Dataset Information

Randomized, Open-Label Phase 3 Study Evaluating Immunogenicity, Safety, and Reactogenicity of RSVPreF3 OA Coadministered with FLU-QIV-HD in Adults Aged ≥ 65.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and influenza pose major disease burdens in older adults due to an aging immune system and comorbidities; seasonal overlap exists between these infections. In 2023, the RSV prefusion protein F3 older adult (RSVPreF3 OA) vaccine was first approved in the USA as a single dose for prevention of lower respiratory tract disease due to RSV in adults aged ≥ 60 years. The vaccine has since been approved in the European Union and elsewhere. RSVPreF3 OA and FLU-QIV-HD could be coadministered if immunogenicity, safety, and reactogenicity are not affected.

Methods

This open-label, randomized (1:1), controlled, phase 3 study in 1029 adults aged ≥ 65 years in the USA evaluated the immunogenicity (up to 1 month after last vaccine dose) and safety (up to 6 months after last vaccine dose) of RSVPreF3 OA coadministered with FLU-QIV-HD (co-ad group) versus FLU-QIV-HD alone followed by RSVPreF3 OA at a separate visit 1 month later (control group). Non-inferiority criterion was defined as an upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the geometric mean titer (GMT) group ratio (control/co-ad) ≤ 1.5. Secondary endpoints included safety and reactogenicity.

Results

Proportions of participants across age categories between groups and proportions of male (50.4%) and female (49.6%) participants were well balanced; most participants were white (68.7%). Group GMT ratios for RSV-A neutralizing titers, hemagglutination inhibition titers for four influenza vaccine strains, and RSV-B neutralizing titers were non-inferior in the co-ad group versus the control group. No clinically meaningful differences in local or systemic solicited and unsolicited adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, and potential immune-mediated diseases were identified. The most common solicited AEs in both groups were injection-site pain and myalgia.

Conclusion

In adults aged ≥ 65 years, coadministration of RSVPreF3 OA and FLU-QIV-HD was immunogenically non-inferior to the sequential administration of both vaccines 1 month apart, and had clinically acceptable safety and reactogenicity profile.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT05559476.

SUBMITTER: Buynak R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC11266338 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Randomized, Open-Label Phase 3 Study Evaluating Immunogenicity, Safety, and Reactogenicity of RSVPreF3 OA Coadministered with FLU-QIV-HD in Adults Aged ≥ 65.

Buynak Robert R Cannon Kevin K DeAtkine David D Kirby John J Usdan Lisa L Bhavsar Amit A Gérard Catherine C Kuznetsova Anastasia A Jayadev Amulya A Amare Hiwot H Valenciano Sofia S Meyer Nadia N

Infectious diseases and therapy 20240626 8

<h4>Introduction</h4>Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and influenza pose major disease burdens in older adults due to an aging immune system and comorbidities; seasonal overlap exists between these infections. In 2023, the RSV prefusion protein F3 older adult (RSVPreF3 OA) vaccine was first approved in the USA as a single dose for prevention of lower respiratory tract disease due to RSV in adults aged ≥ 60 years. The vaccine has since been approved in the European Union and elsewhere. RSVPreF3 ...[more]

PMID: 38981954

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTo date, no immunological data on COVID-19 heterologous vaccination schedules in humans have been reported. We assessed the immunogenicity and reactogenicity of BNT162b2 (Comirnaty, BioNTech, Mainz, Germany) administered as second dose in participants primed with ChAdOx1-S (Vaxzevria, AstraZeneca, Oxford, UK).MethodsWe did a phase 2, open-label, randomised, controlled trial on adults aged 18-60 years, vaccinated with a single dose of ChAdOx1-S 8-12 weeks before screening, and no history of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive either BNT162b2 (0·3 mL) via a single intramuscular injection (intervention group) or continue observation (control group). The primary outcome was 14-day immunogenicity, measured by immunoassays for SARS-CoV-2 trimeric spike protein and receptor binding domain (RBD). Antibody functionality was assessed using a pseudovirus neutralisation assay, and cellular immune response using an interferon-γ immunoassay. The safety outcome was 7-day reactogenicity, measured as solicited local and systemic adverse events. The primary analysis included all participants who received at least one dose of BNT162b2 and who had at least one efficacy evaluation after baseline. The safety analysis included all participants who received BNT162b2. This study is registered with EudraCT (2021-001978-37) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04860739), and is ongoing.FindingsBetween April 24 and 30, 2021, 676 individuals were enrolled and randomly assigned to either the intervention group (n=450) or control group (n=226) at five university hospitals in Spain (mean age 44 years [SD 9]; 382 [57%] women and 294 [43%] men). 663 (98%) participants (n=441 intervention, n=222 control) completed the study up to day 14. In the intervention group, geometric mean titres of RBD antibodies increased from 71·46 BAU/mL (95% CI 59·84-85·33) at baseline to 7756·68 BAU/mL (7371·53-8161·96) at day 14 (p<0·0001). IgG against trimeric spike protein increased from 98·40 BAU/mL (95% CI 85·69-112·99) to 3684·87 BAU/mL (3429·87-3958·83). The interventional:control ratio was 77·69 (95% CI 59·57-101·32) for RBD protein and 36·41 (29·31-45·23) for trimeric spike protein IgG. Reactions were mild (n=1210 [68%]) or moderate (n=530 [30%]), with injection site pain (n=395 [88%]), induration (n=159 [35%]), headache (n=199 [44%]), and myalgia (n=194 [43%]) the most commonly reported adverse events. No serious adverse events were reported.InterpretationBNT162b2 given as a second dose in individuals prime vaccinated with ChAdOx1-S induced a robust immune response, with an acceptable and manageable reactogenicity profile.FundingInstituto de Salud Carlos III.TranslationsFor the French and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Project description:ImportanceCOVID-19 and seasonal influenza vaccines were previously given separately, although their coadministration is warranted for vaccination adherence. Limited data on their coadministration have been published.ObjectiveTo compare the reactogenicity and immunogenicity of COVID-19 and influenza vaccinations administered together with those of COVID-19 vaccination alone.Design, setting, and participantsThis prospective cohort study included health care workers at a large tertiary medical center in Israel who received the Influvac Tetra (Abbott) influenza vaccine (2022/2023), the Omicron BA.4/BA.5-adapted bivalent (Pfizer/BioNTech) vaccine, or both. Vaccination began in September 2022, and data were collected until January 2023. Vaccines were offered to all employees and were coadministered or given separately. Adverse reaction questionnaires were sent, and serologic samples were also collected.ExposuresReceiving COVID-19 vaccine, influenza vaccine, or both.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcomes for the reactogenicity analysis were symptoms following vaccine receipt, assessed by a digital questionnaire: any local symptoms; fever; weakness or fatigue; any systemic symptoms; and their duration. The immunogenicity analysis' outcome was postvaccination anti-spike IgG titer.ResultsThis study included 2 cohorts for 2 separate analyses. The reactogenicity analysis included 588 participants (of 649 questionnaire responders): 85 in the COVID-19 vaccine-alone group (median [IQR] age, 71 [58-74] years; 56 [66%] female); 357 in the influenza vaccine-alone group (median [IQR] age, 55 [40-65] years; 282 [79%] female); and 146 in the coadministration group (median [IQR] age, 61 [50-71] years; 81 [55%] female). The immunogenicity analysis included 151 participants: 74 participants in the COVID-19 vaccine group (median [IQR] age, 67 [56-73] years; 45 [61%] female) and 77 participants in the coadministration group (median [IQR] age, 60 [49-73] years; 42 [55%] female). Compared with COVID-19 vaccination alone, the risk of systemic symptoms was similar in the coadministration group (odds ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.43-1.56). Geometric mean titers in the coadministration group were estimated to be 0.84 (95% CI, 0.69-1.04) times lower than in the COVID-19 vaccine-alone group.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of health care workers who received a COVID-19 vaccine, an influenza vaccine, or both, coadministration was not associated with substantially inferior immune response or to more frequent adverse events compared with COVID-19 vaccine administration alone, supporting the coadministration of these vaccines.

Project description:BackgroundThe Ad26.COV2.S vaccine, which was approved as a single-shot immunization regimen, has been shown to be effective against severe coronavirus disease 2019. However, this vaccine induces lower severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein (S)-specific antibody levels than those induced by messenger RNA (mRNA)-based vaccines. The immunogenicity and reactogenicity of a homologous or heterologous booster in persons who have received an Ad26.COV2.S priming dose are unclear.MethodsIn this single-blind, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial involving health care workers who had received a priming dose of Ad26.COV2.S vaccine, we assessed immunogenicity and reactogenicity 28 days after a homologous or heterologous booster vaccination. The participants were assigned to receive no booster, an Ad26.COV2.S booster, an mRNA-1273 booster, or a BNT162b2 booster. The primary end point was the level of S-specific binding antibodies, and the secondary end points were the levels of neutralizing antibodies, S-specific T-cell responses, and reactogenicity. A post hoc analysis was performed to compare mRNA-1273 boosting with BNT162b2 boosting.ResultsHomologous or heterologous booster vaccination resulted in higher levels of S-specific binding antibodies, neutralizing antibodies, and T-cell responses than a single Ad26.COV2.S vaccination. The increase in binding antibodies was significantly larger with heterologous regimens that included mRNA-based vaccines than with the homologous booster. The mRNA-1273 booster was most immunogenic and was associated with higher reactogenicity than the BNT162b2 and Ad26.COV2.S boosters. Local and systemic reactions were generally mild to moderate in the first 2 days after booster administration.ConclusionsThe Ad26.COV2.S and mRNA boosters had an acceptable safety profile and were immunogenic in health care workers who had received a priming dose of Ad26.COV2.S vaccine. The strongest responses occurred after boosting with mRNA-based vaccines. Boosting with any available vaccine was better than not boosting. (Funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development ZonMw; SWITCH ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04927936.).

Dataset Information

Randomized, Open-Label Phase 3 Study Evaluating Immunogenicity, Safety, and Reactogenicity of RSVPreF3 OA Coadministered with FLU-QIV-HD in Adults Aged ≥ 65.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Trial registration

Publications

Randomized, Open-Label Phase 3 Study Evaluating Immunogenicity, Safety, and Reactogenicity of RSVPreF3 OA Coadministered with FLU-QIV-HD in Adults Aged ≥ 65.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets