Comparison of the immunogenicity and safety of Euvichol-Plus with Shanchol in healthy Indian adults and children: an open-label, randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority, parallel-group, phase 3 trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Shah S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10709676 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Comparison of the immunogenicity and safety of Euvichol-Plus with Shanchol in healthy Indian adults and children: an open-label, randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority, parallel-group, phase 3 trial.
Shah Sanket S Nandy Ranjan Kumar RK Sethi Shaily S SS Chavan Bhakti B Pathak Sarang S Dutta Shanta S Rai Sanjay S Singh Chandramani C Chayal Vinod V Patel Chintan C Kumar N Ravi NR Chavan Abhishek T AT Chawla Amit A Singh Anit A Roy Anupriya Khare AK Singh Nidhi N Baik Yeong Ok YO Lee Youngjin Y Park Youngran Y Jeong Kyung Ho KH Ahmed Syed S
The Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia 20230824
<h4>Background</h4>Considering the cholera menace in India and to seek licensure of the oral cholera vaccine (OCV), Euvichol-Plus, we conducted a clinical trial to compare the immunogenicity and safety of Euvichol-Plus with Shanchol in healthy Indian adults and children.<h4>Methods</h4>This phase 3, open-label, multicentre, randomised, non-inferiority, parallel-group, comparative study was conducted at seven sites across India involving 416 healthy adults (aged ≥18-60 years) and children (aged ≥ ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundRotavirus is the leading cause of severe dehydrating gastroenteritis among children younger than 5 years in low-income and middle-income countries. Two vaccines-Rotavac and Rotasiil-are used in routine immunisation in India. The safety and immunogenicity of these vaccines administered in a mixed regimen is not documented. We therefore aimed to compare the safety and seroresponse of recipients of a mixed regimen versus a single regimen.MethodsWe did a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 4, non-inferiority trial at two sites in India. We recruited healthy infants aged 6-8 weeks. Infants with systemic disorders, weight-for-height Z scores of less than minus three SDs, or a history of persistent diarrhoea were excluded. Eligible infants were randomly allocated to six groups in equal numbers to receive either the single vaccine regimen (ie, Rotavac-Rotavac-Rotavac [group 1] or Rotasiil-Rotasiil-Rotasiil [group 2]) or the mixed vaccine regimen (ie, Rotavac-Rotasiil-Rotavac [group 3], Rotasiil-Rotavac-Rotasiil [group 4], Rotavac-Rotasiil-Rotasiil [group 5], or Rotasiil-Rotavac-Rotavac [group 6]). Randomisation was done using an online software by site in blocks of at least 12. The primary outcome was seroresponse to rotavirus vaccine, measured using rotavirus-specific serum IgA antibodies 4 weeks after the third dose. The seroresponse rates were compared between recipients of the four mixed vaccine regimens (consisting of various combinations of Rotavac and Rotasiil) with recipients of the single vaccine regimens (consisting of Rotavac or Rotasiil only for all three doses). The non-inferiority margin was set at 10%. Safety follow-ups were done for the duration of study participation. This trial was registered with the Clinical Trials Registry India, number CTRI/2018/08/015317.FindingsBetween March 25, 2019, and Jan 15, 2020, a total of 1979 eligible infants were randomly assigned to receive a single vaccine regimen (n=659; 329 in group 1 and 330 in group 2) or a mixed vaccine regimen (n=1320; 329 each in groups 3 and 4, and 331 each in groups 5 and 6). All eligible participants received the first dose, 1925 (97·3%) of 1979 received the second dose, and 1894 (95·7%) received all three doses of vaccine. 1852 (93·6%) of 1979 participants completed the follow-up. The immunogenicity analysis consisted of 1839 infants (1238 [67·3%] in the mixed vaccine regimen and 601 [32·7%] in the single vaccine regimen; 13 samples were insufficient in quantity) who completed vaccination and provided post-vaccination sera. The seroresponse rate in the mixed vaccine regimen group (33·5% [95% CI 30·9-36·2]) was non-inferior compared with the single vaccine regimen group (29·6% [26·1-33·4]); the seroresponse rate difference was 3·9% (95% CI -0·7 to 8·3). The proportion of participants with any type of solicited adverse events was 90·9% (95% CI 88·4-93·0) in the single vaccine regimen group and 91·1% (89·5-92·6) in the mixed vaccine regimen group. No vaccine-related serious adverse events or intussusception were reported during the study.InterpretationRotavac and Rotasiil can be safely used in an interchangeable manner for routine immunisation since the seroresponse was non-inferior in the mixed vaccine regimen compared with the single vaccine regimen. These results allow for flexibility in administering the vaccines, helping to overcome vaccine shortages and supply chain issues, and targeting migrant populations easily.FundingMinistry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India.TranslationFor the Hindi translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.
| S-EPMC9464301 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7992032 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundReducing treatment burden is a priority for people with cystic fibrosis, whose health has benefited from using new modulators that substantially increase CFTR protein function. The SIMPLIFY study aimed to assess the effects of discontinuing nebulised hypertonic saline or dornase alfa in individuals using the CFTR modulator elexacaftor plus tezacaftor plus ivacaftor (ETI).MethodsThe SIMPLIFY study included two parallel, multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trials at 80 participating clinics across the USA in the Cystic Fibrosis Therapeutics Development Network. We included individuals with cystic fibrosis aged 12-17 years with percent predicted FEV1 (ppFEV1) of 70% or more, or those aged 18 years or older with ppFEV1 of 60% or more, if they had been taking ETI and either (or both) mucoactive therapies (≥3% hypertonic saline or dornase alfa) for at least 90 days before screening. Participants on both hypertonic saline and dornase alfa were randomly assigned to one of the two trials, and those on a single therapy were assigned to the applicable trial. All participants were then randomly assigned 1:1 to continue or discontinue therapy for 6 weeks using permuted blocks of varying size, stratified by baseline ppFEV1 (week 0; ≥90% or <90%), single or concurrent use of hypertonic saline and dornase alfa, previous SIMPLIFY study participation (yes or no), and age (≥18 or <18 years). For participants randomly assigned to continue their therapy during a given trial, this therapy was instructed to be taken at least once daily according to each participant's pre-existing, clinically prescribed regimen. Hypertonic saline concentration was required to be at least 3%. The primary objective for each trial was to determine whether discontinuing was non-inferior to continuing, measured by the 6-week change in ppFEV1 in the per-protocol population. We established a non-inferiority margin of -3% for the difference between groups in the 6-week change in ppFEV1. Safety outcomes were analysed in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04378153.FindingsFrom Aug 25, 2020, to May 25, 2022, a total of 672 unique participants were screened for eligibility for one or both trials, resulting in 847 total random assignments across both trials with 594 unique participants. 370 participants were randomly assigned in the hypertonic saline trial and 477 in the dornase alfa trial. Participants across both trials had an average ppFEV1 of 96·9%. Discontinuing treatment was non-inferior to continuing treatment with respect to the absolute 6-week change in ppFEV1 in both the hypertonic saline trial (-0·19% [95% CI -0·85 to 0·48] in the discontinuation group [n=133] vs 0·14% [-0·51 to 0·78] in the continuation group [n=140]; between-group difference -0·32% [-1·25 to 0·60]) and dornase alfa trial (0·18% [-0·38 to 0·74] in the discontinuation group [n=199] vs -0·16% [-0·73 to 0·41] in the continuation group [n=193]; between-group difference 0·35% [-0·45 to 1·14]), with consistent results in the intention-to-treat populations. In the hypertonic saline trial, 64 (35%) of 184 in the discontinuation group versus 44 (24%) of 186 participants in the continuation group and, in the dornase alfa trial, 89 (37%) of 240 in the discontinuation group versus 55 (23%) of 237 in the continuation group had at least one adverse event.InterpretationIn individuals with cystic fibrosis on ETI with relatively well preserved pulmonary function, discontinuing daily hypertonic saline or dornase alfa for 6 weeks did not result in clinically meaningful differences in pulmonary function when compared with continuing treatment.
| S-EPMC10065895 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Studies have shown disparate results on the consequences of morphine use in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). No study has evaluated alternative treatments that could be at least non-inferior to morphine without its potentially damaging consequences for myocardial function and platelet reactivity. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether nitrous oxide/oxygen plus intravenous acetaminophen (NOO-A) is non-inferior to morphine to control chest pain in STEMI patients. METHODS:This multicenter, open-label, cluster-randomized, controlled, non-inferiority study compared NOO-A with morphine in 684 prehospital patients with ongoing suspected STEMI of < 12 h duration and a pain rating score ≥ 4. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving pain relief (numeric rating score ≤ 3) after 30 min. Secondary safety endpoints included serious adverse events and death at 30 days. RESULTS:The median baseline pain score was 7.0 in both groups. The primary endpoint occurred in 51.7% of the NOO-A group and 73.6% of the morphine group (absolute risk difference - 21.7%; 95% confidence interval - 29.6 to - 13.8). At 30 days, the rate of serious adverse events was 16.0 and 18.8% in the NOO-A and morphine groups respectively (p = NS). The rate of death was 1.8% (NOO-A group) and 3.8% (morphine group) (p = NS). CONCLUSION:Analgesia provided by NOO-A was inferior to morphine at 30 min in patients with acute STEMI in the prehospital setting. Rates of serious adverse events did not differ between groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02198378.
| S-EPMC7218609 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundA recent study shows that dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel plus aspirin is superior to aspirin monotherapy for minor stroke, which is defined as a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS)score of ≤3. However, acute mild-moderate ischaemic stroke (4≤NIHSS≤10) still needs aggressive antiplatelet intervention to prevent deterioration and recurrence of stroke. The efficacy and safety of dual antiplatelet therapy versus aspirin monotherapy in the population are not clear. A multicentre clinical trial is designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of clopidogrel plus aspirin therapy versus aspirin monotherapy within 48 hours of symptom onset of mild-moderate ischaemic stroke.Methods/designThe study is a randomised, open-label, multicentre, prospective trial with a target enrolment of 2700 patients from 60 centres in Northeast China. A treatment allocation identification number to each enrolled patient will be provided by a random number generator. The follow-up time for the clopidogrel plus aspirin and aspirin monotherapy groups is 90 days. The primary efficacy endpoint is a stroke progression event, which is defined as ≥4 point increase in the NIHSS score in 48 hours. The second efficacy endpoints include new ischaemic stroke within 90 days, change in the NIHSS score within 14 days, modified Rankin Scale score on day 90 and other vascular or death events within 90 days. The safety endpoints include mucocutaneous haemorrhage, organ haemorrhage and intracranial haemorrhage, adverse events and severe adverse events. χ2 test, t-test (or Mann-Whitney test), survival analysis and Cox proportional hazards models will be conducted. The findings of the study may provide an important evidence for clinical practice for these patients.DiscussionThe trial will be conducted under a rational design and will provide valuable evidence on the appropriate treatment for this population.Ethics and disseminationThe study was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of the General Hospital of Shen-Yang Military Region (no K(2016) 6).Trial registration numberNCT02869009; Pre-results.
| S-EPMC6312068 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends intravenous (IV) ampicillin and gentamicin as first-line therapy to treat severe pneumonia in children under five years of age. Ampicillin needs to be administered at a six-hourly interval, which requires frequent nursing intervention and bed occupancy for 5-7 days, limiting its utility in resource-poor settings. We compared the efficacy of IV amoxicillin over IV ampicillin, which is a potential alternative drug in treating severe pneumonia in children between 2-59 months. We conducted an unblinded, randomized, controlled, non-inferiority trial in the Dhaka hospital of icddr,b from 1 January 2018 to 31 October 2019. Children from 2-59 months of age presenting with WHO defined severe pneumonia with respiratory danger signs were randomly assigned 1:1 to either 50 mg/kg ampicillin or 40 mg/kg amoxicillin per day with 7.5 mg/kg gentamicin. The primary outcome was treatment failure as per the standard definition of persistence of danger sign(s) of severe pneumonia beyond 48 h or deterioration within 24 h of therapy initiation. The secondary outcomes were: (i) time required for resolution of danger signs since enrolment, (ii) length of hospital stay, (iii) death during hospitalization, and (iv) rate of nosocomial infections. Among 308 enrolled participants, baseline characteristics were similar among the two groups. Sixty-two (20%) children ended up with treatment failure, 21 (14%) in amoxicillin, and 41 (27%) in ampicillin arm, which is statistically significant (relative risk [RR] 0.51, 95% CI 0.32-0.82; p = 0.004). We reported 14 deaths for serious adverse events, 4 (3%) and 10 (6%) among amoxicillin and ampicillin arm, respectively. IV amoxicillin and IV gentamicin combination is not inferior to combined IV ampicillin and IV gentamicin in treating severe pneumonia in under-five children in Bangladesh. Considering the less frequent dosing and more compliance, IV amoxicillin is a better choice for treating children with severe pneumonia in resource-limited settings.
| S-EPMC8707665 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThis Phase 2b study compared the efficacy and toxicity of belotecan and topotecan in recurrent ovarian cancer.MethodsPatients with platinum-sensitive recurrent or platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer (PRROC) were randomised 1:1 to receive belotecan 0.5 mg/m2 or topotecan 1.5 mg/m2 for five consecutive days every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR); secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity.ResultsA total of 140 (belotecan, n = 71; topotecan, n = 69) and 130 patients (belotecan, n = 66; topotecan, n = 64) were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) populations. ORR did not differ significantly between the belotecan and topotecan groups (ITT, 29.6% versus 26.1%; PP, 30.3% versus 25%). Although PFS did not differ between the groups, belotecan was associated with improved OS compared with topotecan in the PP population (39.7 versus 26.6 months; P = 0.034). In particular, belotecan showed longer OS in PRROC and non-high-grade serous carcinoma (non-HGSC; PP, adjusted hazard ratios, 0.499 and 0.187; 95% confidence intervals 0.255-0.977 and 0.039-0.895). Furthermore, there were no differences in toxicities between the two groups.ConclusionsBelotecan was not inferior to topotecan in terms of overall response for recurrent ovarian cancer.Clinical trial registrationNCT01630018.
| S-EPMC7853132 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo test and compare the efficacy of methenamine hippurate for prevention of recurrent urinary tract infections with the current standard prophylaxis of daily low dose antibiotics.DesignMulticentre, open label, randomised, non-inferiority trial.SettingEight centres in the UK, recruiting from June 2016 to June 2018.ParticipantsWomen aged ≥18 years with recurrent urinary tract infections, requiring prophylactic treatment.InterventionsRandom assignment (1:1, using permuted blocks of variable length via a web based system) to receive antibiotic prophylaxis or methenamine hippurate for 12 months. Treatment allocation was not masked and crossover between arms was allowed.Main outcome measureAbsolute difference in incidence of symptomatic, antibiotic treated, urinary tract infections during treatment. A patient and public involvement group predefined the non-inferiority margin as one episode of urinary tract infection per person year. Analyses performed in a modified intention-to-treat population comprised all participants observed for at least six months.ResultsParticipants were randomly assigned to antibiotic prophylaxis (n=120) or methenamine hippurate (n=120). The modified intention-to-treat analysis comprised 205 (85%) participants (antibiotics, n=102 (85%); methenamine hippurate, n=103 (86%)). Incidence of antibiotic treated urinary tract infections during the 12 month treatment period was 0.89 episodes per person year (95% confidence interval 0.65 to 1.12) in the antibiotics group and 1.38 (1.05 to 1.72) in the methenamine hippurate group, with an absolute difference of 0.49 (90% confidence interval 0.15 to 0.84) confirming non-inferiority. Adverse reactions were reported by 34/142 (24%) in the antibiotic group and 35/127 (28%) in the methenamine group and most reactions were mild.ConclusionNon-antibiotic prophylactic treatment with methenamine hippurate might be appropriate for women with a history of recurrent episodes of urinary tract infections, informed by patient preferences and antibiotic stewardship initiatives, given the demonstration of non-inferiority to daily antibiotic prophylaxis seen in this trial.Trial registrationISRCTN70219762.
| S-EPMC8905684 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionOmalizumab, an anti-IgE monoclonal antibody, is effective in treating antihistamine-refractory chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU). However, tapering strategies for omalizumab are currently not well-studied, and patients may be treated longer than needed. Here, we present the rationale and design of the EXtending Omalizumab Treatment Intervals in patients with Chronic spontaneous urticaria trial, a multicentre, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority clinical trial. The objective of this trial is to investigate if patients with well-controlled CSU, achieved by standard treatment of 300 mg omalizumab administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks (Q4W) for 12 weeks, can maintain disease control with every 6 weeks (Q6W) dosing interval.Methods and analysisParticipants who achieve an Urticaria Control Test (UCT) score ≥12 after 12 weeks on omalizumab will be randomised to 300 mg omalizumab treatment Q4W or Q6W. Treatment arms will be followed for a total of 36 weeks. The primary endpoint is the absolute difference in average UCT score between treatment arms at week 36. Blood samples, Weekly Urticaria Activity Score, Chronic Urticaria Quality of Life Questionnaire, Dermatology Life Quality Index and records of side effects and flares will be obtained throughout the study at weeks 0, 12, 24 and 36.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been approved by the Scientific Ethical Committee of the Capital Region in Denmark, the local Data Protection Agency and the Danish Medicines Agency. All study participants must provide written informed consent. The study will be conducted according to the Helsinki Declaration and Good Clinical Practice. Findings will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals and presented at international conferences.Trial registration numberEU CT no. 2023-506187-14-00, ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05916937.
| S-EPMC11749435 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo 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.DesignOpen label, randomised, parallel group, phase II study.SettingFive UK centres (Oxford, Southampton, Bristol, Exeter, and London).ParticipantsChildren 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.InterventionsParticipants 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.Main outcome measuresPrimary 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).ResultsSeroconversion 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).ConclusionsIn 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.Trial registrationClinical trials.gov NCT00980850; ISRCTN89141709.
| S-EPMC2877808 | biostudies-literature