BACKGROUND:Enterovirus 71 (EV71) outbreaks are a socioeconomic burden, especially in the western Pacific region. Results of phase 1 clinical trials suggest an EV71 vaccine has a clinically acceptable safety profile and immunogenicity. We aimed to assess the best possible dose and formulation, immunogenicity, and safety profile of this EV71 vaccine in healthy Chinese children. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial was undertaken at one site in Donghai County, Jiangsu Province, China. Eligible participants were healthy boys or girls aged 6–36 months. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1) to receive either 160 U, 320 U, or 640 U alum-adjuvant EV71 vaccine, 640 U adjuvant-free EV71 vaccine, or a placebo (containing alum adjuvant only), according to a blocked randomisation list generated by SAS 9.1. Participants and investigators were masked to the assignment. The primary endpoint was anti-EV71 neutralising antibody geometric mean titres (GMTs) at day 56, analysed according to protocol. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01399853. FINDINGS: We randomly assigned 1200 participants, 240 (120 aged 6–11 months [infants] and 120 aged 12–36 months [children]) of whom were assigned to each dose. 1106 participants completed the study and were included in the according-to-protocol analysis. The main reasons for dropout were withdrawal of consent and refusal to donate a blood sample. Infants who received the 640 U adjuvant vaccine had the highest GMTs on day 56 (742·2 [95% CI 577·3–954·3]), followed by those who received the 320 U formulation (497·9 [383·1–647·0]). For children, those who received the 320 U formulation had the highest GMTs on day 56 (1383·2 [1037·3–1844·5]). Participants who received the vaccine had significantly higher GMTs than did who received placebo (p<0·0001). For the subgroup of participants who were seronegative at baseline, both infants and children who received the 640 U adjuvant vaccine had the highest GMTs on day 56 (522·8 [403·9–676·6] in infants and 708·4 [524·1–957·6] in children), followed by those who received the 320 Uadjuvant vaccine (358·2 [280·5–457·5] in infants and 498·0 [383·4–646·9] in children). 549 (45·8%) of 1200 participants (95 CI 42·9–48·6%) reported at least one injection-site or systemic adverse reaction, but the incidence of adverse reactions did not differ significantly between groups (p=0·36). The 640 U alum-adjuvant vaccine group had a significantly higher incidence of induration than did the 640 U adjuvant-free group (p=0·001). INTERPRETATION:Taking immunogenicity, safety, and production capacity into account, the 320 U alum-adjuvant formulation of the EV71 vaccine is probably the best possible formulation for phase 3 trials. FUNDING: The National Science and Technology Major Project (2011ZX10004-902) of the Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology, China's 12–5 National Major Infectious Disease Program (2012ZX10002-001), and Beijing Vigoo Biological.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Enterovirus 71 (EV71) outbreaks are a socioeconomic burden, especially in the western Pacific region. Results of phase 1 clinical trials suggest an EV71 vaccine has a clinically acceptable safety profile and immunogenicity. We aimed to assess the best possible dose and formulation, immunogenicity, and safety profile of this EV71 vaccine in healthy Chinese children. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial was undertaken at one site in Donghai County, Jiangsu Province, China. Eligible participants were healthy boys or girls aged 6–36 months. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1) to receive either 160 U, 320 U, or 640 U alum-adjuvant EV71 vaccine, 640 U adjuvant-free EV71 vaccine, or a placebo (containing alum adjuvant only), according to a blocked randomisation list generated by SAS 9.1. Participants and investigators were masked to the assignment. The primary endpoint was anti-EV71 neutralising antibody geometric mean titres (GMTs) at day 56, analysed according to protocol. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01399853. FINDINGS: We randomly assigned 1200 participants, 240 (120 aged 6–11 months [infants] and 120 aged 12–36 months [children]) of whom were assigned to each dose. 1106 participants completed the study and were included in the according-to-protocol analysis. The main reasons for dropout were withdrawal of consent and refusal to donate a blood sample. Infants who received the 640 U adjuvant vaccine had the highest GMTs on day 56 (742·2 [95% CI 577·3–954·3]), followed by those who received the 320 U formulation (497·9 [383·1–647·0]). For children, those who received the 320 U formulation had the highest GMTs on day 56 (1383·2 [1037·3–1844·5]). Participants who received the vaccine had significantly higher GMTs than did who received placebo (p<0·0001). For the subgroup of participants who were seronegative at baseline, both infants and children who received the 640 U adjuvant vaccine had the highest GMTs on day 56 (522·8 [403·9–676·6] in infants and 708·4 [524·1–957·6] in children), followed by those who received the 320 U adjuvant vaccine (358·2 [280·5–457·5] in infants and 498·0 [383·4–646·9] in children). 549 (45·8%) of 1200 participants (95 CI 42·9–48·6%) reported at least one injection-site or systemic adverse reaction, but the incidence of adverse reactions did not differ significantly between groups (p=0·36). The 640 U alum-adjuvant vaccine group had a significantly higher incidence of induration than did the 640 U adjuvant-free group (p=0·001). INTERPRETATION: Taking immunogenicity, safety, and production capacity into account, the 320 U alum-adjuvant formulation of the EV71 vaccine is probably the best possible formulation for phase 3 trials. FUNDING: The National Science and Technology Major Project (2011ZX10004-902) of the Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology, China's 12–5 National Major Infectious Disease Program (2012ZX10002-001), and Beijing Vigoo Biological.
Authors: Dingbin Liu; Zhantong Wang; Albert Jin; Xinglu Huang; Xiaolian Sun; Fu Wang; Qiang Yan; Shengxiang Ge; Ningshao Xia; Gang Niu; Gang Liu; A R Hight Walker; Xiaoyuan Chen Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2013-10-23 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: Bingyi Yang; Peng Wu; Joseph T Wu; Eric H Y Lau; Gabriel M Leung; Hongjie Yu; Benjamin J Cowling Journal: Pediatr Infect Dis J Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 2.129
Authors: Hilde M van der Schaar; Pieter Leyssen; Hendrik J Thibaut; Armando de Palma; Lonneke van der Linden; Kjerstin H W Lanke; Céline Lacroix; Erik Verbeken; Katja Conrath; Angus M Macleod; Dale R Mitchell; Nicholas J Palmer; Hervé van de Poël; Martin Andrews; Johan Neyts; Frank J M van Kuppeveld Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2013-07-29 Impact factor: 5.191