Safety and immunogenicity of 3 formulations of a Sabin inactivated poliovirus vaccine produced on the PER.C6® cell line: A phase 2, double-blind, randomized, controlled study in infants vaccinated at 6, 10 and 14 weeks of age.

An inactivated poliovirus vaccine candidate using Sabin strains (sIPV) grown on the PER.C6® cell line was assessed in infants after demonstrated immunogenicity and safety in adults. The study recruited 300 infants who were randomized (1:1:1:1) to receive one of 3 dose levels of sIPV or a conventional IPV based on Salk strains (cIPV). Poliovirus-neutralizing antibodies were measured before the first dose and 28 days after the third dose. Reactogenicity was assessed for 7 days and unsolicited adverse events (AEs) for 28 days after each vaccination. Serious AEs (SAEs) were recorded throughout the study. Solicited AEs were mostly mild to moderate. None of the SAEs reported in the study were judged vaccine related, including one fatal SAE due to aspiration of vomitus that occurred 26 days after the third dose of low-dose sIPV. After 3 sIPV vaccinations and across all dose levels, seroconversion (SC) rates were at least 92% against Sabin poliovirus types and at least 80% against Salk types, with a dose-response in neutralizing antibody geometric mean titers (GMTs) observed across the 3 sIPV groups. Compared to cIPV, the 3 sIPV groups displayed similar or higher SC rates and GMTs against the 3 Sabin types but showed a lower response against Salk types 1 and 2; this was most visible for Salk type 1. While the PER.C6® cell line-based sIPV showed an acceptable safety profile and immunogenicity in infants, lower seroprotection against type 1 warrants optimization of dose level and additional clinical evaluation.

A Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Phase 1 Study of Ad26.ZIKV.001, an Ad26-Vectored Anti-Zika Virus Vaccine.

BACKGROUND: Zika virus (ZIKV) may cause severe congenital disease after maternal-fetal transmission. No vaccine is currently available. OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and immunogenicity of Ad26.ZIKV.001, a prophylactic ZIKV vaccine candidate. DESIGN: Phase 1 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical study. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03356561). SETTING: United States. PARTICIPANTS: 100 healthy adult volunteers. INTERVENTION: Ad26.ZIKV.001, an adenovirus serotype 26 vector encoding ZIKV M-Env, administered in 1- or 2-dose regimens of 5 × 1010 or 1 × 1011 viral particles (vp), or placebo. MEASUREMENTS: Local and systemic adverse events; neutralization titers by microneutralization assay (MN50) and T-cell responses by interferon-γ enzyme-linked immunospot and intracellular cytokine staining; and protectivity of vaccine-induced antibodies in a subset of participants through transfer in an exploratory mouse ZIKV challenge model. RESULTS: All regimens were well tolerated, with no safety concerns identified. In both 2-dose regimens, ZIKV neutralizing titers peaked 14 days after the second vaccination, with geometric mean MN50 titers (GMTs) of 1065.6 (95% CI, 494.9 to 2294.5) for 5 × 1010 vp and 956.6 (595.8 to 1535.8) for 1 × 1011 vp. Titers persisted for at least 1 year at a GMT of 68.7 (CI, 26.4-178.9) for 5 × 1010 vp and 87.0 (CI, 29.3 to 258.6) for 1 × 1011 vp. A 1-dose regimen of 1 × 1011 vp Ad26.ZIKV.001 induced seroconversion in all participants 56 days after the first vaccination (GMT, 103.4 [CI, 52.7 to 202.9]), with titers persisting for at least 1 year (GMT, 90.2 [CI, 38.4 to 212.2]). Env-specific cellular responses were induced. Protection against ZIKV challenge was observed after antibody transfer from participants into mice, and MN50 titers correlated with protection in this model. LIMITATION: The study was conducted in a nonendemic area, so it did not assess safety and immunogenicity in a flavivirus-exposed population. CONCLUSION: The safety and immunogenicity profile makes Ad26.ZIKV.001 a promising candidate for further development if the need reemerges. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Janssen Vaccines and Infectious Diseases.

Safety and immunogenicity of a new Sabin inactivated poliovirus vaccine candidate produced on the PER.C6® cell-line: a phase 1 randomized controlled trial in adults.

This first-in-human study (NCT03032588), conducted in Belgium, evaluated a new inactivated poliovirus vaccines (IPV) candidate based on Sabin poliovirus strains grown on the high-yield PER.C6® cell line. Healthy adults (N = 32) were randomized (1:1) to receive a single dose of PER.C6-based Sabin-IPV (sIPV, 15:35:112.5 DU/dose) or conventional Salk-IPV (cIPV, 40:8:32 DU/dose). Reactogenicity was assessed up to 7 days after vaccination, immunogenicity 28 days after vaccination, and safety up to 6 months after vaccination.Solicited adverse events (AEs) were mild to moderate, no changes of concern in vital signs or safety laboratory values were observed, and no severe AEs (SAEs) or vaccine-related unsolicited AEs were reported after vaccination. A trend to more frequent solicited AEs after sIPV than after cIPV administration was observed. Most participants had preexisting neutralizing antibodies against poliovirus types (titer ≥8), which were strongly boosted by sIPV. Post-vaccination geometric mean titers were high (≥12,000) and similar across the two vaccination groups. Only participants with very high preexisting antibody levels did not show a vaccine-induced response, defined in seropositive participants as a 4-fold titer increase. The 10 initially seronegative (titer <8) participants (n = 5 in each study group) seroconverted and all participants had seroprotective antibody levels post-vaccination. The antibodies elicited by sIPV neutralized both Sabin and Salk poliovirus strains.In conclusion, the PER.C6®-based sIPV was well tolerated and highly immunogenic in adults with preexisting antibodies to poliovirus.

Design of a phase III multicenter trial to evaluate the efficacy of the RTS,S/AS01 malaria vaccine in children across diverse transmission settings in Africa.

BACKGROUND: GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals and the PATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative are working in partnership to develop a malaria vaccine to protect infants and children living in malaria endemic regions of sub-Saharan Africa, which can be delivered through the Expanded Programme on Immunization. The RTS,S/AS candidate vaccine has been evaluated in multiple phase I/II studies and shown to have a favourable safety profile and to be well-tolerated in both adults and children. This paper details the design of the phase III multicentre efficacy trial of the RTS,S/AS01 malaria vaccine candidate, which is pivotal for licensure and policy decision-making. METHODS: The phase III trial is a randomized, controlled, multicentre, participant- and observer-blind study on-going in 11 centres associated with different malaria transmission settings in seven countries in sub-Saharan Africa. A minimum of 6,000 children in each of two age categories (6-12 weeks, 5-17 months) have been enrolled. Children were randomized 1:1:1 to one of three study groups: (1) primary vaccination with RTS,S/AS01 and booster dose of RTS,S/AS01; (2) primary vaccination with RTS,S/AS01 and a control vaccine at time of booster; (3) primary vaccination with control vaccine and a control vaccine at time of booster. Primary vaccination comprises three doses at monthly intervals; the booster dose is administered at 18 months post-primary course. Subjects will be followed to study month 32. The co-primary objectives are the evaluation of efficacy over one year post-dose 3 against clinical malaria when primary immunization is delivered at: (1) 6-12 weeks of age, with co-administration of DTPwHepB/Hib antigens and OPV; (2) 5-17 months of age. Secondary objectives include evaluation of vaccine efficacy against severe malaria, anaemia, malaria hospitalization, fatal malaria, all-cause mortality and other serious illnesses including sepsis and pneumonia. Efficacy of the vaccine against clinical malaria under different transmission settings, the evolution of efficacy over time and the potential benefit of a booster will be evaluated. In addition, the effect of RTS,S/AS01 vaccination on growth, and the safety and immunogenicity in HIV-infected and malnourished children will be assessed. Safety of the primary course of immunization and the booster dose will be documented in both age categories. CONCLUSIONS: This pivotal phase III study of the RTS,S/AS01 candidate malaria vaccine in African children was designed and implemented by the Clinical Trials Partnership Committee. The study will provide efficacy and safety data to fulfil regulatory requirements, together with data on a broad range of endpoints that will facilitate the evaluation of the public health impact of the vaccine and will aid policy and implementation decisions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00866619.

Evaluation of RTS,S/AS02A and RTS,S/AS01B in adults in a high malaria transmission area.

BACKGROUND: This study advances the clinical development of the RTS,S/AS01B candidate malaria vaccine to malaria endemic populations. As a primary objective it compares the safety and reactogenicity of RTS,S/AS01B to the more extensively evaluated RTS,S/AS02A vaccine. METHODOLOGY: A Phase IIb, single centre, double-blind, controlled trial of 6 months duration with a subsequent 6 month single-blind follow-up conducted in Kisumu West District, Kenya between August 2005 and August 2006. 255 healthy adults aged 18 to 35 years were randomized (1ratio1ratio1) to receive 3 doses of RTS,S/AS02A, RTS,S/AS01B or rabies vaccine (Rabipur; Chiron Behring GmbH) at months 0, 1, 2. The primary objective was the occurrence of severe (grade 3) solicited or unsolicited general (i.e. systemic) adverse events (AEs) during 7 days follow up after each vaccination. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Both candidate vaccines had a good safety profile and were well tolerated. One grade 3 systemic AE occurred within 7 days of vaccination (RTS,S/AS01B group). No unsolicited AEs or SAEs were related to vaccine. A marked increase in anti-CS antibody GMTs was observed post Dose 2 of both RTS,S/AS01B (31.6 EU/mL [95% CI: 23.9 to 41.6]) and RTS,S/AS02A (16.7 EU/mL [95% CI: 12.9 to 21.7]). A further increase was observed post Dose 3 in both the RTS,S/AS01B (41.4 EU/mL [95% CI: 31.7 to 54.2]) and RTS,S/AS02A (21.4 EU/mL [95% CI: 16.0 to 28.7]) groups. Anti-CS antibody GMTs were significantly greater with RTS,S/AS01B compared to RTS,S/AS02A at all time points post Dose 2 and Dose 3. Both candidate vaccines produced strong anti-HBs responses. Vaccine efficacy in the RTS,S/AS01B group was 29.5% (95% CI: -15.4 to 56.9, p = 0.164) and in the RTS,S/AS02A group 31.7% (95% CI: -11.6 to 58.2, p = 0.128). CONCLUSIONS: Both candidate malaria vaccines were well tolerated over a 12 month surveillance period. A more favorable immunogenicity profile was observed with RTS,S/AS01B than with RTS,S/AS02A. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00197054.

Evaluation of two formulations of adjuvanted RTS, S malaria vaccine in children aged 3 to 5 years living in a malaria-endemic region of Mozambique: a Phase I/IIb randomized double-blind bridging trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous trials of the RTS, S malaria candidate vaccine have shown that this vaccine is safe, tolerated and immunogenic. The development plan for this vaccine aims at administering it in the first year of life through the Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI). The objective was to evaluate the safety and reactogenicity of RTS, S/AS02D (0.5 ml dose), a pediatric formulation of GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals' current malaria candidate vaccine RTS, S/AS02A (0.25 ml dose). A 0.5 ml dose of AS02D is composed of the same active ingredients in the same quantities as in a 0.25 ml dose of AS02A and has been developed to be easily introduced into routine EPI practices. METHODS: We performed a phase I/IIb randomized double-blind bridging study in a malaria-endemic region of Mozambique, to compare the safety and immunogenicity of both candidate vaccines with the aim of replacing RTS, S/AS02A with RTS, S/AS02D as the candidate pediatric vaccine. 200 Mozambican children aged 3 to 5 years were randomized 1:1 to receive one of the 2 vaccines according to a 0, 1, 2 month schedule. RESULTS: Both vaccines were safe and had similar reactogenicity profiles. All subjects with paired pre and post-vaccination samples showed a vaccine response with respect to anti-circumsporozoite (CS) antibodies irrespective of initial anti-CS serostatus. Geometric mean titers (GMTs) were 191 EU/ml (95% CI 150-242) in recipients of RTS, S/AS02D compared to 180 EU/ml (95% CI 146-221) in recipients of RTS, S/AS02A. For the anti-hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), all subjects were seroprotected at day 90, and the GMTs were 23,978 mIU/ml (95% CI 17,896-32,127) in RTS, S/AS02D recipients and 17,410 mIU/ml (95% CI 13,322-22,752) in RTS, S/AS02A recipients. There was a decrease in anti-CS GMTs between months 3 and 14 in both groups (191 vs 22 EU/mL in RTS, S/AS02D group and 180 vs 29 EU/mL in RTS, S/AS02A group). CONCLUSION: Our data show that the RTS, S/AS02D is safe, well tolerated, and demonstrates non-inferiority (defined as upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the anti-CS GMT ratio of RTS, S/AS02A to RTS, S/AS02D below 3.0) of the antibody responses to circumsporozoite and HBsAg induced by the RTS, S/AS02D as compared to the RTS, S/AS02A.

Two decades of commitment to malaria vaccine development: GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals.

GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals (GSK) is committed to the development of a safe and effective malaria vaccine. Its research program in this field was initiated in 1984 and has been continuously active to this day, making it unparalleled within the vaccine industry. Although it works in partnerships with several leading organizations from the public sector, this effort has required GSK to invest major financial and human resource commitments, and its partners rely heavily on the company's global infrastructure and expertise in research, advanced clinical development, regulatory, large-scale manufacturing, and commercialization. Through GSK's pioneering business model and working in partnership with global vaccine funding agencies, the company is committed to seeing that, once approved, a safe and effective malaria vaccine will be available to everyone that needs it.