Safety and immunogenicity of a novel 10-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine candidate in adults, toddlers, and infants in The Gambia-Results of a phase 1/2 randomized, double-blinded, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: A more affordable pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) that provides comparable protection to current PCVs is needed to ensure sustainable access in resource-limited settings. Serum Institute of India Pvt. Ltd.'s PCV candidate (SIIPL-PCV) has the potential to meet this need as manufacturing efficiency has been optimized and the vaccine targets the most prevalent disease-causing serotypes in Africa and Asia. We report SIIPL-PCV's safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity in adults, toddlers, and infants in The Gambia. METHODS: This phase 1/2, randomized, double-blind trial sequentially enrolled 34 PCV-naive adults (18-40?years old), 112 PCV (Prevenar 13® [PCV13])-primed toddlers (12-15?months old), and 200 PCV-naive infants (6-8?weeks old), who were randomized (1:1) to receive SIIPL-PCV or a licensed comparator vaccine. Infants received three-doses of SIIPL-PCV or PCV13 at 6, 10, and 14?weeks of age co-administered with routine Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI) vaccines. Reactogenicity was solicited through seven-days post-vaccination; unsolicited adverse events (AEs) were assessed throughout the study. The safety and immunogenicity of a matching booster at 10-14?months of age were evaluated in a subset of 96 infants. Immune responses were evaluated post-primary and pre- and post-booster vaccinations. RESULTS: Reactogenicity was primarily mild-to-moderate in severity. In infants, the most common solicited reactions were injection-site tenderness and fever, with no meaningful treatment-group differences. There were no serious or severe vaccine-related AEs and no meaningful trends in SAEs, vaccine-related AEs, or overall AEs. Infant post-primary seroresponse rates (IgG level???0.35?µg/mL) were ?89% for all serotypes except 6A (79%) in the SIIPL-PCV group. IgG GMCs were >1?µg/mL for all serotypes in both SIIPL-PCV and PCV13 groups. Post-booster GMCs were comparable between groups. CONCLUSION: SIIPL-PCV was well-tolerated, had an acceptable safety profile, and was immunogenic for all vaccine serotypes. Results support the evaluation of SIIPL-PCV in a phase 3 non-inferiority trial. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02308540

Safety and immunogenicity of inactivated poliovirus vaccine when given with measles–rubella combined vaccine and yellow fever vaccine and when given via diff erent administration routes: a phase 4, randomised, non-inferiority trial in The Gambia

Background The introduction of the inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) represents a crucial step in the polio eradication endgame. This trial examined the safety and immunogenicity of IPV given alongside the measles–rubella and yellow fever vaccines at 9 months and when given as a full or fractional dose using needle and syringe or disposable-syringe jet injector. Methods We did a phase 4, randomised, non-inferiority trial at three periurban government clinics in west Gambia. Infants aged 9–10 months who had already received oral poliovirus vaccine were randomly assigned to receive the IPV, measles–rubella, and yellow fever vaccines, singularly or in combination. Separately, IPV was given as a full intramuscular or fractional intradermal dose by needle and syringe or disposable-syringe jet injector at a second visit. The primary outcomes were seroprevalence rates for poliovirus 4–6 weeks post-vaccination and the rate of seroconversion between baseline and post-vaccination serum samples for measles, rubella, and yellow fever; and the post-vaccination antibody titres generated against each component of the vaccines. We did a per-protocol analysis with a non-inferiority margin of 10% for poliovirus seroprevalence and measles, rubella, and yellow fever seroconversion, and (⅓) log2 for log2-transformed antibody titres. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01847872. Findings Between July 10, 2013, and May 8, 2014, we assessed 1662 infants for eligibility, of whom 1504 were enrolled into one of seven groups for vaccine interference and one of four groups for fractional dosing and alternative route of administration. The rubella and yellow fever antibody titres were reduced by co-administration but the seroconversion rates achieved non-inferiority in both cases (rubella, –4·5% [95% CI –9·5 to –0·1]; yellow fever, 1·2% [–2·9 to 5·5]). Measles and poliovirus responses were unaff ected (measles, 6·8% [95% CI –1·4 to 14·9]; poliovirus serotype 1, 1·6% [–6·7 to 4·7]; serotype 2, 0·0% [–2·1 to 2·1]; serotype 3, 0·0% [–3·8 to 3·9]). Poliovirus seroprevalence was universally high (>97%) after vaccination, but the antibody titres generated by fractional intradermal doses of IPV did not achieve non-inferiority compared with full dose. The number of infants who seroconverted or had a four-fold rise in titres was also lower by the intradermal route. There were no safety concerns. Interpretation The data support the future co-administration of IPV, measles–rubella, and yellow fever vaccines within the Expanded Programme on Immunization schedule at 9 months. The administration of single fractional intradermal doses of IPV by needle and syringe or disposable-syringe jet injector compromises the immunity generated, although it results in a high post-vaccination poliovirus seroprevalence

Immunogenicity and safety of a novel ten-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine in healthy infants in The Gambia: a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: An affordable pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) is needed to ensure sustainable access in low-income and middle-income countries. This trial examined the immunogenicity and safety of a novel ten-valent PCV (SIIPL-PCV) containing serotypes 1, 5, 6A, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 19A, 19F, and 23F compared with the pneumococcal polysaccharide protein D-conjugate vaccine (PHiD-CV; Synflorix; GlaxoSmithKline; Brentford, UK). METHODS: In this single-centre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority trial in The Gambia, healthy, PCV-naive infants aged 6-8 weeks were enrolled and assigned using permuted block randomisation to receive one of three lots of SIIPL-PCV or to PHiD-CV in a ratio of 2:2:2:3. Parents and all staff assessing study outcomes were masked to group assignment. Vaccines (0·5 mL SIIPL-PCV or 0·5 mL PHiD-CV) were administered at ages 6, 10, and 14 weeks by intramuscular injection. Primary immunogenicity outcomes, measured at age 18 weeks, were serotype-specific IgG geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) and seroresponse rates (IgG ≥ 0·35 μg/mL). Lot-to-lot equivalence (objective 1) was shown if the upper and lower bounds of the two-sided 95% CI around the GMC ratio for each pairwise lot-to-lot comparison was between the 0·5 and 2·0 equivalence margins for all ten serotypes. The immunogenicity of SIIPL-PCV was defined as being non-inferior to that of PHiD-CV (objective 2) if, for at least seven of the ten serotypes in SIIPL-PCV, the lower bound of the 97·5% CI for the GMC ratio was greater than 0·5, or the lower bound of the 97·5% CI for differences in seroresponse rate was greater than -10%. The GMC and seroresponse rates to serotypes 6A and 19A, which are not in PHiD-CV, were compared with those of the serotype in PHiD-CV that had the lowest seroresponse rate. Non-inferiority of the immune responses to antigens in the co-administered Expanded Programme on Immunization (EPI) vaccines (objective 3) was declared if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference between SIIPL-PCV and PHiD-CV in seroresponse rates, or GMC ratios for pertussis antigens, was greater than -10% (or 0·5 for pertussis antigens) for all vaccine antigens. Safety data were assessed according to treatment received at the first visit in infants who received at least one dose of study vaccine and for whom at least some post-vaccination safety data were available. The primary immunogenicity analysis was in the per-protocol immunogenicity population, which included infants who received all study vaccines and had immunogenicity measurements after vaccination and no major protocol deviations. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03197376). FINDINGS: Between June 21, 2017, and Jan 29, 2018, 2250 infants were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive SIIPL-PCV (n=1503; 502 to lot 1, 501 to lot 2, and 500 to lot 3) or PHiD-CV (n=747). 1458 (97·0%) infants assigned to SIIPL-PCV and 724 (96·9%) assigned to PHiD-CV were included in the per-protocol primary immunogenicity analysis. Lot-to-lot equivalence was shown, with the lowest lower bound of the 95% CI for the GMC ratio being 0·52 (for serotype 6B in lot 2 vs lot 3) and the highest upper bound being 1·69 (for serotype 6B in lot 1 vs lot 2). SIIPL-PCV was non-inferior to PHiD-CV in terms of immunogenicity: the lower bound of the 97·5% CI for the GMC ratio was greater than 0·5 (the lowest being 0·67 for serotype 19F) and the lower bound of the 97·5% CI for the difference in seroresponse rate was greater than -10% (the lowest being -2·2% for serotype 6B) for all ten serotypes in SIIPL-PCV. The lowest seroresponse rate after PHiD-CV was to serotype 6B (76·7% [95% CI 73·4-79·7]). This serotype was therefore used for the comparisons with serotype 6A and 19A in SIIPL-PCV. Non-inferiority of immune responses to the EPI vaccines after co-administration with SIIPL-PCV compared with after co-administration with PHiD-CV was shown for all vaccine antigens included in the primary series. The lowest lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates was -7·1% for rotavirus antibody and for the GMC ratio for pertussis antigens was 0·62 for anti-pertussis toxoid. 1131 (75·2%) of 1503 infants in the SIIPL-PCV group and 572 (76·6%) of 747 in the PHiD-CV group had at least one unsolicited adverse event. 36 (2·4%) participants in the SIIPL-PCV group and 18 (2·4%) in the PHiD-CV group had a serious adverse event; none were considered related to vaccination. In infants who were selected to have solicited adverse events recorded, injection-site induration after primary vaccinations occurred in 27 (4·9%) of 751 infants who received SIIPL-PCV versus 34 (9·4%) of 364 who received PHiD-CV (p=0·0032). There were no other notable differences in the safety profiles of the two vaccines. One infant in the SIIPL-PCV group and two in the PHiD-CV group died during the study. The deaths were not considered to be related to study vaccination or study participation. INTERPRETATION: The immunogenicity of SIIPL-PCV was non-inferior to that of PHiD-CV, for which efficacy and effectiveness data against pneumococcal disease are available. The vaccine is safe and can be co-administered with routine EPI vaccines. The data generated in this trial have supported the licensure and pre-qualification of SIIPL-PCV, making the vaccine available for introduction into national immunisation programmes. Generating post-implementation data confirming vaccine impact remains important. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Intradermal administration of fractional doses of the inactivated poliovirus vaccine in a campaign: a pragmatic, open-label, non-inferiority trial in The Gambia.

BACKGROUND: A rapid increase in circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus type 2 outbreaks, and the need to reserve inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) for routine immunisation, has increased the value of fractional dose IPV (fIPV) as a measure to prevent acute flaccid paralysis. However, the intradermal route of administration has been viewed as prohibitive to outbreak response campaigns. We aimed to establish the immunogenicity and safety of administering intradermal fIPV with a disposable syringe jet injector (DSJI) or an intradermal adaptor (IDA) compared with standard administration with a BCG needle and syringe (N&S). METHODS: This pragmatic, non-inferiority trial was undertaken in a campaign setting in communities in The Gambia. Children aged 4-59 months without contraindication to vaccination were eligible. Children were not individually randomly assigned; instead, the vaccination teams were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to one of three administration methods. Parents and the field team were not masked, but laboratory personnel were masked. Baseline demographic and anthropometric data were collected from the participants. Public health officers experienced at intradermal immunisation, and nurses without experience, had 2 h of training on each of the administration methods before the campaign. Participants were vaccinated using the administration method in use by the vaccination team in their community. Poliovirus serum neutralising antibodies (SNA) were measured in children aged 24-59 months before and 4 weeks after vaccination. Adverse events and data on injection quality were collected from all participants. The primary outcome was the type 2 immune response rate (seroconversion in seronegative [SNA titre <8] children plus a 4-fold titre rise in seropositive children). Adjusted differences in the immune response between the DSJI or IDA group versus the N&S group were calculated with 97·5% CIs. A margin of -10% was used to define the non-inferiority of DSJI or IDA compared to N&S. Immunogenicity analysis was done per protocol. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.govNCT02967783 and has been completed. FINDINGS: Between Oct 28 and Dec 29, 2016, 3189 children aged 4-59 months were recruited, of whom 3170 were eligible. Over 3 days, 2720 children were vaccinated (N&S, 917; IDA, 874; and DSJI, 929). Among 992 children aged 25-59 months with a baseline SNA available, 90·1% (95% CI 86·1-92·9; 281/312) of those vaccinated using the DSJI had an immune response to type 2 compared with 93·8% (90·6-95·8; 331/353) of those vaccinated with N&S and 96·6% (94·0-98·0; 316/327) of those vaccinated with IDA. All (53/53) type 2 seronegative children seroconverted. For polio type 2, non-inferiority was shown for both the IDA (adjusted difference 0·7% [97·5% CI -3·3 to 4·7], unadjusted difference 2·9% [-0·9 to 6·8]) and DSJI (adjusted difference -3·3% [-8·3 to 1·5], unadjusted difference -3·7% [-8·7 to 1·1]) compared with N&S. Non-inferiority was shown for type 1 and 3 for the IDA and DSJI. Neither injection quality nor the training and experience of the vaccinators had an effect on immune response. No safety concerns were reported. INTERPRETATION: In a campaign, intradermal fIPV is safe and generates consistent immune responses that are not dependent on vaccinator experience or injection quality when administered using an N&S, DSJI, or IDA. Countries facing vaccine-derived poliovirus type 2 outbreaks should consider fIPV campaigns to boost population immunity and prevent cases of acute flaccid paralysis. FUNDING: World Health Organization and the Medical Research Council

Safety and immunogenicity of inactivated poliovirus vaccine when given with measles–rubella combined vaccine and yellow fever vaccine and when given via different administration routes: a phase 4, randomised, non-inferiority trial in The Gambia

Background: The introduction of the inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) represents a crucial step in the polio eradication endgame. This trial examined the safety and immunogenicity of IPV given alongside the measles–rubella and yellow fever vaccines at 9 months and when given as a full or fractional dose using needle and syringe or disposable-syringe jet injector. Methods: We did a phase 4, randomised, non-inferiority trial at three periurban government clinics in west Gambia. Infants aged 9–10 months who had already received oral poliovirus vaccine were randomly assigned to receive the IPV, measles–rubella, and yellow fever vaccines, singularly or in combination. Separately, IPV was given as a full intramuscular or fractional intradermal dose by needle and syringe or disposable-syringe jet injector at a second visit. The primary outcomes were seroprevalence rates for poliovirus 4–6 weeks post-vaccination and the rate of seroconversion between baseline and post-vaccination serum samples for measles, rubella, and yellow fever; and the post-vaccination antibody titres generated against each component of the vaccines. We did a per-protocol analysis with a non-inferiority margin of 10% for poliovirus seroprevalence and measles, rubella, and yellow fever seroconversion, and (1/3) log2 for log2-transformed antibody titres. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01847872. Findings: Between July 10, 2013, and May 8, 2014, we assessed 1662 infants for eligibility, of whom 1504 were enrolled into one of seven groups for vaccine interference and one of four groups for fractional dosing and alternative route of administration. The rubella and yellow fever antibody titres were reduced by co-administration but the seroconversion rates achieved non-inferiority in both cases (rubella, −4·5% [95% CI −9·5 to −0·1]; yellow fever, 1·2% [–2·9 to 5·5]). Measles and poliovirus responses were unaffected (measles, 6·8% [95% CI −1·4 to 14·9]; poliovirus serotype 1, 1·6% [–6·7 to 4·7]; serotype 2, 0·0% [–2·1 to 2·1]; serotype 3, 0·0% [–3·8 to 3·9]). Poliovirus seroprevalence was universally high (>97%) after vaccination, but the antibody titres generated by fractional intradermal doses of IPV did not achieve non-inferiority compared with full dose. The number of infants who seroconverted or had a four-fold rise in titres was also lower by the intradermal route. There were no safety concerns. Interpretation: The data support the future co-administration of IPV, measles–rubella, and yellow fever vaccines within the Expanded Programme on Immunization schedule at 9 months. The administration of single fractional intradermal doses of IPV by needle and syringe or disposable-syringe jet injector compromises the immunity generated, although it results in a high post-vaccination poliovirus seroprevalence. Funding: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Meningococcal ACWYX Conjugate Vaccine in 2-to-29-Year-Olds in Mali and Gambia.

BACKGROUND: An effective, affordable, multivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine is needed to prevent epidemic meningitis in the African meningitis belt. Data on the safety and immunogenicity of NmCV-5, a pentavalent vaccine targeting the A, C, W, Y, and X serogroups, have been limited. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, noninferiority trial involving healthy 2-to-29-year-olds in Mali and Gambia. Participants were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive a single intramuscular dose of NmCV-5 or the quadrivalent vaccine MenACWY-D. Immunogenicity was assessed at day 28. The noninferiority of NmCV-5 to MenACWY-D was assessed on the basis of the difference in the percentage of participants with a seroresponse (defined as prespecified changes in titer; margin, lower limit of the 96% confidence interval [CI] above -10 percentage points) or geometric mean titer (GMT) ratios (margin, lower limit of the 98.98% CI >0.5). Serogroup X responses in the NmCV-5 group were compared with the lowest response among the MenACWY-D serogroups. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 1800 participants received NmCV-5 or MenACWY-D. In the NmCV-5 group, the percentage of participants with a seroresponse ranged from 70.5% (95% CI, 67.8 to 73.2) for serogroup A to 98.5% (95% CI, 97.6 to 99.2) for serogroup W; the percentage with a serogroup X response was 97.2% (95% CI, 96.0 to 98.1). The overall difference between the two vaccines in seroresponse for the four shared serogroups ranged from 1.2 percentage points (96% CI, -0.3 to 3.1) for serogroup W to 20.5 percentage points (96% CI, 15.4 to 25.6) for serogroup A. The overall GMT ratios for the four shared serogroups ranged from 1.7 (98.98% CI, 1.5 to 1.9) for serogroup A to 2.8 (98.98% CI, 2.3 to 3.5) for serogroup C. The serogroup X component of the NmCV-5 vaccine generated seroresponses and GMTs that met the prespecified noninferiority criteria. The incidence of systemic adverse events was similar in the two groups (11.1% in the NmCV-5 group and 9.2% in the MenACWY-D group). CONCLUSIONS: For all four serotypes in common with the MenACWY-D vaccine, the NmCV-5 vaccine elicited immune responses that were noninferior to those elicited by the MenACWY-D vaccine. NmCV-5 also elicited immune responses to serogroup X. No safety concerns were evident. (Funded by the U.K. Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03964012.)