Superior antigen-specific CD4+ T-cell response with AS03-adjuvantation of a trivalent influenza vaccine in a randomised trial of adults aged 65 and older

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of trivalent influenza vaccines may be reduced in older versus younger adults because of age-related immunosenescence. The use of an adjuvant in such a vaccine is one strategy that may combat immunosenescence, potentially by bolstering T-cell mediated responses. METHODS: This observer-blind study, conducted in the United States (US) and Spain during the 2008-2009 influenza season, evaluated the effect of Adjuvant System AS03 on specific T-cell responses to a seasonal trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV) in >/=65 year-old adults.Medically-stable adults aged >/=65 years were randomly allocated to receive a single dose of AS03-adjuvanted TIV (TIV/AS03) or TIV. Healthy adults aged 18-40 years received only TIV. Blood samples were collected on Day 0, Day 21, Day 42 and Day 180. Influenza-specific CD4+ T cells, defined by the induction of the immune markers CD40L, IL-2, IFN-gamma, or TNF-alpha, were measured in ex vivo cultures of antigen-stimulated peripheral blood mononuclear cells. RESULTS: A total of 192 adults were vaccinated: sixty nine and seventy three >/=65 year olds received TIV/AS03 and TIV, respectively; and fifty 18 - 40 year olds received TIV. In the >/=65 year-old group on Day 21, the frequency of CD4+ T cells specific to the three vaccine strains was superior in the TIV/AS03 recipients to the frequency in TIV (p /=65 year-old recipients of TIV/AS03 than in the 18 - 40 year old recipients of TIV on Days 21 (p = 0.006) and 42 (p = 0.011). CONCLUSION: This positive effect of AS03 Adjuvant System on the CD4+ T-cell response to influenza vaccine strains in older adults could confer benefit in protection against clinical influenza disease in this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: (Clinicaltrials.gov.). NCT00765076

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

Flexibility of interval between vaccinations with AS03_A-adjuvanted influenza A (H1N1) 2009 vaccine in adults aged 18–60 and >60 years: a randomized trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Flexibility of vaccination schedule and lower antigen content can facilitate pandemic vaccine coverage. We assessed the immune response and safety of AS03-adjuvanted A/California/7/2009 H1N1 pandemic vaccine containing half of the registered adult haemagglutinin (HA) antigen content, administered as a two-dose schedule at intervals of 21 days or 6 months in both young and elderly adults.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In this open-label randomized trial, healthy adults aged 18–60 years (N = 163) and >60 years (N = 143) received AS03_A-adjuvanted A/California/7/2009 H1N1 vaccine containing 1.9 μg HA on Day 0. A second dose was given on Day 21 (n = 177) or Day 182 (n = 106). Haemagglutination-inhibition (HI) antibody responses were analyzed on Days 0, 21, 42, 182, 364 and additionally on Day 203 for subjects vaccinated on Day 182. Solicited and unsolicited adverse events were recorded.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The HI antibody response in both age strata 21 days after the first dose met and exceeded all regulatory acceptance criteria although the results suggested a lower response in the older age stratum (geometric mean titres [GMTs] for HI antibodies of 420.5 for subjects aged 18–60 years and 174.4 for those >60 years). A second dose of AS03_A adjuvanted A/H1N1/2009 vaccine induced a further increase in antibody titres and the response was similar whether the second dose was administered at 21 days (GMTs of 771.8 for 18–60 years and 400.9 for >60 years) or 6 months (GMTs of 708.3 for 18–60 years and 512.1 for >60 years) following the first dose. Seroprotection rates remained high at 6 months after one dose or two doses while at 12 months rates tended to be higher for the 6 month interval schedule (93.3% for 18–60 years and 80.4% for >60 years) than the 21 day schedule (82.3% for 18–60 years and 50.0% for >60 years). Reactogenicity/safety profiles were similar for both schedules, there was no evidence of an increase in reactogenicity following the second dose.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The results indicate that flexibility in the dosing interval for AS03_A adjuvanted vaccine may be possible. Such flexibility could help to reduce the logistic stress on delivery of pandemic vaccination programmes.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00975884</p

Immunologic non-inferiority of a newly licensed inactivated trivalent influenza vaccine versus an established vaccine: A randomized study in US adults

A trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (Fluarix™, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals) was licensed under US accelerated approval regulations. We performed a randomized, observer-blind, post-approval study to demonstrate its immunological non-inferiority versus an established US-licensed vaccine (primary endpoint). Adult (including elderly) subjects received a single injection of newly-licensed vaccine (n = 923) or established vaccine (n = 922). Serum hemagglutination-inhibition titers were determined pre-vaccination and 21–28 days after vaccination. Non-inferiority was assessed by post-vaccination geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio (upper 95% confidence interval [CI] ≤1.5) and difference in seroconversion rate (upper 95% CI ≤0.1) for all three vaccine strains. Safety was monitored for 6 months. The newly-licensed vaccine was non-inferior to the established vaccine in all subjects (≥18 years) and in elderly subjects (≥65 years). Adjusted GMT ratios (established/newly-licensed) against the H1N1, H3N2 and B strains were 0.65 (95% CI: 0.58, 0.73), 0.93 (0.83, 1.04) and 1.13 (1.03, 1.25) for all subjects and 0.75 (0.67, 0.85), 0.95 (0.82, 1.09) and 1.13 (1.00, 1.27) for elderly subjects. Corresponding values for the differences in seroconversion rate (established minus newly-licensed) were −0.12 (−0.16, −0.07), −0.02 (−0.06, 0.03) and 0.01 (−0.04, 0.06) for all subjects and −0.11 (−0.16, −0.05), −0.02 (−0.07, 0.04) and 0.02 (−0.04, 0.08) for elderly subjects. The most common adverse events with both vaccines were injection site pain, fatigue and headache, and no serious adverse events or deaths were considered related; there were no clinically relevant differences between the vaccines. In conclusion, the newly-licensed vaccine was well tolerated and immunologically non-inferior to the established vaccine for all three vaccine strains in the whole population and the elderly