BACKGROUND: In contrast to the gradual pace of conventional vaccine trials, evaluation of influenza vaccines often must be accelerated for use in a pandemic or for annual re-licensure. Descriptions of how best to design studies for rapid completion are few. PURPOSE: In August, 2010, we conducted a rapid trial with a seasonal influenza vaccine for 2010-2011 given to persons vaccinated with an adjuvanted H1N1 vaccine in 2009, to determine whether re-exposure to the H1N1(2009) component of the seasonal vaccine would cause increased reactions. We describe the strategies that we believe were responsible for success in meeting the desired timeline. METHODS: The key means for expediting the study were: use of a few experienced, well-staffed centers; efficient completion of administrative approvals; advance recruitment of volunteers; synchronized start among centers with rapid completion (≤1 week) of first visits; rapid data assembly via the Internet; and a well-prepared data analysis plan. We chose to use a randomized, blinded, cross-over design to allow estimation of vaccine-attributable adverse event rates, with sufficient power (320 participants) to detect events occurring at true rates ≥1% with ≥90% probability. RESULTS: Planned enrollment numbers, center synchronization, and timelines, including review by a safety board prior to the cross-over step (second doses), were achieved. A detailed safety report was delivered to federal health officials just 32 days after study initiation and was used to fine-tune public messaging prior to the mass vaccination programs across Canada. LIMITATIONS: This aggressive timeline could not have been met without opportunities for careful planning and the prior existence of a network of experienced, collaborating trial centers. CONCLUSIONS: The means used to accelerate this study timeline were successful and could be used in other urgent situations but the mechanics of collaborative trials must be well rehearsed as a precondition.
BACKGROUND: In contrast to the gradual pace of conventional vaccine trials, evaluation of influenza vaccines often must be accelerated for use in a pandemic or for annual re-licensure. Descriptions of how best to design studies for rapid completion are few. PURPOSE: In August, 2010, we conducted a rapid trial with a seasonal influenza vaccine for 2010-2011 given to persons vaccinated with an adjuvanted H1N1 vaccine in 2009, to determine whether re-exposure to the H1N1(2009) component of the seasonal vaccine would cause increased reactions. We describe the strategies that we believe were responsible for success in meeting the desired timeline. METHODS: The key means for expediting the study were: use of a few experienced, well-staffed centers; efficient completion of administrative approvals; advance recruitment of volunteers; synchronized start among centers with rapid completion (≤1 week) of first visits; rapid data assembly via the Internet; and a well-prepared data analysis plan. We chose to use a randomized, blinded, cross-over design to allow estimation of vaccine-attributable adverse event rates, with sufficient power (320 participants) to detect events occurring at true rates ≥1% with ≥90% probability. RESULTS: Planned enrollment numbers, center synchronization, and timelines, including review by a safety board prior to the cross-over step (second doses), were achieved. A detailed safety report was delivered to federal health officials just 32 days after study initiation and was used to fine-tune public messaging prior to the mass vaccination programs across Canada. LIMITATIONS: This aggressive timeline could not have been met without opportunities for careful planning and the prior existence of a network of experienced, collaborating trial centers. CONCLUSIONS: The means used to accelerate this study timeline were successful and could be used in other urgent situations but the mechanics of collaborative trials must be well rehearsed as a precondition.
Authors: Louise Sigfrid; Katherine Maskell; Peter G Bannister; Sharif A Ismail; Shelui Collinson; Sadie Regmi; Claire Blackmore; Eli Harriss; Kajsa-Stina Longuere; Nina Gobat; Peter Horby; Mike Clarke; Gail Carson Journal: BMC Med Date: 2020-06-25 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: David W Scheifele; Marc Dionne; Brian J Ward; Curtis Cooper; Otto G Vanderkooi; Yan Li; Scott A Halperin Journal: Hum Vaccin Immunother Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 3.452