Safety, Immunogenicity, and Regimen Selection of Ad26.RSV.preF-Based Vaccine Combinations: A Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-Controlled, Phase 1/2a Study

Immunogenicity and safety of Ad26.RSV.preF/RSV preF protein vaccine at predicted intermediate- and end-of-shelf-life as an evaluation of potency throughout shelf life

This study assessed three Ad26.RSV.preF/RSV preF protein combinations, combining different Ad26.RSV.preF doses and naturally aged preF protein, representing the expected critical vaccine quality attributes close to release, around intermediate shelf-life (ISL) and near-presumed end-of-shelf-life (EoSL), as a way to evaluate the vaccine immunogenicity and safety throughout its shelf-life. A single dose of Ad26.RSV.preF/RSV preF protein vaccine was administered to adults 60-75 years of age. Solicited adverse events (AEs), unsolicited AEs, and serious AEs (SAEs) were assessed for 7-day, 28-day, and 6-month periods after vaccination, respectively. RSV preF-binding antibody concentrations and RSV neutralizing titers were measured 14 days post-vaccination as primary and secondary endpoints, respectively; binding antibodies were also measured 6 months post-vaccination. The RSV preF-binding antibody responses induced by Ad26.RSV.preF/RSV preF protein vaccine lots representing the critical quality attributes around ISL and near presumed EoSL were noninferior to the responses induced by the vaccine lot representing the critical quality attributes near release. The RSV preF-binding and RSV neutralizing antibody levels measured 14 days post-vaccination were similar across the 3 groups. RSV preF-binding antibody concentrations were also similar 6 months post-vaccination. Solicited AEs were mostly mild to moderate in intensity, and a decreased reactogenicity was observed from the Release group to the ISL and EoSL group. None of the reported SAEs were considered related to study vaccination. The study provided evidence of sustained immunogenicity and safety over the intended shelf-life of the Ad26.RSV.pref/RSV preF protein vaccine. The three vaccine lots had acceptable safety profiles.

Long-term efficacy and immunogenicity of Ad26.RSV.preF-RSV preF protein vaccine (CYPRESS): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2b study

BACKGROUND

Ad26.RSV.preF-RSV preF protein showed 80·0% vaccine efficacy against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) lower respiratory tract disease (LRTD) in older adults during one RSV season. No RSV vaccines have shown three-season efficacy. We aimed to evaluate efficacy of Ad26.RSV.preF-RSV preF protein over three RSV seasons.

METHODS

CYPRESS was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2b study done at 40 US clinical research centres wherein adults aged 65 years or older were centrally randomly assigned 1:1 by computer algorithm to receive Ad26.RSV.preF-RSV preF protein or placebo (one intramuscular injection) on day 1. Investigators, participants, site personnel, and the sponsor were masked to vaccine allocation, except for individuals involved in preparation of study vaccinations. The primary endpoint (first occurrence of RSV-mediated LRTD meeting one of three case definitions) was previously reported. Here, the predefined exploratory endpoint of vaccine efficacy against RSV-positive LRTD was assessed in the per-protocol efficacy set (all participants randomly assigned and vaccinated without protocol deviations affecting efficacy) through season 1 and from day 365 until the end of season 3. Humoral and cellular immunogenicity was assessed in a subset of randomly assigned and vaccinated participants. The secondary endpoint of safety through the first RSV season was previously reported; follow-up for selected safety outcomes (fatal adverse events, adverse events leading to study discontinuation, serious adverse events, and vaccine-related serious adverse events) until study completion is reported here in all randomly assigned and vaccinated participants. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03982199 and is complete.

FINDINGS

Of 6672 adults screened, 5782 participants (2891 each receiving vaccine or placebo) were enrolled and vaccinated between Aug 5 and Nov 13, 2019. The season 2 per-protocol efficacy set included 2124 vaccine recipients and 2126 placebo recipients (season 3: 864 and 881; across three seasons: 2795 and 2803, respectively). Vaccine efficacy against RSV LRTD was 76·1% (95% CI 26·9-94·2) over seasons 2 and 3 and 78·7% (57·3-90·4) across three seasons. For those in the immunogenicity subset (vaccine n=97; placebo n=98), immune responses remained above baseline for at least 1 year. Serious adverse events occurred in 47 (2·1%) and 12 (1·3%) vaccine recipients and 45 (2·1%) and 10 (1·1%) placebo recipients during seasons 2 and 3, respectively. No treatment-related serious or fatal adverse events were reported.

INTERPRETATION

Ad26.RSV.preF-RSV preF protein maintained high efficacy against RSV LRTD in older adults across three RSV seasons.

FUNDING

Janssen Vaccines & Prevention.

Efficacy, immunogenicity and safety of respiratory syncytial virus prefusion F vaccine: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

A notable research gap exists in the systematic review and meta-analysis concerning the efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) prefusion F vaccine.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search across PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov to retrieve articles related to the efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of RSV prefusion F vaccines, published through September 8, 2023. We adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 22 randomized controlled trials involving 78,990 participants were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The RSV prefusion F vaccine exhibited a vaccine effectiveness of 68% (95% CI: 59-75%) against RSV-associated acute respiratory illness, 70% (95% CI: 60-77%) against medically attended RSV-associated lower respiratory tract illness, and 87% (95% CI: 71-94%) against medically attended severe RSV-associated lower respiratory tract illness. Common reported local adverse reactions following RSV prefusion F vaccination include pain, redness, and swelling at the injection site, and systemic reactions such as fatigue, headache, myalgia, arthralgia, nausea, and chills.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis suggests that vaccines using the RSV prefusion F protein as antigen exhibit appears broadly acceptable efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety in the population. In particular, it provides high protective efficiency against severe RSV-associated lower respiratory tract disease.

Efficacy of Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccination to Prevent Lower Respiratory Tract Illness in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

A systematic review and meta-analysis was designed in order to ascertain the effectiveness of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccination in preventing lower respiratory tract diseases (LRTD) in older adults (age ≥ 60 years). Studies reporting on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were searched for in three databases (PubMed, Embase, and Scopus) and the preprint repository medRxiv until 31 March 2024. A total of nine studies were eventually included, two of which were conference proceedings. Our analysis included five RCTs on five RSV vaccines (RSVpreF, RSVPreF3, Ad26.RSV.preF, MEDI7510, and mRNA-1345). The meta-analysis documented a pooled vaccine efficacy of 81.38% (95% confidence interval (95% CI) 70.94 to 88.06) for prevention of LRTD with three or more signs/symptoms during the first RSV season after the delivery of the vaccine. Follow-up data were available for RSVPreF3 (2 RSV seasons), RSVpreF (mid-term estimates of second RSV season), and mRNA-1345 (12 months after the delivery of the primer), with a pooled VE of 61.15% (95% CI 45.29 to 72.40). After the first season, the overall risk for developing RSV-related LRTD was therefore substantially increased (risk ratio (RR) 4.326, 95% CI 2.415; 7.748). However, all estimates were affected by substantial heterogeneity, as suggested by the 95% CI of I2 statistics, which could be explained by inconsistencies in the design of the parent studies, particularly when dealing with case definition. In conclusion, adult RSV vaccination was quite effective in preventing LRTD in older adults, but the overall efficacy rapidly decreased in the second season after the delivery of the vaccine. Because of the heterogenous design of the parent studies, further analyses are required before tailoring specific public health interventions.

Vaccination for Respiratory Syncytial Virus: A Narrative Review and Primer for Clinicians

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) poses a significant burden on public health, causing lower respiratory tract infections in infants, young children, older adults, and immunocompromised individuals. Recent development and licensure of effective RSV vaccines provide a promising approach to lessening the associated morbidity and mortality of severe infections. This narrative review aims to empower clinicians with the necessary knowledge to make informed decisions regarding RSV vaccination, focusing on the prevention and control of RSV infections, especially among vulnerable populations. The paper explores the available RSV vaccines and existing evidence regarding their efficacy and safety in diverse populations. Synthesizing this information for clinicians can help the latter understand the benefits and considerations associated with RSV vaccination, contributing to improved patient care and public health outcomes.