Safety and immunogenicity of a new formulation of a pentavalent DTwP-HepB-Hib vaccine in healthy Indian infants-A randomized study.

BACKGROUND: Pentavalent vaccines (DTP-HepB-Hib) have been introduced in many countries in their routine public immunization programmes to protect against diphtheria (D), tetanus (T), pertussis (P), hepatitis B (Hep B) and Hemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) diseases. This study compared the safety and immunogenicity of a new formulation of a whole-cell Bordetella pertussis (wP) based pentavalent vaccine (DTwP-HepB-Hib). The new formulation was developed using well-characterized hepatitis B and pertussis whole cell vaccine components. METHODS: This was a phase III, observer-blind, randomized, non-inferiority, multi-center study conducted in India among 460 infants who were followed up for safety and immunogenicity for 28 days after administration of three doses of either investigational or licensed comparator formulations at 6-8, 10-12 and 14-16 weeks of age. RESULTS: The investigational formulation of DTwP-HepB-Hib vaccine was non-inferior to the licensed formulation in terms of hepatitis B seroprotection rate (% of subjects with HepB antibodies ≥10mIU/mL were 99.1% versus 99.0%, respectively, corresponding to a difference of 0.1% (95% CI, -2.47 to 2.68)) and pertussis immune responses (adjusted geometric mean concentrations of antibodies for anti-PT were 76.7 EU/mL versus 63.3 EU/mL, with a ratio of aGMTs of 1.21 (95% CI, 0.89-1.64), and for anti-FIM were 1079 EU/mL versus 1129 EU/mL, with a ratio of aGMTs of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.73-1.24), respectively). The immune responses to other valences (D, T, and Hib) in the two formulations were also similar. The safety profile of both formulations was found to be similar and were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: The investigational DTwP-HepB-Hib vaccine formulation was immunogenic and well-tolerated when administered as three dose primary series in infants. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials Registry India number: CTRI/2018/12/016692.

Live attenuated tetravalent (G1-G4) bovine-human reassortant rotavirus vaccine (BRV-TV): Randomized, controlled phase III study in Indian infants.

BACKGROUND: Rotavirus remains the leading cause of diarrhoea among children <5years. We assessed immunogenic non-inferiority of a tetravalent bovine-human reassortant rotavirus vaccine (BRV-TV) over the licensed human-bovine pentavalent rotavirus vaccine RV5. METHODS: Phase III single-blind study (parents blinded) in healthy infants randomized (1:1) to receive three doses of BRV-TV or RV5 at 6-8, 10-12, and 14-16weeks of age. All concomitantly received a licensed diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B, Haemophilus influenzae type b conjugate vaccine (DTwP-HepB-Hib) and oral polio vaccine (OPV). Immunogenic non-inferiority was evaluated in terms of the inter-group difference in anti-rotavirus serum IgA seroresponse (primary endpoint), and seroprotection/seroresponse rates to DTwP-HepB-Hib and OPV vaccines. Seroresponse was defined as a ≥4-fold increase in titers from baseline to D28 post-dose 3. Non-inferiority was declared if the difference between groups (based on the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval [CI]) was above -10%. Each subject was evaluated for solicited adverse events 7days and unsolicited & serious adverse events 28days following each dose of vaccination. RESULTS: Of 1195 infants screened, 1182 were randomized (590 to BRV-TV; 592 to RV5). Non-inferiority for rotavirus serum IgA seroresponse was not established: BRV-TV, 47.1% (95%CI: 42.8; 51.5) versus RV5, 61.2% (95%CI: 56.8; 65.5); difference between groups, -14.08% (95%CI: -20.4; -7.98). Serum IgA geometric mean concentrations at D28 post-dose 3 were 28.4 and 50.1U/ml in BRV-TV and RV5 groups, respectively. For all DTwP-HepB-Hib and OPV antigens, seroprotection/seroresponse was elicited in both groups and the -10% non-inferiority criterion between groups was met. There were 16 serious adverse events, 10 in BRV-TV group and 6 in RV5 group; none were classified as vaccine related. Both groups had similar vaccine safety profiles. CONCLUSION: BRV-TV was immunogenic but did not meet immunogenic non-inferiority criteria to RV5 when administered concomitantly with routine pediatric antigens in infants.