An open-label, phase IV randomised controlled trial of two schedules of a four-component meningococcal B vaccine in UK preterm infants.

OBJECTIVE: To compare immunological responses of preterm infants to a four-component meningococcal B vaccine (4CMenB; Bexsero) following a 2+1 vs a 3+1 schedule, and to describe reactogenicity of routine vaccines. DESIGN: An open-label, phase IV randomised study conducted across six UK sites. SETTING: Neonatal units, postnatal wards, community recruitment following discharge. PARTICIPANTS: 129 preterm infants born at a gestation of <35 weeks (64 in group 1 (2+1), 65 in group 2 (3+1)) were included in the analysis. Analysis was completed for postprimary samples from 125 participants (59 in group 1, 66 in group 2) and for postbooster samples from 118 participants (59 in both groups). INTERVENTIONS: Infants randomised to 4CMenB according to a 2+1 or a 3+1 schedule, alongside routine vaccines. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Serum bactericidal antibody (SBA) assays performed at 5, 12 and 13 months of age: geometric mean titres (GMTs) and proportions of infants achieving titres ≥4 compared between groups. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in SBA GMTs between infants receiving a 2+1 compared with a 3+1 schedule following primary or booster vaccination, but a significantly higher proportion of infants had an SBA titre ≥4 against strain NZ98/254 (porin A) at 1 month after primary vaccination using a 3+1 compared with a 2+1 schedule (3+1: 87% (95% CI 76 to 94%), 2+1: 70% (95% CI 56 to 81%), p=0.03).At 12 weeks of age those in the 3+1 group, who received a dose of 4CMenB, had significantly more episodes of fever >38.0°C than those in the 2+1 group who did not (group 2+1: 2% (n=1); 3+1: 14% (n=9); p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Both schedules were immunogenic in preterm infants, although a lower response against strain NZ98/254 was seen in the 2+1 schedule; ongoing disease surveillance is important in understanding the clinical significance of this difference. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03125616.

Effect of MRI on preterm infants and their families: a randomised trial with nested diagnostic and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: We tested the hypothesis that routine MRI would improve the care and well-being of preterm infants and their families. DESIGN: Parallel-group randomised trial (1.1 allocation; intention-to-treat) with nested diagnostic and cost evaluations (EudraCT 2009-011602-42). SETTING: Participants from 14 London hospitals, imaged at a single centre. PATIENTS: 511 infants born before 33 weeks gestation underwent both MRI and ultrasound around term. 255 were randomly allocated (siblings together) to receive only MRI results and 255 only ultrasound from a paediatrician unaware of unallocated results; one withdrew before allocation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Maternal anxiety, measured by the State-Trait Anxiety inventory (STAI) assessed in 206/214 mothers receiving MRI and 217/220 receiving ultrasound. Secondary outcomes included: prediction of neurodevelopment, health-related costs and quality of life. RESULTS: After MRI, STAI fell from 36.81 (95% CI 35.18 to 38.44) to 32.77 (95% CI 31.54 to 34.01), 31.87 (95% CI 30.63 to 33.12) and 31.82 (95% CI 30.65 to 33.00) at 14 days, 12 and 20 months, respectively. STAI fell less after ultrasound: from 37.59 (95% CI 36.00 to 39.18) to 33.97 (95% CI 32.78 to 35.17), 33.43 (95% CI 32.22 to 34.63) and 33.63 (95% CI 32.49 to 34.77), p=0.02. There were no differences in health-related quality of life. MRI predicted moderate or severe functional motor impairment at 20 months slightly better than ultrasound (area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (CI) 0.74; 0.66 to 0.83 vs 0.64; 0.56 to 0.72, p=0.01) but cost £315 (CI £295-£336) more per infant. CONCLUSIONS: MRI increased costs and provided only modest benefits. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01049594 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01049594. EudraCT: EudraCT: 2009-011602-42 (https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/).