A phase I, open label, clinical study to assess the safety and immunogenicity of indigenously developed liquid (DTwP-HepB-IPV-Hib) hexavalent combination vaccine in healthy toddlers aged 16-24 months

Single-arm clinical trials: design, ethics, principles

Although randomised controlled trials are considered the gold standard in clinical research, they are not always feasible due to limitations in the study population, challenges in obtaining evidence, high costs and ethical considerations. As a result, single-arm trial designs have emerged as one of the methods to address these issues. Single-arm trials are commonly applied to study advanced-stage cancer, rare diseases, emerging infectious diseases, new treatment methods and medical devices. Single-arm trials have certain ethical advantages over randomised controlled trials, such as providing equitable treatment, respecting patient preferences, addressing rare diseases and timely management of adverse events. While single-arm trials do not adhere to the principles of randomisation and blinding in terms of scientific rigour, they still incorporate principles of control, balance and replication, making the design scientifically reasonable. Compared with randomised controlled trials, single-arm trials require fewer sample sizes and have shorter trial durations, which can help save costs. Compared with cohort studies, single-arm trials involve intervention measures and reduce external interference, resulting in higher levels of evidence. However, single-arm trials also have limitations. Without a parallel control group, there may be biases in interpreting the results. In addition, single-arm trials cannot meet the requirements of randomisation and blinding, thereby limiting their evidence capacity compared with randomised controlled trials. Therefore, researchers consider using single-arm trials as a trial design method only when randomised controlled trials are not feasible.

Evaluating the Compatibility of New Recombinant Protein Antigens (Trivalent NRRV) with a Mock Pentavalent Combination Vaccine Containing Whole-Cell Pertussis: Analytical and Formulation Challenges

Introducing new recombinant protein antigens to existing pediatric combination vaccines is important in improving coverage and affordability, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This case-study highlights the analytical and formulation challenges encountered with three recombinant non-replicating rotavirus vaccine (NRRV) antigens (t-NRRV formulated with Alhydrogel® adjuvant, AH) combined with a mock multidose formulation of a pediatric pentavalent vaccine used in LMICs. This complex formulation contained (1) vaccine antigens (i.e., whole-cell pertussis (wP), diphtheria (D), tetanus (T), Haemophilus influenza (Hib), and hepatitis B (HepB), (2) a mixture of aluminum-salt adjuvants (AH and Adju-Phos®, AP), and (3) a preservative (thimerosal, TH). Selective, stability-indicating competitive immunoassays were developed to monitor binding of specific mAbs to each antigen, except wP which required the setup of a mouse immunogenicity assay. Simple mixing led to the desorption of t-NRRV antigens from AH and increased degradation during storage. These deleterious effects were caused by specific antigens, AP, and TH. An AH-only pentavalent formulation mitigated t-NRRV antigen desorption; however, the Hib antigen displayed previously reported AH-induced instability. The same rank-ordering of t-NRRV antigen stability (P[8] > P[4] > P[6]) was observed in mock pentavalent formulations and with various preservatives. The lessons learned are discussed to enable future multidose, combination vaccine formulation development with new vaccine candidates.

Observational analysis of the immunogenicity and safety of various types of spinal muscular atrophy vaccines

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the immunogenicity and safety of different types of poliovirus vaccines.

METHODS

A randomized, blinded, single-center, parallel-controlled design was employed, and 360 infants aged ≥ 2 months were selected as study subjects. They were randomly assigned to bOPV group (oral Sabin vaccine) and sIPV group (Sabin strain inactivated polio vaccine), with 180 infants in each group. Adverse reaction events in the vaccinated subjects were recorded. The micro-neutralization test using cell culture was conducted to determine the geometric mean titer (GMT) of neutralizing antibodies against poliovirus types I, II, and III in different groups, and the seroconversion rates were calculated.

RESULTS

Both groups exhibited a 100% seropositivity rate after booster immunization. The titers of neutralizing antibodies for the three types were predominantly distributed within the range of 1:128 to 1:512. The fold increase of type I antibodies differed markedly between the two groups (P < 0.05). Moreover, the fold increase of type II and type III antibodies for poliovirus differed slightly between the two groups (P > 0.05). The fourfold increase rate in sIPV group was drastically superior to that in bOPV group (P < 0.05). When comparing the post-immunization GMT levels of type I antibodies in individuals who completed the full course of spinal muscular atrophy vaccination, bOPV group showed greatly inferior levels to sIPV group (P < 0.05). For type II and type III antibodies, individuals in bOPV group demonstrated drastically superior post-immunization GMT levels to those in sIPV group (P < 0.05). The incidence of adverse reactions between the bOPV and sIPV groups differed slightly (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

These findings indicated that both the oral vaccine and inactivated vaccine had good safety and immunogenicity in infants aged ≥ 2 months. The sIPV group generated higher levels of neutralizing antibodies in serum, particularly evident in the post-immunization GMT levels for types II and III.

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.