Immunisation Horizon Scanning Volume 6 Issue 7

Effect of BCG vaccination against Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection in children: systematic review and meta-analysis

Source: BMJ 2014; 349 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g4643

Follow this link for abstract

Date of publication: August 2014

Publication Type: Journal Article

In a nutshell: Objectives To determine whether BCG vaccination protects against Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection as assessed by interferon γ release assays (IGRA) in children. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Searches of electronic databases 1950 to November 2013, checking of reference lists, hand searching of journals, and contact with experts. Setting Community congregate settings and households. Inclusion criteria Vaccinated and unvaccinated children aged under 16 with known recent exposure to patients with pulmonary tuberculosis. Children were screened for infection with M tuberculosis with interferon γ release assays. Data extraction Study results relating to diagnostic accuracy were extracted and risk estimates were combined with random effects meta-analysis. Results The primary analysis included 14 studies and 3855 participants. The estimated overall risk ratio was 0.81 (95% confidence interval 0.71 to 0.92), indicating a protective efficacy of 19% against infection among vaccinated children after exposure compared with unvaccinated children. The observed protection was similar when estimated with the two types of interferon γ release assays (ELISpot or QuantiFERON). Restriction of the analysis to the six studies (n=1745) with information on progression to active tuberculosis at the time of screening showed protection against infection of 27% (risk ratio 0.73, 0.61 to 0.87) compared with 71% (0.29, 0.15 to 0.58) against active tuberculosis. Among those infected, protection against progression to disease was 58% (0.42, 0.23 to 0.77). Conclusions BCG protects against M tuberculosis infection as well as progression from infection to disease. Trial registration PROSPERO registration No CRD42011001698 (www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/).

Length of publication: 11-page article

Efficacy of High-Dose versus Standard-Dose Influenza Vaccine in Older Adults

Source: New England Journal of Medicine 2014 Aug 14;371(7):635-45. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1315727

Follow this link for abstract

Date of publication: August 2014

Publication Type: Journal Article

In a nutshell: Background As compared with a standard-dose vaccine, a high-dose, trivalent, inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV3-HD) improves antibody responses to influenza among adults 65 years of age or older. This study evaluated whether IIV3-HD also improves protection against laboratory-confirmed influenza illness. Methods We conducted a phase IIIb–IV, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled trial to compare IIV3-HD (60 μg of hemagglutinin per strain) with standard-dose trivalent, inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV3-SD [15 μg of hemagglutinin per strain]) in adults 65 years of age or older. Assessments of relative efficacy, effectiveness, safety (serious adverse events), and immunogenicity (hemagglutination-inhibition [HAI] titers) were performed during the 2011–2012 (year 1) and the 2012–2013 (year 2) northern-hemisphere influenza seasons. Results A total of 31,989 participants were enrolled from 126 research centers in the United States and Canada (15,991 were randomly assigned to receive IIV3-HD, and 15,998 to receive IIV3-SD). In the intention-to-treat analysis, 228 participants in the IIV3-HD group (1.4%) and 301 participants in the IIV3-SD group (1.9%) had laboratory-confirmed influenza caused by any viral type or subtype associated with a protocol-defined influenza-like illness (relative efficacy, 24.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9.7 to 36.5). At least one serious adverse event during the safety surveillance period was reported by 1323 (8.3%) of the participants in the IIV3-HD group, as compared with 1442 (9.0%) of the participants in the IIV3-SD group (relative risk, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.85 to 0.99). After vaccination, HAI titers and seroprotection rates (the percentage of participants with HAI titers ≥1:40) were significantly higher in the IIV3-HD group. Conclusions Among persons 65 years of age or older, IIV3-HD induced significantly higher antibody responses and provided better protection against laboratory-confirmed influenza illness than did IIV3-SD. (Funded by Sanofi Pasteur; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01427309.)

Length of publication: 11-page article

Needle-free jet injection for administration of influenza vaccine: a randomised non-inferiority trial

Source: Lancet, The 384(9944):674-81. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60524-9.

Follow this link for abstract

Date of publication: August 2014

Publication Type: Journal Article

In a nutshell: Background Administration of vaccines by needle-free technology such as jet injection might offer an alternative to needles and syringes that avoids the issue of needle phobia and the risk of needle-stick injury. We aimed to assess the immunogenicity and safety of trivalent influenza vaccine given by needle-free jet injector compared with needle and syringe. Methods For this randomised, comparator-controlled trial, we randomly assigned (1:1) healthy adults (aged 18—64 years) who attended one of four employee health clinics in the University of Colorado health system, with stratification by site, to receive one dose of the trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine Afluria given either intramuscularly with a needle-free jet injector (Stratis; PharmaJet, Golden, CO, USA) or with needle and syringe. Randomisation was done with a computer-generated randomisation schedule with a block size of 100. Because of the nature of the study, masking of participants was not possible. Immunogenicity was assessed by measurement of the hemagglutination inhibition antibody titres in serum for the three viral strains included in the vaccine. We included six coprimary endpoints: three strain-specific geometric mean titre ratios and the absolute differences in three strain-specific seroconversion rates. The immune response of the jet injector group was regarded as non-inferior to that of the needle and syringe group if both the upper bound of each of the three 95% CIs for the strain-specific geometric mean titre ratios was 1.5 or less, and the upper bound of the three 95% CIs for the strain-specific seroconversion rate differences was less than 10 percentage points. We used t test for group comparison. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01688921. Findings During the 2012—13 influenza season of the northern hemisphere, we allocated 1250 participants to receive vaccination by needle-free jet injector (n=627) or needle and syringe (n=623). In the intention-to-treat immunogenicity population, all participants with two serum samples were included (575 in the jet injector group and 574 in the needle and syringe group). The immune response to Afluria when given by needle-free jet injector met the criteria for non-inferiority for all six coprimary endpoints. The jet injector group met the geometric mean titre criterion for non-inferiority for the A/H1N1, A/H3N2, and B strains (upper bound of the 95% CI for the geometric mean titre ratios were 1·10 for A/H1N1, 1·17 for A/H3N2, and 1·04 for B strains). The jet injector group met the seroconversion rate criterion for non-inferiority for the A/H1N1, A/H3N2, and B strains (upper bound of the 95% CI of the seroconversion rate differences were 6·0% for A/H1N1, 7·0% for A/H3N2, and 5·7% for B strains). We recorded serious adverse events in three participants, none of which were study related. Interpretation The immune response to influenza vaccine given with the jet injector device was non-inferior to the immune response to influenza vaccine given with needle and syringe. The device had a clinically acceptable safety profile, but was associated with a higher frequency of local injection site reactions than was the use of needle and syringe. The Stratis needle-free jet injector device could be used as an alternative method of administration of Afluria trivalent influenza vaccine. Funding Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), PATH, bioCSL, and PharmaJet.

Length of publication: 8-page article

Efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of the human papillomavirus 16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine in women older than 25 years: 4-year interim follow-up of the phase 3, double-blind, randomised controlled VIVIANE study

Source: Lancet,The 2014 Sep 1. pii: S0140-6736(14)60920-X. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60920-X.

Follow this link for abstract

Date of publication: August 2014

Publication Type: Journal Article

In a nutshell:  Background Although adolescent girls are the main population for prophylactic human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines, adult women who remain at risk of cervical cancer can also be vaccinated. We report data from the interim analysis of the ongoing VIVIANE study, the aim of which is to assess the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of the HPV 16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine in adult women. Methods In this phase 3, multinational, double-blind, randomised controlled trial, we randomly assigned healthy women older than 25 years to the HPV 16/18 vaccine or control (1:1), via an internet-based system with an algorithm process that accounted for region, age stratum, baseline HPV DNA status, HPV 16/18 serostatus, and cytology. Enrolment was age-stratified, with about 45% of participants in each of the 26–35 and 36–45 years age strata and 10% in the 46 years and older stratum. Up to 15% of women in each age stratum could have a history of HPV infection or disease. The primary endpoint was vaccine efficacy against 6-month persistent infection or cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 or higher (CIN1+) associated with HPV 16/18. The primary analysis was done in the according-to-protocol cohort for efficacy, which consists of women who received all three vaccine or control doses, had negative or low-grade cytology at baseline, and had no history of HPV disease. Secondary analyses included vaccine efficacy against non-vaccine oncogenic HPV types. Mean follow-up time was 40·3 months. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00294047. Findings The first participant was enrolled on Feb 16, 2006, and the last study visit for the present analysis took place on Dec 10, 2010; 5752 women were included in the total vaccinated cohort (n=2881 vaccine, n=2871 control), and 4505 in the according-to-protocol cohort for efficacy (n=2264 vaccine, n=2241 control). Vaccine efficacy against HPV 16/18-related 6-month persistent infection or CIN1+ was significant in all age groups combined (81·1%, 97·7% CI 52·1–94·0), in the 26–35 years age group (83·5%, 45·0–96·8), and in the 36–45 years age group (77·2%, 2·8–96·9); no cases were seen in women aged 46 years and older. Vaccine efficacy against atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or greater associated with HPV 16/18 was also significant. We also noted significant cross-protective vaccine efficacy against 6-month persistent infection with HPV 31 (79·1%, 97·7% CI 27·6–95·9) and HPV 45 (76·9%, 18·5–95·6]) Serious adverse events occurred in 285 (10%) of 2881 women in the vaccine group and 267 (9%) of 2871 in the control group; five (<1%) and eight (<1%) of these events, respectively, were believed to be related to vaccination. Interpretation In women older than 25 years, the HPV 16/18 vaccine is efficacious against infections and cervical abnormalities associated with the vaccine types, as well as infections with the non-vaccine HPV types 31 and 45.

Length of publication: 15-page article

Further dissemination

If you think anyone would benefit from receiving this post or from subscribing to this blog please email them the link to this blog and suggest they sign up to the blog newsletter to stay up-to-date with new content.