Comparison of intramuscular and subcutaneous administration of a herpes zoster live-attenuated vaccine in adults aged ≥50 years: a randomised non-inferiority clinical trial.

Zostavax(®) is a live, attenuated varicella zoster virus (VZV) vaccine developed specifically for the prevention of HZ and PHN in individuals aged ≥50 years. During the clinical development of Zostavax, which was mainly in the US, the vaccine was administrated by the subcutaneous (SC) route. In Europe, many healthcare professionals prefer administering vaccines by the intramuscular (IM) route. This was an open-label, randomised trial conducted in 354 subjects aged ≥50 years. The primary objectives were to demonstrate that IM administration is both non-inferior to SC administration in terms of 4-week post-vaccination geometric mean titres (GMTs), and elicits an acceptable geometric mean fold-rise (GMFR) of antibody titres measured by glycoprotein enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Pre-specified non-inferiority was set as the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the GMT ratio (IM/SC) being >0.67. An acceptable GMFR for the IM route was pre-specified as the lower bound of its 95% CI being >1.4. Description of the VZV immune response using the interferon-gamma enzyme-linked immunospot (IFN-γ ELISPOT) assay and of the safety were secondary objectives. Participants were randomised to IM or SC administration (1:1). The baseline demographics were comparable between groups; mean age: 62.6 years (range: 50.0-90.5). The primary immunogenicity objectives were met (per protocol analysis): GMT ratio (IM/SC): 1.05 (95% CI: 0.93-1.18); GMFR: 2.7 (2.4-3.0). VZV immune response using IFN-γ ELISPOT were comparable between groups. Frequencies of systemic adverse events were comparable between groups. Injection-site reactions were less frequent with IM than SC route: erythema (15.9% versus 52.5%), pain (25.6% versus 39.5%) and swelling (13.6% versus 37.3%), respectively. In adults aged ≥50 years, IM administration of Zostavax elicited similar immune responses to SC administration and was well tolerated, with fewer injection-site reactions than with SC administration.

RCT Entities:   Population Interventions Outcomes