| Literature DB >> 31585725 |
Maria Rosario Capeding1, Edison Alberto1, Arijit Sil2, Tarun Saluja3, Samuel Teshome2, Deok Ryun Kim2, Ju Yeon Park2, Jae Seung Yang2, Suchada Chinaworapong2, Jiwook Park2, Sue-Kyoung Jo2, Yun Chon2, Seon-Young Yang4, Dong Soo Ham4, Ji Hwa Ryu4, Julia Lynch2, Jerome H Kim2, Hun Kim4, Jean-Louis Excler2, T Anh Wartel2, Sushant Sahastrabuddhe2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Typhoid fever remains an important public health problem in developing countries and is endemic in many parts of Asia and Africa where the incidence of disease typically peaks in school-aged children. Age restrictions and other limitations of existing oral live-attenuated typhoid and parenteral Vi polysaccharide vaccines have triggered the development of Vi conjugate vaccines with improved immunological properties, use in younger age range, and longer durability of protection. We present the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity data from a Phase II study after a single dose of Vi polysaccharide conjugated to diphtheria toxoid (Vi-DT) conducted in 6-23-month old Filipino children.Entities:
Keywords: Immunogenicity; Infants; Philippines; Safety; Toddlers; Typhoid conjugate vaccine; Typhoid fever; Vi-DT
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31585725 PMCID: PMC7273193 DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.09.074
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Vaccine ISSN: 0264-410X Impact factor: 3.641
Fig. 1Flow diagram of Participant Disposition (CONSORT flow diagram). Age Strata 1: 6 to less than 9 months; Age Strata 2: 9–12 months; Age Strata 3: 13–23 months.
Demographic characteristics of the study population.
| Characteristics | Vi-DT Group | Placebo Group | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | N = 228 | N = 57 | N = 285 | |
| Gender | Male (%) | 109 (47.8) | 29 (50.9) | 138 (48.42) |
| Female (%) | 119 (52.2) | 28 (49.1) | 147 (51.58) | |
| Age (months) | Mean (SD) | 11.56 (5.45) | 11.35 (5.14) | 11.52 (5.38) |
| Median (min, max) | 9 (6, 23) | 9 (6, 23) | 9 (6, 23) | |
| Gender | Male (%) | 32 (42.1) | 11 (57.9) | 43 (45.26) |
| Female (%) | 44 (57.9) | 8 (42.1) | 52 (54.74) | |
| Age (months) | Mean (SD) | 6.83 (0.87) | 6.79 (0.71) | 6.82 (0.84) |
| Median (min, max) | 7 (6, 8) | 7 (6, 8) | 7 (6, 8) | |
| Gender | Male (%) | 39 (51.3) | 9 (47.4) | 48 (50.53) |
| Female (%) | 37 (48.7) | 10 (52.6) | 47 (49.47) | |
| Age (months) | Mean (SD) | 9.25 (0.64) | 9.42 (0.96) | 9.28 (0.71) |
| Median (min, max) | 9 (8, 12) | 9 (9, 12) | 9 (8, 12) | |
| Gender | Male (%) | 38 (50.0) | 9 (47.4) | 47 (49.47) |
| Female (%) | 38 (50.0) | 10 (52.6) | 48 (50.53) | |
| Age (months) | Mean (SD) | 18.59 (3.24) | 17.84 (3.24) | 18.44 (3.24) |
| Median (min, max) | 19 (13, 23) | 19 (13, 23) | 19 (13, 23) | |
Fig. 2Seroconversion rates as measured by anti-Vi IgG ELISA Response. [Note] Seroconversion rate is proportion of participants who had 4-fold rise in titers compared to baseline (Day 0, Week 0) to post dose. Among all participants the difference in seroconversions post single dose compared to the placebo group was statistically significant (P < 0.0001).
Seroconversion rates as measured by anti-Vi IgG ELISA.
| All Ages: | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Response | Time point | Vi-DT Group | Placebo Group | P-value | |||
| First Dose | Day 0 | 228 | – | 57 | – | – | |
| Week 4 | 228 | 100.0 (98.34, 100.0) | 57 | 7.02 (2.76, 16.70) | <0.0001 | ||
| First Dose | Day 0 | 76 | – | 19 | – | – | |
| Week 4 | 76 | 100.0 (95.19, 100.0) | 19 | 10.53 (2.94, 31.39) | – | ||
| First Dose | Day 0 | 76 | – | 19 | – | – | |
| Week 4 | 76 | 100.0 (95.19, 100.0) | 19 | 5.26 (0.94, 24.64) | – | ||
| First Dose | Day 0 | 76 | – | 19 | – | – | |
| Week 4 | 76 | 100.0 (95.19, 100.0) | 19 | 5.26 (0.94, 24.64) | – | ||
Proportion of participants who had 4-fold rise in titers compared to baseline (Day 0, Week 0) to post dose.
Fig. 3GMT of anti-Vi IgG ELISA response. [Note] Among all participants the difference in GMT comparing Vi-DT to placebo was statistically significant (p < 0.0001).
GMT of anti-Vi IgG ELISA response.
| All Ages: | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Response | Time point | Vi-DT Group | Placebo Group | P-value | |||
| First Dose | Day 0 | 228 | 0.35 (0.30, 0.41) | 57 | 0.43 (0.31, 0.59) | 0.2792 | |
| Week 4 | 228 | 444.38 (400.28, 493.34) | 57 | 0.41 (0.33, 0.51) | <0.0001 | ||
| First Dose | Day 0 | 228 | – | 57 | – | – | |
| Week 4 | 228 | 1272.59 (1077.26, 1503.32) | 57 | 0.97 (0.69, 1.35) | <0.0001 | ||
| First Dose | Day 0 | 76 | 0.31 (0.23, 0.41) | 19 | 0.53 (0.30, 0.93) | – | |
| Week 4 | 76 | 308.80 (268.28, 355.43) | 19 | 0.39 (0.30, 0.51) | |||
| First Dose | Day 0 | 76 | 19 | – | – | ||
| Week 4 | 76 | 1006.84 (753.02, 1346.21) | 19 | 0.74 (0.41, 1.32) | – | ||
| First Dose | Day 0 | 76 | 0.31 (0.24, 0.40) | 19 | 0.46 (0.28, 0.76) | – | |
| Week 4 | 76 | 533.50 (437.10, 651.16) | 19 | 0.51 (0.34, 0.75) | – | ||
| First Dose | Day 0 | 76 | – | 19 | – | – | |
| Week 4 | 76 | 1730.45 (1320.94, 2266.91) | 19 | 1.10 (0.64, 1.89) | – | ||
| First Dose | Day 0 | 76 | 0.45 (0.33, 0.62) | 19 | 0.32 (0.17, 0.60) | – | |
| Week 4 | 76 | 532.69 (444.34, 638.60) | 19 | 0.36 (0.25, 0.51) | – | ||
| First Dose | Day 0 | 76 | – | 19 | – | – | |
| Week 4 | 76 | 1182.89 (872.07, 1604.49) | 19 | 1.12 (0.61, 2.06) | – | ||
Geometric Mean Titers (unit: IU/ml).
Geometric Mean Fold rise from baseline (Day 0) to post dose.
Summary of proportion of Solicited AEs.
| Vi-DT Group | Placebo Group | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Within 7 days after first dose | N | Number of participants (%) | 95% CI | N | Number of participants (%) | 95% CI | P-value |
| All ages | 228 | 59 (25.88%) | (20.63, 31.93) | 57 | 11 (19.30%) | (11.13, 31.34) | 0.295 |
| 6 to < 9 month | 76 | 17 (22.37%) | (14.46, 32.93) | 19 | 4 (21.05%) | (8.51, 43.33) | – |
| 9 to 12 months | 76 | 29 (38.16%) | (28.06, 49.40) | 19 | 5 (26.32%) | (11.81 , 48.79) | – |
| 13 to 23 months | 76 | 13 (17.11%) | (10.28, 27.10) | 19 | 2 (10.53%) | (2.94 , 31.39) | – |
Summary of AEs.
| Within 4 weeks after IP dose (all ages) | Vi-DT Group (N = 228) | Placebo Group (N = 57) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of AEs | Number of Participants (%) | Number of AEs | Number of Participants (%) | ||
| 158 | 59 (25.88%) | 32 | 11 (19.30%) | ||
| Severity: | Mild | 131 | 54 (23.68%) | 28 | 11 (19.30%) |
| Moderate | 26 | 19 (8.33%) | 3 | 2 (3.51%) | |
| Severe | 1 | 1 (0.44%) | 1 | 1 (1.75%) | |
| Potentially life threatening | 0 | 0 (0.00%) | 0 | 0 (0.00%) | |
| Relatedness: | Definitely Related | 17 | 10 (4.39%) | 0 | 0 (0.00%) |
| Probably Related | 64 | 31 (13.60%) | 11 | 5 (8.77%) | |
| Possibly related | 77 | 29 (12.72%) | 21 | 9 (15.79%) | |
| Unlikely related | 0 | 0 (0.00%) | 0 | 0 (0.00%) | |
| Not Related | 0 | 0 (0.00%) | 0 | 0 (0.00%) | |
| 210 | 137 (60.09%) | 72 | 38 (66.67%) | ||
| Severity: | Mild | 201 | 132 (57.89%) | 69 | 38 (66.67%) |
| Moderate | 9 | 8 (3.51%) | 3 | 3 (5.26%) | |
| Severe | 0 | 0 (0.00%) | 0 | 0 (0.00%) | |
| Potentially life threatening | 0 | 0 (0.00%) | 0 | 0 (0.00%) | |
| Relatedness: | Definitely Related | 0 | 0 (0.00%) | 0 | 0 (0.00%) |
| Probably Related | 17 | 15 (6.58%) | 1 | 1 (1.75%) | |
| Possibly related | 38 | 36 (15.79%) | 12 | 10 (17.54%) | |
| Unlikely related | 26 | 23 (10.09%) | 10 | 9 (15.79%) | |
| Not Related | 129 | 94 (41.23%) | 49 | 31 (54.39%) | |
| 1 | 1 (0.44%) | 0 | 0 (0.00%) | ||