-
The New England Journal of Medicine Feb 2024Butantan-Dengue Vaccine (Butantan-DV) is an investigational, single-dose, live, attenuated, tetravalent vaccine against dengue disease, but data on its overall efficacy... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
Butantan-Dengue Vaccine (Butantan-DV) is an investigational, single-dose, live, attenuated, tetravalent vaccine against dengue disease, but data on its overall efficacy are needed.
METHODS
In an ongoing phase 3, double-blind trial in Brazil, we randomly assigned participants to receive Butantan-DV or placebo, with stratification according to age (2 to 6 years, 7 to 17 years, and 18 to 59 years); 5 years of follow-up is planned. The objectives of the trial were to evaluate overall vaccine efficacy against symptomatic, virologically confirmed dengue of any serotype occurring more than 28 days after vaccination (the primary efficacy end point), regardless of serostatus at baseline, and to describe safety up to day 21 (the primary safety end point). Here, vaccine efficacy was assessed on the basis of 2 years of follow-up for each participant, and safety as solicited vaccine-related adverse events reported up to day 21 after injection. Key secondary objectives were to assess vaccine efficacy among participants according to dengue serostatus at baseline and according to the dengue viral serotype; efficacy according to age was also assessed.
RESULTS
Over a 3-year enrollment period, 16,235 participants received either Butantan-DV (10,259 participants) or placebo (5976 participants). The overall 2-year vaccine efficacy was 79.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70.0 to 86.3) - 73.6% (95% CI, 57.6 to 83.7) among participants with no evidence of previous dengue exposure and 89.2% (95% CI, 77.6 to 95.6) among those with a history of exposure. Vaccine efficacy was 80.1% (95% CI, 66.0 to 88.4) among participants 2 to 6 years of age, 77.8% (95% CI, 55.6 to 89.6) among those 7 to 17 years of age, and 90.0% (95% CI, 68.2 to 97.5) among those 18 to 59 years of age. Efficacy against DENV-1 was 89.5% (95% CI, 78.7 to 95.0) and against DENV-2 was 69.6% (95% CI, 50.8 to 81.5). DENV-3 and DENV-4 were not detected during the follow-up period. Solicited systemic vaccine- or placebo-related adverse events within 21 days after injection were more common with Butantan-DV than with placebo (58.3% of participants, vs. 45.6%).
CONCLUSIONS
A single dose of Butantan-DV prevented symptomatic DENV-1 and DENV-2, regardless of dengue serostatus at baseline, through 2 years of follow-up. (Funded by Instituto Butantan and others; DEN-03-IB ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02406729, and WHO ICTRP number, U1111-1168-8679.).
Topics: Adult; Child; Child, Preschool; Humans; Antibodies, Viral; Dengue; Dengue Vaccines; Dengue Virus; Double-Blind Method; Vaccination; Vaccines; Vaccines, Attenuated; Brazil; Vaccine Efficacy; Adolescent; Young Adult; Middle Aged; Follow-Up Studies
PubMed: 38294972
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2301790 -
Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) Oct 2023Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is responsible for a significant proportion of global morbidity and mortality affecting young children and older adults. In the... (Review)
Review
Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is responsible for a significant proportion of global morbidity and mortality affecting young children and older adults. In the aftermath of formalin-inactivated RSV vaccine development, the effort to develop an immunizing agent was carefully guided by epidemiologic and pathophysiological evidence of the virus, including various vaccine technologies. The pipeline of RSV vaccine development includes messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA), live-attenuated (LAV), subunit, and recombinant vector-based vaccine candidates targeting different virus proteins. The availability of vaccine candidates of various technologies enables adjustment to the individualized needs of each vulnerable age group. Arexvy (GSK), followed by Abrysvo (Pfizer), is the first vaccine available for market use as an immunizing agent to prevent lower respiratory tract disease in older adults. Abrysvo is additionally indicated for the passive immunization of infants by maternal administration during pregnancy. This review presents the RSV vaccine pipeline, analyzing the results of clinical trials. The key features of each vaccine technology are also mentioned. Currently, 24 vaccines are in the clinical stage of development, including the 2 licensed vaccines. Research in the field of RSV vaccination, including the pharmacovigilance methods of already approved vaccines, promotes the achievement of successful prevention.
PubMed: 37887775
DOI: 10.3390/pathogens12101259 -
Life Sciences Jan 2024Despite the effectiveness of vaccination in reducing or eradicating diseases caused by pathogens, there remain certain diseases and emerging infections for which... (Review)
Review
Despite the effectiveness of vaccination in reducing or eradicating diseases caused by pathogens, there remain certain diseases and emerging infections for which developing effective vaccines is inherently challenging. Additionally, developing vaccines for individuals with compromised immune systems or underlying medical conditions presents significant difficulties. As well as traditional vaccine different methods such as inactivated or live attenuated vaccines, viral vector vaccines, and subunit vaccines, emerging non-viral vaccine technologies, including viral-like particle and nanoparticle vaccines, DNA/RNA vaccines, and rational vaccine design, offer new strategies to address the existing challenges in vaccine development. These advancements have also greatly enhanced our understanding of vaccine immunology, which will guide future vaccine development for a broad range of diseases, including rapidly emerging infectious diseases like COVID-19 and diseases that have historically proven resistant to vaccination. This review provides a comprehensive assessment of emerging non-viral vaccine production methods and their application in addressing the fundamental and current challenges in vaccine development.
Topics: Humans; Viral Vaccines; Vaccination; COVID-19; Communicable Diseases, Emerging; Vaccines, Subunit; Vaccines, DNA
PubMed: 38070863
DOI: 10.1016/j.lfs.2023.122331 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2023Herpes zoster, commonly known as shingles, is a neurocutaneous disease caused by the reactivation of the virus that causes varicella (chickenpox). After resolution of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Herpes zoster, commonly known as shingles, is a neurocutaneous disease caused by the reactivation of the virus that causes varicella (chickenpox). After resolution of the varicella episode, the virus can remain latent in the sensitive dorsal ganglia of the spine. Years later, with declining immunity, the varicella zoster virus (VZV) can reactivate and cause herpes zoster, an extremely painful condition that can last many weeks or months and significantly compromise the quality of life of the affected person. The natural process of ageing is associated with a reduction in cellular immunity, and this predisposes older adults to herpes zoster. Vaccination with an attenuated form of the VZV activates specific T-cell production avoiding viral reactivation. Two types of herpes zoster vaccines are currently available. One of them is the single-dose live attenuated zoster vaccine (LZV), which contains the same live attenuated virus used in the chickenpox vaccine, but it has over 14-fold more plaque-forming units of the attenuated virus per dose. The other is the recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) which does not contain the live attenuated virus, but rather a small fraction of the virus that cannot replicate but can boost immunogenicity. The recommended schedule for the RZV is two doses two months apart. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2010, and updated in 2012, 2016, and 2019.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of vaccination for preventing herpes zoster in older adults.
SEARCH METHODS
For this 2022 update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2022, Issue 10), MEDLINE (1948 to October 2022), Embase (2010 to October 2022), CINAHL (1981 to October 2022), LILACS (1982 to October 2022), and three trial registries.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included studies involving healthy older adults (mean age 60 years or older). We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing zoster vaccine (any dose and potency) versus any other type of intervention (e.g. varicella vaccine, antiviral medication), placebo, or no intervention (no vaccine). Outcomes were cumulative incidence of herpes zoster, adverse events (death, serious adverse events, systemic reactions, or local reaction occurring at any time after vaccination), and dropouts.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included two new studies involving 1736 participants in this update. The review now includes a total of 26 studies involving 90,259 healthy older adults with a mean age of 63.7 years. Only three studies assessed the cumulative incidence of herpes zoster in groups that received vaccines versus placebo. Most studies were conducted in high-income countries in Europe and North America and included healthy Caucasians (understood to be white participants) aged 60 years or over with no immunosuppressive comorbidities. Two studies were conducted in Japan and one study was conducted in the Republic of Korea. Sixteen studies used LZV. Ten studies tested an RZV. The overall certainty of the evidence was moderate, which indicates that the intervention probably works. Most data for the primary outcome (cumulative incidence of herpes zoster) and secondary outcomes (adverse events and dropouts) came from studies that had a low risk of bias and included a large number of participants. The cumulative incidence of herpes zoster at up to three years of follow-up was lower in participants who received the LZV (one dose subcutaneously) than in those who received placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43 to 0.56; risk difference (RD) 2%; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 50; moderate-certainty evidence) in the largest study, which included 38,546 participants. There were no differences between the vaccinated and placebo groups for serious adverse events (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.21) or deaths (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.11; moderate-certainty evidence). The vaccinated group had a higher cumulative incidence of one or more adverse events (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.38 to 2.11; RD 23%; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 4.3) and injection site adverse events (RR 3.73, 95% CI 1.93 to 7.21; RD 28%; NNTH 3.6; moderate-certainty evidence) of mild to moderate intensity. These data came from four studies with 6980 participants aged 60 years or older. Two studies (29,311 participants for safety evaluation and 22,022 participants for efficacy evaluation) compared RZV (two doses intramuscularly, two months apart) versus placebo. Participants who received the new vaccine had a lower cumulative incidence of herpes zoster at 3.2 years follow-up (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.23; RD 3%; NNTB 33; moderate-certainty evidence), probably indicating a favourable profile of the intervention. There were no differences between the vaccinated and placebo groups in cumulative incidence of serious adverse events (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.03) or deaths (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.04; moderate-certainty evidence). The vaccinated group had a higher cumulative incidence of adverse events, any systemic symptom (RR 2.23, 95% CI 2.12 to 2.34; RD 33%; NNTH 3.0), and any local symptom (RR 6.89, 95% CI 6.37 to 7.45; RD 67%; NNTH 1.5). Although most participants reported that their symptoms were of mild to moderate intensity, the risk of dropouts (participants not returning for the second dose, two months after the first dose) was higher in the vaccine group than in the placebo group (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.39; RD 1%; NNTH 100, moderate-certainty evidence). Only one study reported funding from a non-commercial source (a university research foundation). All other included studies received funding from pharmaceutical companies. We did not conduct subgroup and sensitivity analyses AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: LZV (single dose) and RZV (two doses) are probably effective in preventing shingles disease for at least three years. To date, there are no data to recommend revaccination after receiving the basic schedule for each type of vaccine. Both vaccines produce systemic and injection site adverse events of mild to moderate intensity. The conclusions did not change in relation to the previous version of the systematic review.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Middle Aged; Herpesvirus 3, Human; Herpes Zoster Vaccine; Chickenpox; Herpes Zoster; Vaccines, Attenuated
PubMed: 37781954
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008858.pub5 -
The New England Journal of Medicine Feb 2024
Topics: Humans; Dengue; Dengue Vaccines; Dengue Virus; Vaccines, Attenuated
PubMed: 38294979
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMe2314240 -
Current Opinion in Immunology Oct 2023Whooping cough, caused by Bordetella pertussis, is still a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Current acellular pertussis (aP) vaccines induce potent... (Review)
Review
Whooping cough, caused by Bordetella pertussis, is still a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Current acellular pertussis (aP) vaccines induce potent circulating IgG and prevent severe disease in children/adults and in infants born to vaccinated mothers. However, they do not prevent nasal infection, allowing asymptomatic transmission of B. pertussis. Studies in animal models have demonstrated that, unlike natural infection, immunization with aP vaccines fails to induce secretory immunoglobulin A (IgA) or interleukin-17 (IL-17)-secreting tissue-resident memory CD4 T (T) cells, required for sustained sterilizing immunity in the nasal mucosa. Live-attenuated vaccines or aP vaccines formulated with novel adjuvants that induce respiratory IgA and T cells, especially when delivered by the nasal route, are in development and have considerable promise as next-generation vaccines against pertussis.
Topics: Child; Animals; Humans; Whooping Cough; Pertussis Vaccine; Bordetella pertussis; Immunization; Immunoglobulin A
PubMed: 37307651
DOI: 10.1016/j.coi.2023.102355