Immunogenicity and safety following one dose of AS01E-adjuvanted respiratory syncytial virus prefusion F protein vaccine in older adults: a phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The recently approved AS01E-adjuvanted respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) prefusion F protein-based vaccine (RSVPreF3 OA) demonstrated high efficacy against RSV-related disease in ≥60-year-olds. METHODS: This ongoing phase 3 study in ≥60-year-olds evaluates the immune persistence until three years post-RSVPreF3 OA vaccination. Here, we describe interim results on humoral and cell-mediated immunogenicity, reactogenicity, and safety until one year post-dose 1. RESULTS: In total, 1653 participants were vaccinated. One month post-dose 1, neutralization titers increased 10.5-fold (RSV-A) and 7.8-fold (RSV-B) versus pre-dose 1. Titers then declined to levels 4.4-fold (RSV-A) and 3.5-fold (RSV-B) above pre-dose 1 at month 6, and remained 3.1-fold (RSV-A) and 2.3-fold (RSV-B) above pre-dose 1 levels after one year. RSVPreF3-binding immunoglobulin G levels and CD4+ T-cell frequencies showed similar kinetics. Solicited administration-site and systemic adverse events (mostly mild to moderate and transient) were reported by 62.2% and 49.5% of participants. Serious adverse events were reported by 3.9% of participants within 6 months post-dose 1; one case was considered vaccine-related. CONCLUSIONS: One RSVPreF3 OA dose elicited cell-mediated and RSV-A and RSV-B-specific humoral immune responses that declined over time but remained above pre-dose 1 levels for at least one year. The vaccine was well tolerated with an acceptable safety profile.Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04732871.

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a major cause of illness and hospitalization in older adults. An RSV vaccine for older adults developed by GSK was recently approved. The vaccine was well tolerated and provided protection against RSV disease in adults aged 60 years and older during at least one RSV season. In this ongoing study, we are evaluating the magnitude and durability of the immune response, as well as vaccine safety, until three years after vaccination of adults aged 60 years and older from five countries. Here, we report the results of an interim analysis until one year after vaccination with one dose. In total, 1653 participants were vaccinated. We found that the vaccine induced a strong immune response that was evident one month after vaccination, after which it declined, but persisted for at least one year. Study participants most often reported pain at the injection site, muscle pain, tiredness, and headache as adverse reactions, which were mostly mild to moderate and of short duration. One serious adverse reaction was considered related to the vaccine. The long-term immune response that was observed in this study is consistent with the vaccine providing protection during at least one RSV season.

Long-term immunogenicity and safety of the hepatitis B vaccine HepB-CpG (HEPLISAV-B) compared with HepB-Eng (Engerix-B) in adults with chronic kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection remains a significant global burden, especially for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) receiving hemodialysis. Three doses of HepB-CpG (HEPLISAV-B® vaccine) induced a superior immune response compared with 4 double doses of HepB-Eng (Engerix-B®) in a phase 3 trial (HBV-17) in adults with CKD. Here we report the long-term immunogenicity and safety of HepB-CpG and HepB-Eng in eligible participants of HBV-17 who enrolled in this optional 34-month follow-up trial (HBV-19). METHODS: HBV-19 is a multicenter, open-label, phase 3b trial of adults with CKD who previously received a complete series of HepB-CpG or HepB-Eng in the HBV-17 trial. Participants were assigned to seroprotection categories at enrollment on the basis of their antibody response to hepatitis B surface antigen (anti-HBs) in HBV-17. The objective was to evaluate the durability of seroprotection (defined as an anti-HBs concentration ≥ 10mIU/mL) induced by HepB-CpG and HepB-Eng. Participants whose anti-HBs concentration was below 10mIU/mL received additional HepB-CpG or HepB-Eng doses. RESULTS: 147 participants were enrolled; 66.7 % were men, median age was 65.0 years, and 83.7 % were white. The durability of seroprotection in participants with CKD was similar in those who received HepB-CpG and those who received HepB-Eng. Antibody concentrations ≥ 100mIU/mL persisted for longer in HepB-CpG than HepB-Eng recipients, among those with anti-HBs ≥ 100mIU/mL post vaccination. The geometric mean anti-HBs concentration in the HepB-CpG group was significantly higher than in the HepB-Eng group over time (P ≤ 0.0001). The safety profiles were similar between the vaccine groups. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the higher antibody levels induced by HepB-CpG in participants with CKD, seroprotection against HBV may be expected to persist longer than that induced by HepB-Eng. CLINICALTRIALS: gov: NCT01282762.

Immunogenicity and safety of concomitant and sequential administration of yellow fever YF-17D vaccine and tetravalent dengue vaccine candidate TAK-003: A phase 3 randomized, controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Yellow fever (YF) vaccination is often mandatory for travelers to YF-endemic areas. The areas with risk of YF partially overlap with those of dengue, for which there is currently no recommended vaccine available for dengue-naïve individuals. This phase 3 study assessed the immunogenicity and safety of concomitant and sequential administration of YF (YF-17D) and tetravalent dengue (TAK-003) vaccines in healthy adults aged 18-60 years living in areas of the US non-endemic for either virus. METHODS: Participants were randomized 1:1:1 to receive the following vaccinations at Months 0, 3, and 6, respectively: YF-17D+placebo, TAK-003, and TAK-003 (Group 1); TAK-003+placebo, TAK-003, and YF-17D (Group 2); or YF-17D+TAK-003, TAK-003, and placebo (Group 3). The primary objective was to demonstrate non-inferiority (upper bound of 95% confidence interval [UB95%CI] of difference <5%) of YF seroprotection rate one month following concomitant administration of YF-17D and TAK-003 (Group 3) compared with YF-17D plus placebo (Group 1). The secondary objectives included demonstration of non-inferiority of YF and dengue geometric mean titers (GMTs) (UB95%CI for GMT ratio <2.0), and safety. RESULTS: 900 adults were randomized. YF seroprotection rates one month post-YF-17D (Month 1) were 99.5% and 99.1% in Group 1 and 3, respectively, and non-inferiority was demonstrated (UB95%CI = 2.69% i.e. <5%). Non-inferiority was also demonstrated for GMTs against YF one month post-YF-17D, and against DENV-2, -3, and -4 (UB95%CI <2), but not DENV-1 (UB95%CI: 2.22), one month post-second TAK-003 vaccination. Adverse event rates following TAK-003 were consistent with previous results, and no important safety risks were identified. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, YF-17D vaccine and TAK-003 were immunogenic and well tolerated when sequentially or concomitantly administered. The non-inferiority of immune responses to YF-17D and TAK-003 was demonstrated for concomitant administration of the 2 vaccines compared to separate vaccination, except against DENV-1 but with GMTs similar to those observed in other TAK-003 trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identified: NCT03342898.

Fasinumab (REGN475), an antibody against nerve growth factor for the treatment of pain: results from a double-blind, placebo-controlled exploratory study in osteoarthritis of the knee.

The safety, tolerability, and efficacy of fasinumab (REGN475), a fully human monoclonal antibody against nerve growth factor, was evaluated for the treatment of pain in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. This was a 24-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, repeat-dose, exploratory study. Eligible patients 40 to 75 years of age with a diagnosis of OA of the knee and moderate to severe pain were randomized 1:1:1:1 to intravenous fasinumab 0.03, 0.1, or 0.3 mg/kg or placebo and received study drug on day 1 and day 57. Pain intensity was recorded daily using the numeric rating scale. Safety and tolerability, assessed by the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), was the primary study endpoint. Secondary study endpoints included the change from baseline in daily walking knee pain and the assessment of pain, function, and stiffness using the Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) index. Baseline characteristics were similar among treatment groups (N=217). After 24 weeks, the incidence of TEAEs ranged from 66.1% to 75.0% in the fasinumab groups vs. 63.6% for placebo. The most common TEAEs included arthralgia, hyperesthesia, myalgia, peripheral edema, and joint swelling. Discontinuation for TEAEs occurred in 5.6% of fasinumab patients and 3.7% of placebo patients. All 3 doses of fasinumab were associated with significant (P<.05) improvements compared with placebo in walking knee pain and WOMAC total and subscale scores. Fasinumab was generally well tolerated, and was associated with a significant reduction in walking knee pain and an improvement in function for up to 8 weeks.

A randomized clinical trial to evaluate two doses of an intra-articular injection of LMWF-5A in adults with pain due to osteoarthritis of the knee.

OBJECTIVE: The Low Molecular Weight Fraction of 5% human serum Albumin (LMWF-5A) is being investigated as a treatment for knee pain from osteoarthritis. METHODS: This was a multicenter randomized, vehicle-controlled, double-blind, parallel study designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of two doses of an intra-articular injection of LMWF-5A. Patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis were randomized 1∶1∶1∶1 to receive a single 4 mL or 10 mL intra-articular knee injection of either LMWF-5A or vehicle control (saline). The primary efficacy endpoint was the difference between treatment groups in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) pain change from baseline over 12 weeks. Safety was examined as the incidence and severity of adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: A total of 329 patients were randomized and received treatment. LMWF-5A resulted in a significant decrease in pain at 12 weeks compared to vehicle control (-0.93 vs -0.72; estimated difference from control: -0.25, p = 0.004); an injection volume effect was not observed (p = 0.64). The effect of LMWF-5A on pain was even more pronounced in patients with severe knee OA (Kellgren Lawrence Grade IV): the estimated difference from control was -0.42 (p = 0.02). Adverse events were generally mild and were similar in patients who received vehicle control (47%) and LMWF-5A (41%). CONCLUSIONS: This clinical trial demonstrated that LMWF-5A is safe and effective at providing relief for the pain of moderate to severe OA of the knee over 12 weeks when administered by intra-articular injection into the knee. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01839331.

Safety and immunogenicity of revaccination with reduced dose intradermal and standard dose intramuscular influenza vaccines in adults 18-64 years of age.

BACKGROUND: This clinical trial examined the safety and immunogenicity of annual revaccination with Fluzone(®) Intradermal (Sanofi Pasteur, Swiftwater, PA) vaccine compared to a standard intramuscular (IM) split-virion trivalent influenza vaccine (Fluzone(®), Sanofi Pasteur). METHODS: This phase II, active-controlled, multi-centre, open-label trial was conducted in 2009 and 2010, and enrolled 1250 adults 18-64 years of age who were randomly selected from participants in a phase III influenza vaccine trial the previous year (NCT00772109). Subjects who had previously received the ID vaccine were randomized 2:1 to be revaccinated with the ID or IM vaccine and those who previously received the IM vaccine were randomized 1:1. Solicited reactions were recorded on the day of vaccination and continuing for the next 7 days, non-serious adverse events for 28 days, and serious adverse events for 6 months after vaccination. Hemagglutination inhibition antibody titres were assessed pre-vaccination and at day 28. RESULTS: Reactions were well-tolerated and resolved in the first 7 days, but erythema, induration, swelling, pruritus and ecchymosis were reported by more subjects receiving the ID vaccine than the IM vaccine. Compared to receipt of IM vaccine in the previous year, ID vaccine in the previous year led to statistically higher rates of erythema, swelling and induration after IM vaccine in the second year. Injection-site pain and systemic reactions did not differ between ID and IM vaccines. No treatment-related serious adverse events were reported. Geometric mean antibody titres, seroprotection rates, and seroconversion rates were non-inferior for the ID and IM vaccines for all three viral strains. CONCLUSIONS: The ID vaccine was as immunogenic as the IM vaccine, and raised no safety concerns. It can be used interchangeably with the IM vaccine for annual revaccination in adults 18-64 years of age in consecutive years without safety concerns.

Safety and immunogenicity of an oral, replicating adenovirus serotype 4 vector vaccine for H5N1 influenza: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1 study.

BACKGROUND: Replication-competent virus vector vaccines might have advantages compared with non-replicating vector vaccines. We tested the safety and immunogenicity of an oral adenovirus serotype 4 vector vaccine candidate (Ad4-H5-Vtn) expressing the haemagglutinin from an avian influenza A H5N1 virus. METHODS: We did this phase 1 study at four sites in the USA. We used a computer-generated randomisation list (block size eight, stratified by site) to assign healthy volunteers aged 18-40 years to receive one of five doses of Ad4-H5-Vtn (10(7) viral particles [VP], 10(8) VP, 10(9) VP, 10(10) VP, 10(11) VP) or placebo (3:1). Vaccine or placebo was given on three occasions, about 56 days apart. Participants, investigators, and study-site personnel were masked to assignment throughout the study. Subsequently, volunteers received a boost dose with 90 µg of an inactivated parenteral H5N1 vaccine. Primary immunogenicity endpoints were seroconversion by haemagglutination-inhibition (HAI), defined as a four-times rise compared with baseline titre, and HAI geometric mean titre (GMT). We solicited symptoms of reactogenicity daily for 7 days after each vaccination and recorded symptoms that persisted beyond 7 days as adverse events. Primary analysis was per protocol. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01006798. FINDINGS: We enrolled 166 participants (125 vaccine; 41 placebo) between Oct 19, 2009, and Sept 9, 2010. HAI responses were low: 13 of 123 vaccinees (11%, 95% CI 6-17) and three of 41 placebo recipients (7%, 2-20) seroconverted. HAI GMT was 6 (95% CI 5-7) for vaccinees, and 5 (5-6) for placebo recipients. However, when inactivated H5N1 vaccine became available, one H5N1 boost was offered to all participants. In this substudy, HAI seroconversion occurred in 19 of 19 participants in the 10(11) VP cohort (100%; 95% CI 82-100) and eight of 22 placebo recipients (36%; 17-59); 17 of 19 participants in the 10(11) VP cohort (89%; 67-99) achieved seroprotection compared with four of 22 placebo recipients (18%; 5-40); GMT was 135 (89-205) with 10(11) VP, compared with 13 (7-21) with placebo. The cumulative frequency of abdominal pain, diarrhoea, and nasal congestion after all three vaccinations was significantly higher in vaccinees than placebo recipients (21 [16·8%] of 125 vs one [2·4%] of 41, p=0·017; 24 [19·2%] of 125 vs two [4·9%] of 41, p=0·027; 41 [32·8%] of 125 vs six [14·6%] of 41, p=0·028; respectively). No serious treatment-related adverse events occurred. INTERPRETATION: Oral Ad4 vector priming might enhance the efficacy of poorly immunogenic vaccines such as H5N1. FUNDING: Wellcome Trust Foundation, PaxVax.

Civamide cream 0.075% in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee: a 12-week randomized controlled clinical trial with a longterm extension.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of civamide cream 0.075% for the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. METHODS: We conducted a 12-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind study with a 52-week open-label extension. Patients with OA of the knee received either civamide cream 0.075% or a lower dose of civamide cream, 0.01%, as the control. The 3 co-primary endpoints in the double-blind study were the time-weighted average (TWA) of change from baseline to Day 84 in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain subscale, the WOMAC physical function subscale, and the Subject Global Evaluation (SGE). In the 52-week open-label extension study, the Osteoarthritis Pain Score and SGE were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 695 patients were randomized to receive civamide cream 0.075% (n = 351) or civamide cream 0.01% (control; n = 344) in the double-blind study. Significance in favor of civamide cream 0.075% was achieved for the TWA for all 3 co-primary efficacy variables: WOMAC pain (p = 0.009), WOMAC physical function (p < 0.001), and SGE (p = 0.008); and at Day 84 for these 3 variables (p = 0.013, p < 0.001, and p = 0.049, respectively). These analyses accounted for significant baseline-by-treatment interactions. In the 52-week open-label extension, efficacy was maintained. Civamide cream 0.075% was well tolerated throughout the studies. CONCLUSION: These studies demonstrate the efficacy of civamide cream for up to 1 year of continuous use. Civamide cream, with its lack of systemic absorption, does not have the potential for serious systemic toxicity, in contrast to several other OA treatments.