| Literature DB >> 29895500 |
Paola Russo1, Antonio D Ligsay2, Remigio Olveda3, Seuk Keun Choi4, Deok Ryun Kim5, Ju Yeon Park5, Ju Yeong Park6, Khalid Ali Syed7, Ayan Dey6, Yang Hee Kim8, Sung Hee Lee9, Jayoung Kim10, Yun Chon5, Laura Digilio11, Chan Wha Kim12, Jean-Louis Excler8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To contribute to the global demand for oral cholera vaccine (OCV), the production of Euvichol® was scaled up with elimination of thimerosal. To demonstrate the equivalence of the variations, a study was carried out in the Philippines.Entities:
Keywords: Cholera; Equivalence; Euvichol; Oral cholera vaccine; The Philippines
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29895500 PMCID: PMC6026293 DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.05.102
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Vaccine ISSN: 0264-410X Impact factor: 3.641
Fig. 1Flow Diagram of Participants Disposition (CONSORT flow diagram). Note: d: mITT analysis set [excluded: 3 adults (2 withdrawn by participants’ own will and 1 lost follow-up) and 2 children (withdrawn by participants’ own will) in Test vaccine group, and 1 child (withdrawn by participants’ own will) in Comparator vaccine group], e: PP analysis set [excluded: 5 adults (1 withdrawn by own will, 1 outside visit window, and 3 recruited out of study area) and 8 children (1 withdrawn due to lost to follow-up, 1 missed vaccination due to safety issue, 4 spat out the vaccine, 1 was administered wrong IP, and 1 due to outside visit window) in Test vaccine group; 2 adults (1 missed vaccination due to pregnancy and 1 was recruited out of study area) and 3 children (1 missed vaccination due to SAE and 2 spat out) in Comparator vaccine group].
Baseline characteristics of the study population.
| Demographic Characteristics | Test Group | Comparator Group | Total | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adults cohort | N = 99 | N = 99 | N = 198 | ||
| Gender | Male (%) | 47 (47.5) | 42 (42.4) | 89 (45) | 0.475 |
| Female (%) | 52 (52.5) | 57 (57.6) | 109 (55) | ||
| Age (years) | Mean (SD) | 28.3 (5.9) | 28.3 (6.1) | 28.3 (6) | 0.976 |
| Median (min, max) | 29 (18, 40) | 29 (18, 39) | 29 (18, 40) | ||
| Children cohort | N = 122 | N = 122 | N = 244 | ||
| Gender | Male (%) | 67 (54.9) | 64 (52.5) | 131 (53.7) | 0.700 |
| Female (%) | 55 (45.1) | 58 (47.5) | 113 (46.3) | ||
| Age (years) | Mean (SD) | 8.1 (4.7) | 8.8 (4.9) | 8.4 (4.8) | 0.290 |
| Median (min, max) | 8 (1, 17) | 9 (1, 17) | 9 (1, 17) | ||
Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) and Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) two weeks post second vaccine dose – mITT set.
| Test Group (N = 214) | Comparator Group (N = 219) | Test/Comparator | Adjusted | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All Ages | GMT | 95% CI | GMT | 95% CI | GMR | 95% CI | p-value | GMR | 95% CI |
| O1 Inaba | 1128.10 | (862.49, 1475.52) | 1376.65 | (1108.91, 1709.04) | 0.82 | (0.58, 1.16) | 0.002 | 0.89 | (0.66, 1.20) |
| O1 Ogawa | 1457.06 | (1174.97, 1806.87) | 1552.60 | (1255.50, 1920.00) | 0.94 | (0.69, 1.27) | 0.000 | 0.99 | (0.76, 1.29) |
| O139 | 14.78 | (11.23, 19.46) | 12.42 | (9.43, 16.35) | 1.19 | (0.81, 1.75) | 0.004 | 1.25 | (0.89, 1.75) |
| By Age cohorts | |||||||||
| Test Group (N = 95) | Comparator Group (N = 98) | Test/Comparator | Adjusted | ||||||
| Adults cohort | GMT | 95% CI of GMT | GMT | 95% CI of GMT | GMR | 95% CI of GMR | p-value | GMR | 95% CI of GMR |
| O1 Inaba | 1593.21 | (1140.61, 2225.39) | 1354.52 | (983.88, 1864.77) | 1.18 | (0.74, 1.86) | 0.012 | 1.20 | (0.80, 1.79) |
| O1 Ogawa | 1688.97 | (1258.17, 2267.28) | 1383.56 | (1054.79, 1814.82) | 1.22 | (0.82, 1.82) | 0.008 | 1.10 | (0.79, 1.53) |
| O139 | 11.22 | (7.40, 17.02) | 9.42 | (6.37, 13.91) | 1.19 | (0.68, 2.10) | 0.037 | 1.28 | (0.79, 2.06) |
| Test Group (N = 119) | Comparator Group (N = 121) | Test/Comparator | Adjusted | ||||||
| Children cohort | GMT | 95% CI of GMT | GMT | 95% CI of GMT | GMR | 95% CI of GMR | p-value | GMR | 95% CI of GMR |
| O1 Inaba | 856.37 | (574.19, 1277.24) | 1394.85 | (1035.73, 1878.49) | 0.61 | (0.37, 1.01) | 0.208 | 0.69 | (0.46, 1.05) |
| O1 Ogawa | 1295.00 | (950.28, 1764.77) | 1704.52 | (1240.28, 2342.53) | 0.76 | (0.49, 1.18) | 0.032 | 0.87 | (0.60, 1.27) |
| O139 | 18.42 | (12.77, 26.56) | 15.54 | (10.57, 22.84) | 1.19 | (0.70, 2.01) | 0.026 | 1.22 | (0.76, 1.95) |
The 2 participants (1 adult and 1 child) in Test group and 1 adult in Comparator group who did not have immunogenicity endpoint two weeks post second dose were excluded from the analysis.
The p-value has been derived using Equivalence test with margin [0.5, 2.0]. The equivalence test was conducted by performing two separate tests at 2.5% significance level: (1) for lower bound, GMR < 0.5 versus GMR ≥ 0.5, and (2) for upper bound, GMR > 2.0 versus GMR ≤ 2.0. The overall p-value which is the larger of the two p-values of those tests was presented. If p-value <0.025, the two vaccine groups are equivalent.
Adjusted for baseline titers and study sites in the model and additionally age strata in children cohort.
Fig. 2Plot of geometric mean ratio (GMR) of titers two weeks post second dose (mITT and PP analysis sets).
Seroconversion rate difference two weeks post second vaccine dose – mITT set.
| Test Group (N = 214) | Comparator Group (N = 219) | Test – Comparator | Adjusted | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All ages | Number of seroconverted (%) | 95% CI of seroconverted | Number of seroconverted (%) | 95% CI of seroconverted | Difference (%) | 95% CI of Difference | p-value | Difference (%) | 95% CI of Difference |
| O1 Inaba | 181 (84.6%) | (79.1, 88.8) | 191 (87.2%) | (82.1, 91.0) | −2.6 | (−9.3, 4.0) | 0.000 | −2.5 | (−8.7, 3.8) |
| O1 Ogawa | 192 (89.7%) | (84.9, 93.1) | 200 (91.3%) | (86.9, 94.4) | −1.6 | (−7.3, 4.0) | 0.000 | −2.6 | (−7.9, 2.7) |
| O139 | 121 (56.5%) | (49.8, 63.0) | 114 (52.1%) | (45.5, 58.6) | 4.5 | (−4.9, 13.7) | 0.013 | 4.5 | (−4.3, 13.4) |
| By age cohorts | |||||||||
| Test Group (N = 95) | Comparator Group (N = 98) | Test – Comparator | Adjusted | ||||||
| Adults cohort | # of seroconverted (%) | 95% CI of seroconverted | # of seroconverted (%) | 95% CI of seroconverted | Difference (%) | 95% CI of Difference | p-value | Difference (%) | 95% CI of Difference |
| O1 Inaba | 76 (80.0%) | (70.86, 86.81) | 81 (82.7%) | (74.0, 88.9) | −2.7 | (−13.7, 8.4) | 0.015 | −2.6 | (−13.3, 8.0) |
| O1 Ogawa | 83 (87.4%) | (79.21, 92.62) | 87 (88.8%) | (81.0, 93.6) | −1.4 | (−10.9, 8.0) | 0.003 | −3.5 | (−12.4, 5.3) |
| O139 | 49 (51.6%) | (41.67, 61.37) | 47 (48.0%) | (38.3, 57.7) | 3.6 | (−10.3, 17.4) | 0.055 | 3.9 | (−8.8, 16.5) |
| Test Group (N = 119) | Comparator Group (N = 121) | Test – Comparator | Adjusted | ||||||
| Children cohort | # of seroconverted (%) | 95% CI of seroconverted | # of seroconverted (%) | 95% CI of seroconverted | Difference (%) | 95% CI of Difference | p-value | Difference (%) | 95% CI of Difference |
| O1 Inaba | 105 (88.2%) | (81.2, 92.9) | 110 (90.9%) | (84.5, 94.9) | −2.7 | (−10.7, 5.3) | 0.002 | −2.4 | (−9.8, 5.0) |
| O1 Ogawa | 109 (91.6%) | (85.2, 95.4) | 113 (93.4%) | (87.5, 96.619) | −1.8 | (−8.9, 5.2) | 0.001 | −3.9 | (−11.4, 3.6) |
| O139 | 72 (60.5%) | (51.5, 68.8) | 67 (55.4%) | (46.5, 63.939) | 5.1 | (−7.3, 17.3) | 0.059 | 5.0 | (−6.8, 16.9) |
The 2 participants (1 adult and 1 child) in Test group and 1 adult in Comparator group who did not have immunogenicity endpoint at Visit 3 were excluded from the analysis.
The p-value has been derived using Equivalence test with margin [−15%, +15%]. The equivalence test was conducted by performing two separate tests at 2.5% significance level: (1) for lower bound, Difference <−15% versus Difference ≥−15%, and (2) for upper bound, Difference >+15% versus Difference ≤+15%. The overall p-value which is the higher of the two p-values of those tests was presented. If p-value <0.025, the two vaccine groups are equivalent.
Adjusted for study sites in the model and additionally age strata in all ages combined, and in children cohort when analyzed separately.