Search

Objective: To compare immunological responses of preterm infants to a four-component meningococcal B vaccine (4CMenB; Bexsero) following a 2+1 vs a 3+1 schedule, and to describe reactogenicity of routine vaccines., Design: An open-label, phase IV randomised study conducted across six UK sites., Setting: Neonatal units, postnatal wards, community recruitment following discharge., Participants: 129 preterm infants born at a gestation of <35 weeks (64 in group 1 (2+1), 65 in group 2 (3+1)) were included in the analysis. Analysis was completed for postprimary samples from 125 participants (59 in group 1, 66 in group 2) and for postbooster samples from 118 participants (59 in both groups)., Interventions: Infants randomised to 4CMenB according to a 2+1 or a 3+1 schedule, alongside routine vaccines., Main Outcome Measures: Serum bactericidal antibody (SBA) assays performed at 5, 12 and 13 months of age: geometric mean titres (GMTs) and proportions of infants achieving titres ≥4 compared between groups., Results: There were no significant differences in SBA GMTs between infants receiving a 2+1 compared with a 3+1 schedule following primary or booster vaccination, but a significantly higher proportion of infants had an SBA titre ≥4 against strain NZ98/254 (porin A) at 1 month after primary vaccination using a 3+1 compared with a 2+1 schedule (3+1: 87% (95% CI 76 to 94%), 2+1: 70% (95% CI 56 to 81%), p=0.03).At 12 weeks of age those in the 3+1 group, who received a dose of 4CMenB, had significantly more episodes of fever >38.0°C than those in the 2+1 group who did not (group 2+1: 2% (n=1); 3+1: 14% (n=9); p=0.02)., Conclusions: Both schedules were immunogenic in preterm infants, although a lower response against strain NZ98/254 was seen in the 2+1 schedule; ongoing disease surveillance is important in understanding the clinical significance of this difference., Trial Registration Number: NCT03125616., Competing Interests: Competing interests: JL and RB perform contract research on behalf of UKHSA for GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Pfizer and Sanofi. JC works for an institution which conducts meningococcal vaccine research on behalf of GSK; he receives no personal payment or inducement of any kind. MS was an employee of the University of Oxford and Oxford University Hospitals Foundation NHS trust up until September 2022, and in this role acted as an investigator for clinical research studies funded or otherwise supported by the vaccine manufacturers GSK, Janssen, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novavax and MCM vaccines. He received no personal financial benefit for this work. As of September 2022, MS has been an employee of Moderna UK and holds equity in this company; however, all study activities and data analysis were completed before this date., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To evaluate the safety, tolerability and immunogenicity of an AS03(B)/oil-in-water emulsion-adjuvanted (AS03(B)) split-virion versus non-adjuvanted whole-virion H1N1 influenza vaccine in UK children aged 6 months to 12 years., Design: Multicentre, randomised, head-to-head, open-label trial., Setting: Five UK sites (Oxford, Bristol, Southampton, Exeter and London)., Participants: Children aged 6 months to < 13 years, for whom a parent or guardian had provided written informed consent and who were able to comply with study procedures, were eligible for inclusion., Interventions: A tocopherol/oil-in-water emulsion-adjuvanted (AS03(B)) egg culture-derived split-virion H1N1 vaccine and a non-adjuvanted cell culture-derived whole-virion vaccine, given as a two-dose schedule, 21 days apart, were compared. Participants were grouped into those aged 6 months to < 3 years (younger group) and 3 years to < 13 years of age (older group) and were randomised by study investigators (1 : 1 ratio) to receive one of the two vaccines. Vaccines were administered by intramuscular injection (deltoid or anterior-lateral thigh, depending on age and muscle bulk). Local reactions and systemic symptoms were collected for 1 week post immunisation, and serum was collected at baseline and after the second dose. To assess safety and tolerability, parents or guardians recorded the following information in diary cards from days 0-7 post vaccination: axillary temperature, injection site reactions, solicited and unsolicited systemic symptoms, and medications., Main Outcome Measure: Comparison between vaccines of the percentage of participants demonstrating seroconversion by microneutralisation assay., Results: Among 937 children receiving vaccine, per-protocol seroconversion rates were higher after the AS03(B)-adjuvanted vaccine than after the whole-virion vaccine (98.2% vs 80.1% in children < 3 years, 99.1% vs 95.9% among those aged 3-12 years), as were severe local reactions (3.6% vs 0.0% in those under 5 years, 7.8% vs 1.1% in those aged 5-12 years), irritability in children < 5 years (46.7% vs 32.0%), and muscle pain in older children (28.9% vs 13.2%). The second dose of the adjuvanted vaccine was more reactogenic than the first, especially for fever > 38.0°C in those under 5 years of age (8.9% vs 22.4%)., Conclusion: The adjuvanted vaccine, although reactogenic, was more immunogenic, especially in younger children, indicating the potential for improved immunogenicity of influenza vaccines in this age group., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN89141709.