Immunogenicity, reactogenicity and consistency of production of a Brazilian combined vaccine against diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis and Haemophilus influenzae type b

A randomized, double-blinded study evaluating the immunogenicity, safety and consistency of production of a combined diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis-Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine entirely produced in Brazil by Bio-Manguinhos and Instituto Butantan (DTP/Hib-BM) was undertaken. The reference vaccine had the same DTP vaccine but the Hib component was produced using purified materials supplied by GlaxoSmithKline (DTP/Hib-GSK), which is registered and has supplied the Brazilian National Immunization Program for over more than five years. One thousand infants were recruited for the study and received vaccinations at two, four and six months of age. With respect to immunogenicity, the vaccination protocol was followed in 95.6% and 98.4% of infants in the DTP/Hib-BM and DTP/Hib-GSK groups, respectively. For the Hib component of the study, there was 100% seroprotection (>0.15 µg/mL) with all three lots of DTP/Hib-BM and DTP/Hib-GSK. The geometric mean titer (GMT) was 9.3 µg/mL, 10.3 µg/mL and 10.3 µg/mL for lots 1, 2 and 3 of DTP/Hib-BM, respectively, and the GMT was 11.3 g/mL for DTP/Hib-GSK. For diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis, seroprotection was 99.7%, 100% and 99.9%, respectively, for DTP/Hib-BM, three lots altogether and 99.2%, 100% and 100% for DTP/Hib-GSK. GMTs were similar across all lots and vaccines. Adverse events rates were comparable among the vaccine groups. The Brazilian DTP/Hib vaccine demonstrated an immunogenicity and reactogenicity profile similar to that of the reference vaccine.

Low-dose intradermal versus intramuscular trivalent inactivated seasonal influenza vaccine in lung transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: In this study we compared the immunogenicity of influenza vaccine administered intradermally to the standard intramuscular vaccination in lung transplant recipients. METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive the trivalent inactivated seasonal 2008-9 influenza vaccine containing either 6 μg (intradermal) or 15 μg (intramuscular) of hemagglutinin per viral strain. Immunogenicity was assessed by measurement of geometric mean titer of antibodies using the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay. Vaccine response was defined as a 4-fold or higher increase of antibody titers to at least one vaccine antigen. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients received either the intradermal (n = 41) or intramuscular (n = 44) vaccine. Vaccine response was seen in 6 of 41 patients (14.6%) in the intradermal vs 8 of 43 (18.6%) in the intramuscular group (p = 0.77). Seroprotection (HI ≥1:32) was 39% for H1N1, 83% for H3N2 and 29% for B strain in the intradermal group vs 28% for H1N1, 98% for H3N2 and 58% for B strain in the intramuscular group (p = 0.36 for H1N1, p = 0.02 for H3N2, p < 0.01 for B). Mild adverse events were seen in 44% of patients in the intradermal group and 34% in the intramuscular group (p = 0.38). CONCLUSIONS: Immunogenicity of the 2008-9 influenza vaccine given intradermally or intramuscularly was overall poor in lung transplant recipients. Novel strategies for influenza vaccination in this population are needed.

The synthetic Plasmodium falciparum circumsporozoite peptide PfCS102 as a malaria vaccine candidate: a randomized controlled phase I trial.

BACKGROUND: Fully efficient vaccines against malaria pre-erythrocytic stage are still lacking. The objective of this dose/adjuvant-finding study was to evaluate the safety, reactogenicity and immunogenicity of a vaccine candidate based on a peptide spanning the C-terminal region of Plasmodium falciparum circumsporozoite protein (PfCS102) in malaria naive adults. METHODOLOGY AND PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Thirty-six healthy malaria-naive adults were randomly distributed into three dose blocks (10, 30 and 100 microg) and vaccinated with PfCS102 in combination with either Montanide ISA 720 or GSK proprietary Adjuvant System AS02A at days 0, 60, and 180. Primary end-point (safety and reactogenicity) was based on the frequency of adverse events (AE) and of abnormal biological safety tests; secondary-end point (immunogenicity) on P. falciparum specific cell-mediated immunity and antibody response before and after immunization. The two adjuvant formulations were well tolerated and their safety profile was good. Most AEs were local and, when systemic, involved mainly fatigue and headache. Half the volunteers in AS02A groups experienced severe AEs (mainly erythema). After the third injection, 34 of 35 volunteers developed anti-PfCS102 and anti-sporozoite antibodies, and 28 of 35 demonstrated T-cell proliferative responses and IFN-gamma production. Five of 22 HLA-A2 and HLA-A3 volunteers displayed PfCS102 specific IFN-gamma secreting CD8(+) T cell responses. Responses were only marginally boosted after the 3(rd) vaccination and remained stable for 6 months. For both adjuvants, the dose of 10 microg was less immunogenic in comparison to 30 and 100 microg that induced similar responses. AS02A formulations with 30 microg or 100 microg PfCS102 induced about 10-folds higher antibody and IFN-gamma responses than Montanide formulations. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: PfCS102 peptide was safe and highly immunogenic, allowing the design of more advanced trials to test its potential for protection. Two or three immunizations with a dose of 30 microg formulated with AS02A appeared the most appropriate choice for such studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Swissmedic.ch 2002 DR 1227.

Prevalence rate and reasons for refusals of influenza vaccine in elderly.

More knowledge on the reasons for refusal of the influenza vaccine in elderly patients is essential to target groups for additional information, and hence improve coverage rate. The objective of the present study was to describe precisely the true motives for refusal. All patients aged over 64 who attended the Medical Outpatient Clinic, University of Lausanne, or their private practitioner's office during the 1999 and 2000 vaccination periods were included. Each patient was informed on influenza and its complications, as well as on the need for vaccination, its efficacy and adverse events. The vaccination was then proposed. In case of refusal, the reasons were investigated with an open question. Out of 1398 patients, 148 (12%) refused the vaccination. The main reasons for refusal were the perception of being in good health (16%), of not being susceptible to influenza (15%), of not having had the influenza vaccine in the past (15%), of having had a bad experience either personally or a relative (15%), and the uselessness of the vaccine (10%). Seventeen percent gave miscellaneous reasons and 12% no reason at all for refusal. Little epidemiological knowledge and resistance to change appear to be the major obstacles for wide acceptance of the vaccine by the elderly.

A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Intradermal vs. Intramuscular Influenza Vaccine in Lung Transplant Recipients

Background: Immunogenicity of standard infl uenza vaccine is suboptimal in lung transplant recipients. Intradermal vaccine may elicit stronger responses due to recruitment of local dendritic cells. We compared the immunogenicity of the infl uenza vaccine administered intradermally (ID) to the standard intramuscular (IM) vaccination. Methods: In this investigator-blinded, two-center, prospective trial, lung transplant patients were randomized to receive intradermal (6ug) or intramuscular (15ug) 2008/9 trivalent inactivated infl uenza vaccine. Immunogenicity was evaluated using a standard hemagglutination inhibition assay (HIA). Response to the vaccine was defi ned as a fourfold increase of the HIA levels for any of the 3 viral strains in the vaccine. Geometric mean titers (GMT) and seroprotection rate (HIA ≥32) were also analyzed. Patients were followed during 6 months for the development of infl uenza or acute rejection. Results: We randomized 84 patients to receive the ID (n=41) vs. IM (n=43) vaccine, respectively. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Median time from transplantation was 3.4 yrs (ID) vs. 3.3 yrs (IM) (p=0.84). Vaccine response to at least one antigen was seen in 6/41 (14.6%) patients in the ID vs. 8/43 (18.6%) in the IM group (p=0.77). In the ID group, GMTs (95% CI) after vaccination were 15.7 (11.1-22.3) for H1N1, 84.0 (52.0-135.7) for H3N2, and 14.5 (9.6-21.8) for B strains vs. in the IM group 17.5 (11.8-25.9) for H1N1, 108.9 (77.5-153.2) for H3N2, and 20.2 (12.8-31.9) for B (p=NS, all 3 strains). Seroprotection was 39% (H1N1), 82.9% (H3N2) and 29.3% (B strain) in the ID group vs. 27.9% (H1N1), 97.7% (H3N2) and 58.1% (B strain) in the IM group. No factors associated with vaccine response were identifi ed. Mild adverse events were seen in 44% of patients (ID) vs. 34% (IM) (p=0.38). Two patients (4.8%) in the ID group developed infl uenza infection compared to none in the IM group. Two patients in each group developed biopsy-proven acute rejection during follow-up. Conclusions: Immunogenicity of the 2008/09 infl uenza vaccine was poor in lung transplant recipients. ID administration of the vaccine elicited similar immune responses to standard IM vaccination. Novel strategies of vaccination are needed to protect lung transplant recipients from infl uenza.

Indicators of therapeutic effect in FIT-06, a Phase II trial of a DNA vaccine, GTU(®)-Multi-HIVB, in untreated HIV-1 infected subjects.

BACKGROUND: Combination highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) has significantly decreased HIV-1 related morbidity and mortality globally transforming HIV into a controllable condition. HAART has a number of limitations though, including limited access in resource constrained countries, which have driven the search for simpler, affordable HIV-1 treatment modalities. Therapeutic HIV-1 vaccines aim to provide immunological support to slow disease progression and decrease transmission. We evaluated the safety, immunogenicity and clinical effect of a novel recombinant plasmid DNA therapeutic HIV-1 vaccine, GTU(®)-multi-HIVB, containing 6 different genes derived from an HIV-1 subtype B isolate. METHODS: 63 untreated, healthy, HIV-1 infected, adults between 18 and 40 years were enrolled in a single-blinded, placebo-controlled Phase II trial in South Africa. Subjects were HIV-1 subtype C infected, had never received antiretrovirals, with CD4 ≥ 350 cells/mm(3) and pHIV-RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at screening. Subjects were allocated to vaccine or placebo groups in a 2:1 ratio either administered intradermally (ID) (0.5mg/dose) or intramuscularly (IM) (1mg/dose) at 0, 4 and 12 weeks boosted at 76 and 80 weeks with 1mg/dose (ID) and 2mg/dose (IM), respectively. Safety was assessed by adverse event monitoring and immunogenicity by HIV-1-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T-cells using intracellular cytokine staining (ICS), pHIV-RNA and CD4 counts. RESULTS: Vaccine was safe and well tolerated with no vaccine related serious adverse events. Significant declines in log pHIV-RNA (p=0.012) and increases in CD4+ T cell counts (p=0.066) were observed in the vaccine group compared to placebo, more pronounced after IM administration and in some HLA haplotypes (B*5703) maintained for 17 months after the final immunisation. CONCLUSIONS: The GTU(®)-multi-HIVB plasmid recombinant DNA therapeutic HIV-1 vaccine is safe, well tolerated and favourably affects pHIV-RNA and CD4 counts in untreated HIV-1 infected individuals after IM administration in subjects with HLA B*57, B*8101 and B*5801 haplotypes.

Prevalence rate and reasons for refusals of influenza vaccine in the elderly

RESUME Peu d'informations sont disponibles concernant la prévalence et les motifs de refus de la vaccination contre la grippe dans la population âgée. Le but de notre recherche était d'investiguer les vrais motifs de refus de la vaccination (c'est-à-dire pas uniquement les raisons de non-vaccination parfois indépendantes du patient lui- même) chez les personnes âgées. Tous les patients ambulatoires de plus de 65 ans consultant la Policlinique Médicale Universitaire (PMU) de Lausanne ou leur médecin traitant durant les périodes de vaccination contre la grippe 1999-2000 et 2000-2001 ont été inclus. Chaque patient recevait une information sur la grippe et ses complications, de même que sur la nécessité de la vaccination, son efficacité et ses effets seconda ires éventuels. En l'absence de contre-indication, la vaccination était proposée. En cas de refus, les motifs étaient investigués par une question ouverte. Sur 1398 sujets inclus, 148 (12%) ont refusé la vaccination. Les raisons principales de refus étaient la perception d'être en bonne santé (16%), de ne pas être susceptible à la grippe (15%) ou le fait de ne jamais avoir été vacciné contre la grippe dans le passé (15%). On retrouvait également la mauvaise expérience personnelle ou d'un proche lors d'une vaccination (15%) et l'impression d'inutilité du vaccin (10%). 17% des personnes interrogées ont donné des motifs autres et 12% n'ont pas explicité leur non-acceptation. Les refus de vaccination contre la grippe dans la population âgée sont essentiellement liés aux convictions intimes du patient quant à son état de santé et à sa susceptibilité à la grippe, de même qu'à l'efficacité supposée de la vaccination. La résistance au changement semble être un obstacle majeur à l'introduction de la vaccination chez les personnes de plus de 65 ans. SUMMARY More knowledge on the reasons for refusal of the influenza vaccine in elderly patients is essential to target groups for additional information, and hence improve coverage rate. The objective of the present study was to describe precisely the true motives for refusal. All patients aged over 64 who attended the Medical Outpatient Clinic, University of Lausanne, or their private practitioner's office during the 1999 and 2000 vaccination periods were included. Each patient was informed on influenza and its complications, as well as on the need for vaccination, its efficacy and adverse events. The vaccination was then proposed. In case of refusal, the reasons were investigated with an open question. Out of 1398 patients, 148 (12%) refused the vaccination. The main reasons for refusal were the perception of being in good health (16%), of not being susceptible to influenza (15%), of not having had the influenza vaccine in the past (15%), of having had a bad experience either personally or a relative (15%), and the uselessness of the vaccine (10%). Seventeen percent gave miscellaneous reasons and 12% no reason at all for refusal. Little epidemiological knowledge and resistance to change appear to be the major obstacles for wide acceptance of the vaccine by the elderly.

EV01: a phase I trial in healthy HIV negative volunteers to evaluate a clade C HIV vaccine, NYVAC-C undertaken by the EuroVacc Consortium.

NYVAC-C (vP2010), a recombinant vector expressing HIV subtype C gag, pol, env and nef antigens, was tested in a phase I study in healthy, HIV negative volunteers in London and Lausanne. Twenty-four participants were randomised to receive NYVAC-C (20) or matching placebo (4) at weeks 0 and 4, and assessed for safety and immunogenicity over 48 weeks. There were no serious adverse events, and no clinical or laboratory abnormalities or other events that led to withdrawal, interruption or dose reduction of the NYVAC-C/placebo. Half of the 10 assessed responded in the ELISpot assay under stringent criteria, which informed the sample size for a DNA-NYVAC-C comparison to NYVAC-C alone.

Virosome-Formulated Plasmodium falciparum AMA-1 & CSP Derived Peptides as Malaria Vaccine: Randomized Phase 1b Trial in Semi-Immune Adults & Children.

Background: This trial was conducted to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of two virosome formulated malaria peptidomimetics derived from Plasmodium falciparum AMA-1 and CSP in malaria semi-immune adults and children.Methods: The design was a prospective randomized, double-blind, controlled, age-deescalating study with two immunizations. 10 adults and 40 children (aged 5-9 years) living in a malaria endemic area were immunized with PEV3B or virosomal influenza vaccine Inflexal (R) V on day 0 and 90.Results: No serious or severe adverse events (AEs) related to the vaccines were observed. The only local solicited AE reported was pain at injection site, which affected more children in the Inflexal (R) V group compared to the PEV3B group (p = 0.014). In the PEV3B group, IgG ELISA endpoint titers specific for the AMA-1 and CSP peptide antigens were significantly higher for most time points compared to the Inflexal (R) V control group. Across all time points after first immunization the average ratio of endpoint titers to baseline values in PEV3B subjects ranged from 4 to 15 in adults and from 4 to 66 in children. As an exploratory outcome, we found that the incidence rate of clinical malaria episodes in children vaccinees was half the rate of the control children between study days 30 and 365 (0.0035 episodes per day at risk for PEV3B vs. 0.0069 for Inflexal (R) V; RR = 0.50 [95%-CI: 0.29-0.88], p = 0.02).Conclusion: These findings provide a strong basis for the further development of multivalent virosomal malaria peptide vaccines.

A prospective observational safety study on MF59(®) adjuvanted cell culture-derived vaccine, Celtura(®) during the A/H1N1 (2009) influenza pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The present study was a prospective observational study to evaluate the safety profile of Celtura(®), a monovalent, cell culture-derived, inactivated subunit influenza vaccine prepared from A/California/07/2009(H1N1) with the adjuvant MF59(®). Subjects were enrolled prospectively during the H1N1 2009 influenza pandemic at medical centres in Colombia, Chile, Switzerland, and Germany during the period December 2009 to June 2010. METHODS: Subjects ages 18 and older were followed for the occurrence of adverse events (AEs) for six months after vaccination. Adverse events of special interest (AESIs) were neuritis, convulsion (seizure), anaphylaxis, encephalitis, vasculitis, Guillain-Barre syndrome, demyelinating conditions, Bell's palsy, and laboratory-confirmed vaccination failure. RESULTS: Overall, 7348 AEs were reported in 2296 of 3989 enrolled subjects (57.6%). Only two AEs were considered related to injection site reactions. No laboratory-confirmed cases of influenza were reported. There were 108 medically confirmed serious adverse events (SAEs) reported among 73 subjects with 6 such SAEs described as possibly or probably related to vaccination. Three fatal cases were reported and assessed as not related to vaccination. Two AESIs classified as convulsion were reported and assessed as not related to vaccination. Both AESIs occurred well outside the pre-specified 7 day risk window representing the likely timeframe of the occurrence of seizure following vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study support the overall good safety profile of MF59 adjuvanted cell culture-derived influenza vaccine as administered in adults during the 2009-2010 H1N1 influenza pandemic. No concern is raised regarding the occurrence of AESIs.

Safety of human immunisation with a live-attenuated Mycobacterium tuberculosis vaccine: a randomised, double-blind, controlled phase I trial.

BACKGROUND: Tuberculosis remains one of the world's deadliest transmissible diseases despite widespread use of the BCG vaccine. MTBVAC is a new live tuberculosis vaccine based on genetically attenuated Mycobacterium tuberculosis that expresses most antigens present in human isolates of M tuberculosis. We aimed to compare the safety of MTBVAC with BCG in healthy adult volunteers. METHODS: We did this single-centre, randomised, double-blind, controlled phase 1 study at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois (CHUV; Lausanne, Switzerland). Volunteers were eligible for inclusion if they were aged 18-45 years, clinically healthy, HIV-negative and tuberculosis-negative, and had no history of active tuberculosis, chemoprophylaxis for tuberculosis, or BCG vaccination. Volunteers fulfilling the inclusion criteria were randomly assigned to three cohorts in a dose-escalation manner. Randomisation was done centrally by the CHUV Pharmacy and treatments were masked from the study team and volunteers. As participants were recruited within each cohort, they were randomly assigned 3:1 to receive MTBVAC or BCG. Of the participants allocated MTBVAC, those in the first cohort received 5 × 10(3) colony forming units (CFU) MTBVAC, those in the second cohort received 5 × 10(4) CFU MTBVAC, and those in the third cohort received 5 × 10(5) CFU MTBVAC. In all cohorts, participants assigned to receive BCG were given 5 × 10(5) CFU BCG. Each participant received a single intradermal injection of their assigned vaccine in 0·1 mL sterile water in their non-dominant arm. The primary outcome was safety in all vaccinated participants. Secondary outcomes included whole blood cell-mediated immune response to live MTBVAC and BCG, and interferon γ release assays (IGRA) of peripheral blood mononuclear cells. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02013245. FINDINGS: Between Jan 23, 2013, and Nov 6, 2013, we enrolled 36 volunteers into three cohorts, each of which consisted of nine participants who received MTBVAC and three who received BCG. 34 volunteers completed the trial. The safety of vaccination with MTBVAC at all doses was similar to that of BCG, and vaccination did not induce any serious adverse events. All individuals were IGRA negative at the end of follow-up (day 210). After whole blood stimulation with live MTBVAC or BCG, MTBVAC was at least as immunogenic as BCG. At the same dose as BCG (5×10(5) CFU), although no statistical significance could be achieved, there were more responders in the MTBVAC group than in the BCG group, with a greater frequency of polyfunctional CD4+ central memory T cells. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, MTBVAC is the first live-attenuated M tuberculosis vaccine to reach clinical assessment, showing similar safety to BCG. MTBVAC seemed to be at least as immunogenic as BCG, but the study was not powered to investigate this outcome. Further plans to use more immunogenicity endpoints in a larger number of volunteers (adults and adolescents) are underway, with the aim to thoroughly characterise and potentially distinguish immunogenicity between MTBVAC and BCG in tuberculosis-endemic countries. Combined with an excellent safety profile, these data support advanced clinical development in high-burden tuberculosis endemic countries. FUNDING: Biofabri and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation through the TuBerculosis Vaccine Initiative (TBVI).

Safety and immunogenicity of a chimpanzee adenovirus-vectored Ebola vaccine in healthy adults: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-finding, phase 1/2a study.

BACKGROUND: The ongoing Ebola outbreak led to accelerated efforts to test vaccine candidates. On the basis of a request by WHO, we aimed to assess the safety and immunogenicity of the monovalent, recombinant, chimpanzee adenovirus type-3 vector-based Ebola Zaire vaccine (ChAd3-EBO-Z). METHODS: We did this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-finding, phase 1/2a trial at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland. Participants (aged 18-65 years) were randomly assigned (2:2:1), via two computer-generated randomisation lists for individuals potentially deployed in endemic areas and those not deployed, to receive a single intramuscular dose of high-dose vaccine (5 × 10(10) viral particles), low-dose vaccine (2·5 × 10(10) viral particles), or placebo. Deployed participants were allocated to only the vaccine groups. Group allocation was concealed from non-deployed participants, investigators, and outcome assessors. The safety evaluation was not masked for potentially deployed participants, who were therefore not included in the safety analysis for comparison between the vaccine doses and placebo, but were pooled with the non-deployed group to compare immunogenicity. The main objectives were safety and immunogenicity of ChAd3-EBO-Z. We did analysis by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02289027. FINDINGS: Between Oct 24, 2014, and June 22, 2015, we randomly assigned 120 participants, of whom 18 (15%) were potentially deployed and 102 (85%) were non-deployed, to receive high-dose vaccine (n=49), low-dose vaccine (n=51), or placebo (n=20). Participants were followed up for 6 months. No vaccine-related serious adverse events were reported. We recorded local adverse events in 30 (75%) of 40 participants in the high-dose group, 33 (79%) of 42 participants in the low-dose group, and five (25%) of 20 participants in the placebo group. Fatigue or malaise was the most common systemic adverse event, reported in 25 (62%) participants in the high-dose group, 25 (60%) participants in the low-dose group, and five (25%) participants in the placebo group, followed by headache, reported in 23 (57%), 25 (60%), and three (15%) participants, respectively. Fever occurred 24 h after injection in 12 (30%) participants in the high-dose group and 11 (26%) participants in the low-dose group versus one (5%) participant in the placebo group. Geometric mean concentrations of IgG antibodies against Ebola glycoprotein peaked on day 28 at 51 μg/mL (95% CI 41·1-63·3) in the high-dose group, 44·9 μg/mL (25·8-56·3) in the low-dose group, and 5·2 μg/mL (3·5-7·6) in the placebo group, with respective response rates of 96% (95% CI 85·7-99·5), 96% (86·5-99·5), and 5% (0·1-24·9). Geometric mean concentrations decreased by day 180 to 25·5 μg/mL (95% CI 20·6-31·5) in the high-dose group, 22·1 μg/mL (19·3-28·6) in the low-dose group, and 3·2 μg/mL (2·4-4·9) in the placebo group. 28 (57%) participants given high-dose vaccine and 31 (61%) participants given low-dose vaccine developed glycoprotein-specific CD4 cell responses, and 33 (67%) and 35 (69%), respectively, developed CD8 responses. INTERPRETATION: ChAd3-EBO-Z was safe and well tolerated, although mild to moderate systemic adverse events were common. A single dose was immunogenic in almost all vaccine recipients. Antibody responses were still significantly present at 6 months. There was no significant difference between doses for safety and immunogenicity outcomes. This acceptable safety profile provides a reliable basis to proceed with phase 2 and phase 3 efficacy trials in Africa. FUNDING: Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (SERI), through the EU Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme.

Pandemic unadjuvanted influenza A (H1N1) vaccine in dermatomyositis and polymyositis: Immunogenicity independent of therapy and no harmful effect in disease

The goal of the present study was to evaluate the influence of the influenza A H1N1/2009 vaccine on dermatomyositis/polymyositis (DM/PM) disease parameters and the potential deleterious effect of therapy on immune response. Thirty-seven DM and 21 PM patients (Bohan and Peter's criteria) were gender- and age-matched to 116 healthy controls. Seroprotection, seroconversion, the geometric mean titers (GMTs) and the factor increase (FI) in the GMTs were calculated. Disease safety was determined from a muscle enzyme analysis and the DM/PM scores [patient's visual analog scale (VAS), physician's VAS, manual muscle strength (MMT-8)] evaluated pre- and post-vaccination. The mean age (43.1 +/- 9.9 vs. 43.8 +/- 8.4 years, p = 0.607) and gender distribution (p = 1.00) were comparable between the patients and controls. After 21 days, seroconversion (p = 0.394), seroprotection (p = 0.08), GMT (p = 0.573) and the FI in the GMT (p = 0.496) were similar in both groups. The disease and muscle parameters remained stable throughout the study, including the creatine kinase (p = 0.20) and aldolase levels (p = 0.98), the physicians' VAS (p = 1.00), the patients' VAS (p = 1.00) and the MMT-8 (p = 1.00). Regarding the influence of treatment, the seroconversion rates were comparable between the controls and patients undergoing treatment with glucocorticoid (GC) (p = 0.969), GC >0.5 mg/kg/day (p = 0.395) and GC + immunosuppressors (p = 0.285). Vaccine-related adverse events were mild and similar in the DM/PM and control groups (p > 0.05). Our data support the administration of the pandemic influenza A H1N1/2009 vaccination in DM/PM, as we found no short-term harmful effects related to the disease itself and adequate immunogenicity in spite of therapy. Further studies are necessary to identify any long-term adverse effects in patients with these diseases.(c) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

TNF blockers show distinct patterns of immune response to the pandemic influenza A H1N1 vaccine in inflammatory arthritis patients

Methods. One hundred and twenty patients (RA, n = 41; AS, n = 57; PsA, n = 22) on anti-TNF agents (monoclonal, n = 94; soluble receptor, n = 26) were compared with 116 inflammatory arthritis patients under DMARDs and 117 healthy controls. Seroprotection, seroconversion (SC), geometric mean titre, factor increase in geometric mean titre and adverse events were evaluated 21 days after vaccination. Results. After immunization, SC rates (58.2% vs 74.3%, P = 0.017) were significantly lower in SpA patients receiving anti-TNF therapy, whereas no difference was observed in RA patients receiving this therapy compared with healthy controls (P = 0.067). SpA patients receiving mAbs (infliximab/adalimumab) had a significantly lower SC rate compared with healthy controls (51.6% vs 74.3%, P = 0.002) or those on DMARDs (51.6% vs 74.7%, P = 0.005), whereas no difference was observed for patients on etanercept (86.7% vs 74.3%, P = 0.091). Further analysis of non-seroconverting and seroconverting SpA patients revealed that the former group had a higher mean age (P = 0.003), a higher frequency of anti-TNF (P = 0.031) and mAbs (P = 0.001) and a lower frequency of MTX (P = 0.028). In multivariate logistic regression, only older age (P = 0.015) and mAb treatment (P = 0.023) remained significant factors for non-SC in SpA patients. Conclusion. This study revealed a distinct disease pattern of immune response to the pandemic influenza vaccine in inflammatory arthritis patients receiving anti-TNF agents, illustrated by a reduced immunogenicity solely in SpA patients using mAbs. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="www.clinicaltrials.gov" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01151644.

Immune response and tolerability of varicella vaccine in children and adolescents with systemic lupus erythematosus previously exposed to varicella-zoster virus

Objectives The aim of the present paper is to evaluate the immune response and tolerability of varicella vaccine in children and adolescents with systemic lupus erythematosus previously exposed to varicella-zoster virus. Methods We performed a prospective and controlled study on a group of 54 SLE patients that were chosen at random to be or not to be vaccinated (28 were vaccinated and 26 were not). Twenty-eight healthy controls, of matching age and sex were also vaccinated. All were submitted to a questionnaire, physical evaluation and laboratory assays: lymphocyte immuno-phenotyping by flow cytometry, plasma varicella zoster virus (VZV) serology by ELISA and in vitro interferon gamma (IFN gamma) production by T-cells after stimulus with VZV antigen. They were evaluated before vaccination and at 30, 45, 180 and 360 days afterwards. Results We did not observe any differences in the frequency of adverse events in both vaccinated groups. At study entry, all individuals were seropositive for VZV antibodies. The serum VZV antibody titres similarly increased after vaccination. The frequency of flares and the SLEDAI score were also similar among the patients. Thirty days after vaccination the production of IFN gamma specific to VZV was lower in the SLE group compared to healthy, controls. In the follow-up we observed 4 cases of herpes zoster in the SLE unvaccinated group, but no zoster in the vaccinated group. Conclusion The varicella vaccine was well tolerated in SLE group, who had pre-existing immunity to varicella. The varicella vaccine immunogenicity measurement by serum antibody titres was appropriate. The incidence of HZ was lower in the vaccinated lupus group.