Challenge of conducting a placebo-controlled randomized efficacy study for influenza vaccine in a season with low attack rate and a mismatched vaccine B strain: a concrete example

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Our aim was to determine the efficacy of a trivalent inactivated split virus influenza vaccine (TIV) against culture-confirmed influenza A and/or B in adults 18 to 64 years of age during the 2005/2006 season in the Czech Republic.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>6203 subjects were randomized to receive TIV (N = 4137) or placebo (N = 2066). The sample size was based on an assumed attack rate of 4% which provided 90% power to reject the hypothesis that vaccine efficacy (VE) was ≥ 45%. Cases of influenza like illness (defined as fever (oral temperature ≥37.8°C) plus cough and/or sore throat) were identified both by active (biweekly phone contact) and passive (self reporting) surveillance and nasal and throat swabs were collected from subjects for viral culture.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>TIV was well tolerated and induced a good immune response. The 2005/2006 influenza season was exceptionally mild in the study area, as it was throughout Europe, and only 46 culture-confirmed cases were found in the study cohort (10 influenza A and 36 influenza B). Furthermore among the B isolates, 35 were identified as B/Hong Kong 330/2001-like (B/Victoria/2/87 lineage) which is antigenically unrelated to the vaccine B strain (B/Yamagata/16/88 lineage). The attack rate in the vaccine group (0.7%) was not statistically significantly different from the attack rate in the placebo group (0.9%).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Due to the atypical nature of the influenza season during this study we were unable to assess TIV efficacy. This experience illustrates the challenge of conducting a prospective influenza vaccine efficacy trial during a single season when influenza attack rates and drift in circulating strains or B virus lineage match can be difficult to estimate in advance.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>Clinical trial registery: NCT00197223.</p

Effect of prophylactic paracetamol administration at time of vaccination on febrile reactions and antibody responses in children: two open-label, randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND: Although fever is part of the normal inflammatory process after immunisation, prophylactic antipyretic drugs are sometimes recommended to allay concerns of high fever and febrile convulsion. We assessed the effect of prophylactic administration of paracetamol at vaccination on infant febrile reaction rates and vaccine responses. METHODS: In two consecutive (primary and booster) randomised, controlled, open-label vaccination studies, 459 healthy infants were enrolled from ten centres in the Czech Republic. Infants were randomly assigned with a computer-generated randomisation list to receive three prophylactic paracetamol doses every 6-8 h in the first 24 h (n=226) or no prophylactic paracetamol (n=233) after each vaccination with a ten-valent pneumococcal non-typeable Haemophilus influenzae protein D-conjugate vaccine (PHiD-CV) co-administered with the hexavalent diphtheria-tetanus-3-component acellular pertussis-hepatitis B-inactivated poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3-H influenzae type b (DTPa-HBV-IPV/Hib) and oral human rotavirus vaccines. The primary objective in both studies was the reduction in febrile reactions of 38.0 degrees C or greater in the total vaccinated cohort. The second objective was assessment of immunogenicity in the according-to-protocol cohort. These studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00370318 and NCT00496015. FINDINGS: Fever greater than 39.5 degrees C was uncommon in both groups (after primary: one of 226 participants [<1%] in prophylactic paracetamol group vs three of 233 [1%] in no prophylactic paracetamol group; after booster: three of 178 [2%] vs two of 172 [1%]). The percentage of children with temperature of 38 degrees C or greater after at least one dose was significantly lower in the prophylactic paracetamol group (94/226 [42%] after primary vaccination and 64/178 [36%] after booster vaccination) than in the no prophylactic paracetamol group (154/233 [66%] after primary vaccination and 100/172 [58%] after booster vaccination). Antibody geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) were significantly lower in the prophylactic paracetamol group than in the no prophylactic paracetamol group after primary vaccination for all ten pneumococcal vaccine serotypes, protein D, antipolyribosyl-ribitol phosphate, antidiphtheria, antitetanus, and antipertactin. After boosting, lower antibody GMCs persisted in the prophylactic paracetamol group for antitetanus, protein D, and all pneumococcal serotypes apart from 19F. INTERPRETATION: Although febrile reactions significantly decreased, prophylactic administration of antipyretic drugs at the time of vaccination should not be routinely recommended since antibody responses to several vaccine antigens were reduced. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals (Belgium)