.95; 5639 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence).Children vaccinated and followed up for two yearsIn low-mortality countries, RV1 prevents 82% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.23; 36,002 participants, 9 trials; high-certainty evidence), and probably prevents 37% of severe all-cause diarrhoea episodes (rate ratio 0.63, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.71; 39,091 participants, 2 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). In high-mortality countries RV1 probably prevents 35% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.83; 13,768 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence), and 17% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.96; 2764 participants, 1 trial; moderate-certainty evidence).No increased risk of serious adverse events (SAE) was detected (RR 0.88 95% CI 0.83 to 0.93; high-certainty evidence). There were 30 cases of intussusception reported in 53,032 children after RV1 vaccination and 28 cases in 44,214 children after placebo or no intervention (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.05; low-certainty evidence).RV5 Children vaccinated and followed up the first year of life In low-mortality countries, RV5 probably prevents 92% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.22; 4132 participants, 5 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). We did not identify studies reporting on severe all-cause diarrhoea in low-mortality countries. In high-mortality countries, RV5 prevents 57% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.62; 5916 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence), but there is probably little or no difference between vaccine and placebo for severe all-cause diarrhoea (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.11; 1 trial, 4085 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).Children vaccinated and followed up for two yearsIn low-mortality countries, RV5 prevents 82% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.39; 7318 participants, 4 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). We did not identify studies reporting on severe all-cause diarrhoea in low-mortality countries. In high-mortality countries, RV5 prevents 41% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.82; 5885 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence), and 15% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.98; 5977 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence).No increased risk of serious adverse events (SAE) was detected (RR 0.93 95% CI 0.86 to 1.01; moderate to high-certainty evidence). There were 16 cases of intussusception in 43,629 children after RV5 vaccination and 20 cases in 41,866 children after placebo (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.45; low-certainty evidence).Rotavac Children vaccinated and followed up the first year of life Rotavac has not been assessed in any RCT in countries with low child mortality. In India, a high-mortality country, Rotavac probably prevents 57% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.60; 6799 participants, moderate-certainty evidence); the trial did not report on severe all-cause diarrhoea at one-year follow-up.Children vaccinated and followed up for two yearsRotavac probably prevents 54% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases in India (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.60; 6541 participants, 1 trial; moderate-certainty evidence), and 16% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.98; 6799 participants, 1 trial; moderate-certainty evidence).No increased risk of serious adverse events (SAE) was detected (RR 0.93 95% CI 0.85 to 1.02; moderate-certainty evidence). There were eight cases of intussusception in 5764 children after Rotavac vaccination and three cases in 2818 children after placebo (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.35 to 5.02; very low-certainty evidence).There was insufficient evidence of an effect on mortality from any rotavirus vaccine (198,381 participants, 44 trials; low- to very low-certainty evidence), as the trials were not powered to detect an effect at this endpoint.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

RV1, RV5, and Rotavac prevent episodes of rotavirus diarrhoea. Whilst the relative effect estimate is smaller in high-mortality than in low-mortality countries, there is a greater number of episodes prevented in these settings as the baseline risk is much higher. We found no increased risk of serious adverse events.

Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center: Highlights of 2009-2012

The Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center is a specialized research organization in Oakland, California. They have been an active vaccine research group for many years, and have participated in and led a multitude of vaccine studies. This article will review the last three years of research activities.