Safety and immunogenicity of AS03 B adjuvanted split virion versus non-adjuvanted whole virion H1N1 influenza vaccine in UK children aged 6 months-12 years: Open label, randomised, parallel group, multicentre study

Oxford Vaccine Group, Department of Paediatrics, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7LJ.
BMJ (online) (Impact Factor: 17.45). 05/2010; 340(may27 1):c2649. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.c2649
Source: PubMed


To compare the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of an adjuvanted split virion H1N1 vaccine and a non-adjuvanted whole virion vaccine used in the pandemic immunisation programme in the United Kingdom.
Open label, randomised, parallel group, phase II study.
Five UK centres (Oxford, Southampton, Bristol, Exeter, and London).
Children aged 6 months to less than 13 years for whom a parent or guardian had provided written informed consent and who were able to comply with study procedures were eligible. Those with laboratory confirmed pandemic H1N1 influenza or clinically diagnosed disease meriting antiviral treatment, allergy to egg or any other vaccine components, or coagulation defects, or who were severely immunocompromised or had recently received blood products were excluded. Children were grouped by age: 6 months-<3 years (younger group) and 3-<13 years (older group). Recruitment was by media advertising and direct mailing. Recruitment visits were attended by 949 participants, of whom 943 were enrolled and 937 included in the per protocol analysis.
Participants were randomised 1:1 to receive AS03(B) (tocopherol based oil in water emulsion) adjuvanted split virion vaccine derived from egg culture or non-adjuvanted whole virion vaccine derived from cell culture. Both were given as two doses 21 days apart. Reactogenicity data were collected for one week after immunisation by diary card. Serum samples were collected at baseline and after the second dose.
Primary reactogenicity end points were frequency and severity of fever, tenderness, swelling, and erythema after vaccination. Immunogenicity was measured by microneutralisation and haemagglutination inhibition assays. The primary immunogenicity objective was a comparison between vaccines of the percentage of participants showing seroconversion by the microneutralisation assay (fourfold rise to a titre of >or=1:40 from before vaccination to three weeks after the second dose).
Seroconversion rates were higher after the adjuvanted split virion vaccine than after the whole virion vaccine, most notably in the youngest children (163 of 166 participants with paired serum samples (98.2%, 95% confidence interval 94.8% to 99.6%) v 157 of 196 (80.1%, 73.8% to 85.5%), P<0.001) in children under 3 years and 226 of 228 (99.1%, 96.9% to 99.9%) v 95.9%, 92.4% to 98.1%, P=0.03) in those over 3 years). The adjuvanted split virion vaccine was more reactogenic than the whole virion vaccine, with more frequent systemic reactions and severe local reactions in children aged over 5 years after dose one (13 (7.2%, 3.9% to 12%) v 2 (1.1%, 0.1% to 3.9%), P<0.001) and dose two (15 (8.5%, 4.8% to 13.7%) v 2 (1.1%, 0.1% to 4.1%), P<0.002) and after dose two in those under 5 years (15 (5.9%, 3.3% to 9.6%) v 0 (0.0%, 0% to 1.4%), P<0.001). Dose two of the adjuvanted split virion vaccine was more reactogenic than dose one, especially for fever >or=38 masculineC in those aged under 5 (24 (8.9%, 5.8% to 12.9%) v 57 (22.4%, 17.5% to 28.1%), P<0.001).
In this first direct comparison of an AS03(B) adjuvanted split virion versus whole virion non-adjuvanted H1N1 vaccine, the adjuvanted vaccine, while more reactogenic, was more immunogenic and, importantly, achieved high seroconversion rates in children aged less than 3 years. This indicates the potential for improved immunogenicity of influenza vaccines in this age group.
Clinical NCT00980850; ISRCTN89141709.

Download full-text


Available from: Ifeanyichukwu Okike,
  • Source
    • "Almost at the same time additional cases were independently reported in France, Canada and the United States [8] and by January 2011, there were 162 reported cases of narcolepsy after vaccination with Arepanrix™ [12]. Biological mechanisms behind this link are not clear, but an immunitary response to the vaccine adjuvant used in this patient is most likely since side effects suggestive of strong immune stimulation were reported after A/H1N1 vaccination, particularly with Pandemrix™ [13].I n those cases reported in the literature the onset of symptoms ranged from two days to five months after vaccination and many of them received vaccines with ASO3 as an adjuvant, which is the same adjuvant used in Pandmrix™. This supports the immunitary role and the link between vaccination and development of narcolepsy symptoms. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Narcolepsy with cataplexy is a rare sleep disorder with a neurological basis which has been recently linked to H1N1 vaccination either in children or adults. Cases from Europe, United States and Brasil were registered. Authors describe a case report of a 15 years old boy who developed narcolepsy with cataplexy after H1N1 vaccination in Havana. As far as it is concerned this is the first case reported from Cuba.
    Sleep Science 03/2014; 369(1). DOI:10.1016/j.slsci.2014.07.024
  • Source
    • "If an absolute VE of 40% for 2 doses of nonadjuvanted H1N1 vaccine is assumed (from the study by Vesikari et al [5], against mainly influenza A[H3N2]), the estimated absolute VE for Ad2 in our study is 86%; if an absolute VE for plain H1N1 antigen of 59% is assumed (efficacy estimate from the same influenza A[H1N1] antigen in a quadrivalent formulation) [15], the estimated absolute VE for Ad2 is 90%, which is consistent with short-term vaccine effectiveness estimates (86%–100%) reported in case-control studies involving children and adults who received 1 dose of H1N1-AS03 [16–18]. Adjuvant benefit in terms of immunogenicity, with higher and more persistent immune responses, was also demonstrated for 2 H1N1-AS03 doses over 2 nonadjuvanted vaccine doses, consistent with findings from previous clinical trials [6, 19]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: The vaccine efficacy (VE) of 1 or 2 doses of AS03-adjuvanted influenza A(H1N1) vaccine relative to that of 2 doses of nonadjuvanted influenza A(H1N1) vaccine in children 6 months to <10 years of age in a multinational study conducted during 2010-2011. Methods: A total of 6145 children were randomly assigned at a ratio of 1:1:1 to receive 2 injections 21 days apart of A/California/7/2009(H1N1)-AS03 vaccine at dose 1 and saline placebo at dose 2, 2 doses 21 days apart of A/California/7/2009(H1N1)-AS03 vaccine (the Ad2 group), or 2 doses 21 days apart of nonadjuvanted A/California/7/2009(H1N1) vaccine (the NAd2 group). Active surveillance for influenza-like illnesses continued from days 14 to 385. Nose and throat samples obtained during influenza-like illnesses were tested for A/California/7/2009(H1N1), using reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Immunogenicity, reactogenicity, and safety were assessed. Results: There were 23 cases of confirmed 2009 pandemic influenza A(H1N1) (A[H1N1]pdm09) infection for the primary relative VE analysis. The VE in the Ad2 group relative to that in the NAd2 group was 76.8% (95% confidence interval, 18.5%-93.4%). The benefit of the AS03 adjuvant was demonstrated in terms of the greater immunogenicity observed in the Ad2 group, compared with the NAd2 group. Conclusion: The 4-8-fold antigen-sparing adjuvanted pandemic influenza vaccine demonstrated superior and clinically important prevention of A(H1N1)pdm09 infection, compared with nonadjuvanted vaccine, with no observed increase in medically attended or serious adverse events. These data support the use of adjuvanted influenza vaccines during influenza pandemics. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT01051661.
    The Journal of Infectious Diseases 03/2014; 210(4). DOI:10.1093/infdis/jiu173 · 6.00 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Adjuvanted vaccines (Figure 3) have been shown to be antigen sparing and more immunogenic compared to non-adjuvanted vaccines, and may allow increased production capacity to meet global demand [30-32]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Influenza is an under-appreciated cause of acute lower respiratory infections (ALRI) in children. It is estimated to cause approximately 20 million new episodes of ALRI in children annually, 97% of these occurring in developing countries. It is also estimated to result in 28000 to 112000 deaths annually in young children. Apart from hospitalisations and deaths, influenza has significant economic consequences. The current egg-based inactivated influenza vaccines have several limitations: annual vaccination, high production costs, and cannot respond adequately to meet the demand during pandemics. We used a modified CHNRI methodology for setting priorities in health research investments. This was done in two stages. In Stage I, we systematically reviewed the literature related to emerging cross-protective vaccines against influenza relevant to several criteria of interest: answerability; cost of development, production and implementation; efficacy and effectiveness; deliverability, affordability and sustainability; maximum potential impact on disease burden reduction; acceptability to the end users and health workers; and effect on equity. In Stage II, we conducted an expert opinion exercise by inviting 20 experts (leading basic scientists, international public health researchers, international policy makers and representatives of pharmaceutical companies). They answered questions from the CHNRI framework and their "collective optimism" towards each criterion was documented on a scale from 0 to 100%. The experts expressed very high level of optimism for deliverability, impact on equity, and acceptability to health workers and end users. However, they expressed concerns over the criteria of answerability, low development cost, low product cost, low implementation cost, affordability and, to a lesser extent sustainability. In addition they felt that the vaccine would have higher efficacy and impact on disease burden reduction on overall influenza-associated disease rather than specifically influenza-associated pneumonia. Although the landscape of emerging influenza vaccines shows several promising candidates, it is unlikely that the advancements in the newer vaccine technologies will be able to progress through to large scale production in the near future. The combined effects of continued investments in researching new vaccines and improvements of available vaccines will hopefully shorten the time needed to the development of an effective seasonal and pandemic influenza vaccine suitable for large scale production.
    BMC Public Health 09/2013; 13 Suppl 3(Suppl 3):S14. DOI:10.1186/1471-2458-13-S3-S14 · 2.26 Impact Factor
Show more