Maintenance of remission following successful treatment of papulopustular rosacea with ivermectin 1% cream vs. metronidazole 0.75% cream: 36-week extension of the ATTRACT randomized study.

BACKGROUND: There are a limited number of approved treatments for papulopustular rosacea (PPR) and remission is difficult to maintain after successful treatment. OBJECTIVES: To investigate remission over a 36-week extension period in patients with moderate to severe PPR successfully treated with 16 weeks' treatment with ivermectin 1% cream once daily (QD) or metronidazole 0.75% cream twice daily (BID) in a randomized, parallel-group Phase III study. METHODS: Treatment was discontinued in patients initially successfully treated [Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1] with ivermectin 1% cream QD (n = 399) or metronidazole 0.75% cream BID (n = 365; Part A) and patients were followed every 4 weeks for up to 36 weeks (Part B). Treatment with the same study treatment as used in Part A was only re-initiated if patients relapsed (IGA ≥ 2). Efficacy assessments were: time to first relapse; relapse rate; and number of days free of treatment. Safety assessments included incidence of adverse events and local cutaneous signs and symptoms. RESULTS: The median time to first relapse was significantly longer (115 days vs. 85 days) and relapse rates at the end of the study period significantly lower (62.7% vs. 68.4%) for patients initially successfully treated with ivermectin 1% compared with metronidazole 0.75%; Kaplan-Meier plot demonstrated a statistically significant difference between the two arms (P = 0.0365). The median number of days free of treatment was higher for ivermectin compared with metronidazole (196 days vs. 169.5 days; P = 0.026). The percentage of patients who experienced a related adverse event was equally low in both groups. CONCLUSION: The results of this relapse study showed that an initial successful treatment with ivermectin 1% cream QD significantly extended remission of rosacea compared with initial treatment with metronidazole 0.75% cream BID following treatment cessation.

An investigator-masked comparison of the efficacy and safety of twice daily applications of calcitriol 3 microg/g ointment vs. calcipotriol 50 microg/g ointment in subjects with mild to moderate chronic plaque-type psoriasis.

BACKGROUND: Calcitriol and calcipotriol, two vitamin D derivatives, are available for topical treatment of psoriasis and have been shown to be effective. AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of calcitriol 3 microg/g and calcipotriol 50 microg/g. METHODS: This was a multicentre, randomized, investigator-masked, and parallel comparison in subjects with mild to moderate chronic plaque-type psoriasis receiving either calcitriol or calcipotriol ointment twice daily for 12 weeks. Efficacy evaluations comprised global improvement (on a 4-point scale from 0: no change or worse, to 3: clear or almost clear) assessed by the investigator and by the subject. Efficacy further included the 'dermatological sum score' at each study visit. Safety evaluations included adverse event reporting, cutaneous safety assessed by the investigator and cutaneous discomfort assessment by the subject (both on a 5-point scale from 0: none, to 4: very severe). RESULTS: A total of 250 subjects of both gender were recruited. At week 12, the LSmean score of global improvement rated by the investigator was 2.27 for calcitriol and 2.22 for calcipotriol. This difference was not statistically significant, with calcitriol demonstrating to be non-inferior to calcipotriol for global improvement. This same parameter was scored by the subject, with a mean of 2.12 for calcitriol and 2.09 for calcipotriol. The percentage of patients with at least marked improvement tended to be in favour of calcitriol (95.7% vs. 85% for calcipotriol). However, differences were not statistically significant. The mean worst score for the cutaneous safety assessment was higher in the calcipotriol group (0.3 vs. 0.1 and 0.4 vs. 0.2, by the investigator and the patient, respectively). These differences were statistically significant in favour of a better safety profile for calcitriol (P=0.0035). Fourteen dermatological and treatment-related adverse events were reported with calcipotriol vs. only five with calcitriol for a total of 22 adverse events reported throughout the study. CONCLUSION: Calcitriol administered twice daily over a 12-week treatment period demonstrated similar efficacy to calcipotriol, while showing a significantly better safety profile.

Results of a randomised, multicentre study comparing a new water-based gel of clindamycin 1% versus clindamycin 1% topical solution in the treatment of acne vulgaris.

Several topical formulations of clindamycin phosphate are currently marketed for the treatment of acne vulgaris. This 12 week, multi-centre, investigator-blind, randomised, active and placebo-controlled, parallel group study assessed the clinical efficacy and safety of clindamycin 1% gel once-a-day vs clindamycin 1% solution twice-a-day, and to demonstrate its superiority vs its vehicle alone. A total of 592 subjects were included. After 12 weeks, a 65% reduction in inflammatory lesion count was observed with both active treatments. The gel was superior to its vehicle for total and inflammatory lesion reduction, Global Assessment of Improvement, and Global Severity Grade at final visit (all p < 0.01). No difference was found between the 2 active treatments for any of the evaluated criteria. Local tolerance in each active treatment group was slightly better with clindamycin gel (1.9% of subjects) relative to 3.1% in the topical solution group. In conclusion, the new water-based gel once-a-day formulation of clindamycin 1% is an effective, safe, and convenient alternative to the twice-a-day topical solution formulation in the treatment of acne vulgaris.

Safety and immunogenicity of three doses of a Neisseria meningitidis A + C diphtheria conjugate vaccine in infants from Niger.

BACKGROUND: High rates of endemic disease and recurrent epidemics of serogroup A and C meningococcal meningitis continue to occur in sub-Saharan Africa. A meningococcal A + C polysaccharide diphtheria-toxoid-conjugated vaccine may address this issue. METHODS: In Niger three doses of a bivalent meningococcal A + C diphtheria-toxoid-conjugated vaccine (MenD), containing 1, 4 or 16 microg of each polysaccharide per dose, administered at 6, 10 and 14 weeks of age, were compared with Haemophilus influenzae type b-tetanus toxoid-conjugated (PRP-T) vaccine given with the same schedule or with a meningococcal A + C polysaccharide vaccine (MenPS) given at 10 and 14 weeks of age. One blood sample was taken at the time of enrollment (6 weeks of age) and another was taken 4 weeks after the primary series. RESULTS: All doses of MenD were well-tolerated. After the primary series a higher proportion of infants had detectable serum bactericidal activity against serogroup A for each dose of MenD (from 94% to 100%) than for MenPS (31%) or H. influenzae type b-tetanus toxoid-conjugated vaccine (18.9%); P < or = 0.05. Significant differences were also observed for serogroup C MenD 4 microg or MenD 16 microg (100%) vs. MenPS (69.7%) or Haemophilus influenzae type b-tetanus toxoid-conjugated vaccine (24.3%); P < or = 0.05. When MenPS vaccine was given to 11-month-old children, the immune response measured by both enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and serum bactericidal assay was greater in those previously immunized with MenD than in those immunized with MenPS vaccine. CONCLUSION: MenD was safe among infants in Niger, and immunization led to significantly greater functional antibody activity than with MenPS. The 4-microg dose of MenD for both the A and C serogroups has been selected for further studies.

Mathematical models for assessment of long-term persistence of antibodies after vaccination with two inactivated hepatitis A vaccines.

Very few studies with inactivated hepatitis A vaccines were designed for long-term follow-up of antibody persistence. Based on the serological data from these vaccine trials, mathematical models were developed to predict the decrease of anti-hepatitis A virus (anti-HAV) antibodies after vaccination. This study was designed to compare Avaxim (0-6 months) to Havrix 720 (0-1-6 months). In this paper, both groups of vaccinees are described considering the age, gender, and weight of the subjects at enrollment. For mathematical modelling, two different approaches were used: one starting the calculations from the geometric mean titres (GMTs) at each point in time, the other basing the calculations on individual anti-HAV titres. Both vaccines are very immunogenic, although Avaxim shows a higher GMT at each point in time. When these data are used in mathematical models to predict the persistence of anti-HAV antibodies, both vaccines (Avaxim and Havrix 720) show similar long-term antibody kinetics. Antibody levels > or = 20 mIU/ml are estimated to last on average for at least 10 years after completion of the full vaccination course. Ten years after the full course, approximately 53% of subjects are estimated to have antibody levels > or = 20 mIU/ml. At 15 years, these levels will be maintained by about 34% of vaccinees. Avaxim and Havrix 720 show a similar long-term profile of persistence of anti-HAV. A mathematical model based on GMTs appeared to give equivalent results to a model based on individual serological data. The GMT method is easier to apply than the individual based method. However, the advantage of the latter method is the possibility of calculating confidence limits for the predicted values and making estimates of the percentage of subjects having a certain level of antibody titres at a certain time.

Safety and immunogenicity of a new formulation of an inactivated hepatitis A vaccine.

The safety and immunogenicity of a new formulation of the inactivated hepatitis A vaccine, Avaxim, was evaluated in 189 children, aged 18 months to 15 years in a monocentric, open trial. Two vaccinations were given six months apart. Enrollment was balanced within three age groups: 18 months to 3 years, 4-8 years and 9-15 years. Antibody titers were measured blindly by an independent laboratory using a modified radioimmunoassay. Two weeks after the first dose, seroconversion was achieved by 94.6, 94.3 and 96.4% of initially HAV-seronegative subjects (antibody titre <20 mIU/ml) in each age group (youngest to oldest, respectively), with corresponding geometric mean titre concentrations (GMC) of 72.2, 54.3 and 47.1 mIU/ml. Just before the booster dose, the seroconversion rate was 100% in all groups, and the corresponding GMC values were 163, 169 and 111 mIU/ml. All groups included, a 22.6-fold rise in GMC from prebooster levels was observed four weeks after the booster dose. An explanatory analysis suggested a tendency for higher antibody levels in younger children at all vaccination time points. Local reactions were noted in 18.2% of the vaccinees after the first dose and in 8.5% after the booster dose. The rates of systemic reactions were 23.8% after the first dose and 11.4% after the booster dose. Overall, this trial demonstrated the good safety and immunogenicity profile of this vaccine in children aged 18 months to 15 years of age.

Comparison of two immunization schedules with an inactivated hepatitis A vaccine (AvaximTM).

BACKGROUND: Inactivated hepatitis A vaccines are licensed with a vaccination schedule based on two injections of vaccine given at least 6 months apart. METHODS: Two vaccination schedules for the inactivated hepatitis A vaccine, AvaximTM (Pasteur Mérieux Connaught, Lyon, France), were compared in a monocentric, randomized, open trial. Two doses of the vaccine were given at intervals of either 6 months (0-6 month group) or 12 months (0-12 month group) to 96 adult volunteers. Anti-hepatitis A virus (HAV) antibody titers were determined in a blind fashion using the modified RIA (mRIA) HAVABtrade mark assay. After excluding subjects with positive preimmunization anti-HAV titers and those with protocol deviations, both groups were still comparable by sex ratio and mean age. RESULTS: Four weeks (28 6 4 days) after the first dose, the seroconversion (SC) rate of initially HAV-seronegative subjects (antibody titer < 20 mIU/mL) was 100% in the 0-6 month group and 96. 9% in the 0-12 month group, with corresponding geometric mean titer (GMT) values (95% CI) of 369 mIU/mL (274-497 mIU/mL) and 445 mIU/mL (292-679 mIU/mL), respectively. After 6 months, SC was obtained in all subjects, and the corresponding GMT values were 349 mIU/mL and 359 mIU/mL in the 0-6 month group and the 0-12 month group, respectively. Four weeks after the booster dose given at 6 months, a 14.5-fold rise in GMT was observed. In the 0-12 month group, anti-HAV GMT values decreased by only 20% from 6 months to 12 months with a pre-booster GMT value of 286 mIU/mL at the 12-month evaluation. Four weeks after the booster given at 12 months, a 22. 5-fold rise in GMT was observed. Statistical analysis showed that the two vaccination schedules were comparable in their ability to boost antibody titers. Unsolicited reactions to vaccination were not different to those reported during earlier trials. Less than 12% of the vaccinees reported reactions after the first dose (11/93), or after the booster dose (11/92). CONCLUSIONS: This trial demonstrated antibody persistence is excellent for at least 12 months after one dose of this vaccine, and that a booster may be given at any time between 6 and 12 months after primary immunization.

Immunogenicity and safety in adults of a new chromatographically purified Vero-cell rabies vaccine (CPRV): a randomized, double-blind trial with purified Vero-cell rabies vaccine (PVRV).

Recent improvements in chromatographic purification procedures have made it possible to develop a new chromatographically purified rabies vaccine (CPRV) by further purifying the current rabies vaccine prepared from Vero-cell culture (Verorab; Pasteur Mérieux Connaught). The immunogenicity and safety of primary immunization, followed by a booster at one year, with CPRV was compared to that of the purified Vero cell vaccine (PVRV) in a randomized, double-blind study carried out at four veterinary schools in France. A total of 330 healthy, male and female, first-year veterinary students, aged at least 18 years and who required pre-exposure rabies prophylaxis, were enrolled in this study. Included subjects were randomly assigned either CPRV (n = 163) or PVRV (n = 167) to be given as a primary immunization series of three intramuscular injections (D0, D7, D28), followed by a booster after 1 year (D365). Blood samples for serological analysis were taken at D0 (before first injection), D28, D42, D180, D365 (before booster) and D379. All subjects developed a strong immune response to the primary series, and at D42, all subjects had seroconverted for rabies neutralizing antibody (serum titre > or = 0.5 IU/ml). The rabies virus-neutralizing antibody GMT value at D42 in the CPRV group (23.0 IU/ml) was non-inferior to that in the PVRV group (29.6 IU/ml), according to a one-sided non-inferiority test. While antibody titres tended to decrease over the period of follow-up, at D365 (before booster), 97.5% subjects in the CPRV group and 98.8% of subjects in the PVRV group remained seroconverted. After booster, although the rabies antibody GMT value in the CPRV group was lower than that in the PVRV group, all subjects in both groups were seroconverted, and the difference is probably not clinically important. The incidence of local and systemic reactions tended to decrease with each dose during the primary immunization series, followed by a slight increase after booster (significant time-effect in an exploratory logistic regression analysis). Although mild or moderate local reactions tended to be more frequent after injection with CPRV compared to PVRV, systemic reactions were reported less often (significant group-effects in exploratory logistic regression analyses). One serious adverse event possibly related to vaccine occurred during this study (severe asthenia after the third dose of PVRV). This comparative study in healthy young adults demonstrates that the new chromatographically purified rabies vaccine is as immunogenic as PVRV, and seems to be associated with fewer systemic reactions.

Does immunoglobulin interfere with the immunogenicity to Pasteur Mérieux inactivated hepatitis A vaccine?

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare the immunogenicity of Pasteur Mérieux (P.M. s.v.) inactivated hepatitis A vaccine when given alone with its immunogenicity when given in combination with immunoglobulin. METHODS: We enrolled 80 healthy volunteers who were seronegative for anti-HAV. Forty subjects (group A) were given two doses of vaccine at 0 and 6 months plus 4 ml of immunoglobulin given simultaneously with the first vaccine injection; and 40 subjects (group B) were given vaccine alone. The population characteristics (age, sex, height and weight) of the two groups were comparable. RESULTS: Anti-HAV antibody was detectable at week 1 in 100% of group A and in 5.7% of group B, and in 100% of both groups at 4 and 8 weeks. Seroconversion rates (> or = 20 mIU/ml) were 97.4% in group A and 100% in group B at week 24 and were 100% in both groups 4 weeks after a booster injection at 6 months. The antibody response level was lower after concomitant administration of vaccine with immunoglobulin. The antibody geometric mean titer was higher at week 1 in subjects who had been given vaccine and immunoglobulin, but nearly 50% lower at week 4 and thereafter, indicating inhibition of the vaccine-induced immune response by immunoglobulin. At week 28, i.e. 4 weeks after the booster injection, geometric mean titers had increased about 13-15 times in both groups, reaching highly protective antibody levels (3351 mIU/ml in group A and 5843 mIU/ml in group B). No serious adverse effects were observed during the follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that P.M. s.v. hepatitis A vaccine is highly immunogenic and safe, even when given simultaneously with immunoglobulin. Despite the interference of the immunoglobulin with the active immune response, individuals who were immunized passively plus actively also developed high titers of anti-HAV antibody. It is therefore reasonable to expect that this inhibition will not affect the overall protection conferred by the vaccine.