RESUMO
(1) Background: The global coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination adapts to protect populations from emerging variants. This communication presents interim findings from the new Omicron XBB.1.16-adapted PHH-1V81 protein-based vaccine compared to an XBB.1.5-adapted mRNA vaccine against various acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) strains. (2) Methods: In a Phase IIb/III pivotal trial, adults previously vaccinated with a primary scheme and at least one booster dose of an EU-approved mRNA vaccine randomly received either the PHH-1V81 or BNT162b2 XBB.1.5 vaccine booster as a single dose. The primary efficacy endpoint assessed neutralization titers against the Omicron XBB.1.16 variant at day 14. Secondary endpoints evaluated neutralization titers and cellular immunity against different variants. Safety endpoints comprised solicited reactions up to day 7 post-vaccination and serious adverse events until the cut-off date of the interim analysis. Changes in humoral responses were assessed by pseudovirion-based or virus neutralization assays. (3) Results: At the cut-off date, immunogenicity assessments included 599 participants. Both boosters elicited neutralizing antibodies against XBB.1.16, XBB.1.5, and JN.1, with PHH-1V81 inducing a higher response for all variants. The PHH-1V8 booster triggers a superior neutralizing antibody response against XBB variants compared to the mRNA vaccine. A subgroup analysis consistently revealed higher neutralizing antibody responses with PHH-1V81 across age groups, SARS-CoV-2 infection history, and the number of prior vaccination shots. A safety analysis (n = 607) at the day 14 visit revealed favorable safety profiles without any serious vaccine-related adverse events. (4) Conclusions: PHH-1V81 demonstrates superiority on humoral immunogenicity compared to the mRNA vaccine against XBB variants and non-inferiority against JN.1 with a favorable safety profile and lower reactogenicity, confirming its potential as a vaccine candidate.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: We evaluated co-administration of adjuvanted seasonal quadrivalent influenza vaccine (FLU-aQIV) and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) prefusion F protein-based vaccine (RSVPreF3 OA) in ≥65-year-olds. METHODS: This phase 3, open-label trial randomized ≥65-year-olds to receive FLU-aQIV and RSVPreF3 OA concomitantly (Co-Ad) or sequentially, 1 month apart (Control). Primary objectives were to demonstrate the non-inferiority of FLU-aQIV and RSVPreF3 OA co-administration versus sequential administration in terms of hemagglutination inhibition (HI) titers for each FLU-aQIV strain and RSV-A and RSV-B neutralization titers, 1 month post-vaccination. Reactogenicity and safety were also assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 1045 participants were vaccinated (Co-Ad: 523; Control: 522). Non-inferiority of FLU-aQIV and RSVPreF3 OA co-administration versus sequential administration was demonstrated in terms of HI titers for the A/Victoria(H1N1), B/Victoria, and B/Yamagata influenza strains and RSV-A neutralization titers (upper limits [ULs] of 95% confidence intervals [CIs] for adjusted geometric mean titer [GMT] ratios [Control/Co-Ad] ≤1.50) but not for A/Darwin(H3N2) HI titers (95% CI UL = 1.53). The immune response to A/Darwin(H3N2) was further assessed post-hoc using a microneutralization assay; the post-vaccination adjusted GMT ratio (Control/Co-Ad) was 1.23 (95% CI: 1.06-1.42, ie, UL ≤1.50), suggesting an adequate immune response to A/Darwin(H3N2) following co-administration. RSV-B neutralization titers were comparable between groups (95% CI UL for adjusted GMT ratio ≤1.50). Solicited adverse events were mostly mild or moderate and transient; unsolicited and serious adverse event rates were balanced between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvanted FLU-aQIV and RSVPreF3 OA had acceptable reactogenicity/safety profiles when co-administered in ≥65-year-olds, without clinically relevant interference with the immune responses to either vaccine. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT05568797.