No abstract

Introduction:Influenza is a major respiratory viral infection of humans with high mortality and morbidity rates and profound economic impact. Although influenza vaccines are generally updated yearly to match the viruses expected in the coming season, genetic mutation and reassortment can result in unexpected novel strains. Therefore, it is important to develop universal vaccines inducing protective immunity to such strains before they appear. This clinical trial is designed to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of Multimeric-001 (M-001), which contains conserved epitopes of influenza A and B. M-001 is able to induce both humoral and cellular immunity and provides broad strain coverage.Methods:In a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, and controlled phase IIb trial, 222 healthy volunteers aged 18 to 60 years will be randomized into 3 groups (1:1:1) to receive either 2 intramuscular injections of 0.5 mg M-001 (arm 1), 1.0 mg M-001 (arm 2), or saline (arm 3—placebo), before receiving an investigational (whole virus, inactivated, aluminum phosphate gel [AlPO4]-adjuvanted) prepandemic influenza vaccine (H5N1). Primary outcomes are safety and cellular immune responses (cell-mediated immunity [CMI]) induced by M-001, evaluated by multiparametric flow cytometry of intracellular cytokines. The secondary outcome is the serum hemagglutination inhibition (HAI) titer toward the H5N1 vaccine strain. Additionally, exploratory outcomes include evaluation of CMI by quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction of cytokine mRNA, HAI titers toward H5-drifted strains, serum single radial hemolysis titers toward the H5N1 study vaccine, and the association between CMI markers and antibody response.Discussion:There is a need for influenza vaccines that give the population a broader protection against multiple strains of influenza virus. M-001 might be such vaccine which will be tested in this current trial as a standalone vaccine and as a pandemic primer. Both cellular and humoral immune responses will be evaluated.Trial registration:EudraCT number: 2015-001979-46.

Background and ObjectivesQS-21 shows in vitro hemolytic effect and causes side effects in vivo. New saponin adjuvant formulations with better toxicity profiles are needed. This study aims to evaluate the safety and tolerability of QS-21 and the improved saponin adjuvants (ISCOM, ISCOMATRIX and Matrix-M™) from vaccine trials.MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted from MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library and Clinicaltrials.gov. We selected for the meta-analysis randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of vaccines adjuvanted with QS-21, ISCOM, ISCOMATRIX or Matrix-M™, which included a placebo control group and reported safety outcomes. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Jadad scale was used to assess the study quality.ResultsNine RCTs were eligible for the meta-analysis: six trials on QS-21-adjuvanted vaccines and three trials on ISCOMATRIX-adjuvanted, with 907 patients in total. There were no studies on ISCOM or Matrix-M™ adjuvanted vaccines matching the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis identified an increased risk for diarrhea in patients receiving QS21-adjuvanted vaccines (RR 2.55, 95% CI 1.04–6.24). No increase in the incidence of the reported systemic AEs was observed for ISCOMATRIX-adjuvanted vaccines. QS-21- and ISCOMATRIX-adjuvanted vaccines caused a significantly higher incidence of injection site pain (RR 4.11, 95% CI 1.10–15.35 and RR 2.55, 95% CI 1.41–4.59, respectively). ISCOMATRIX-adjuvanted vaccines also increased the incidence of injection site swelling (RR 3.43, 95% CI 1.08–10.97).ConclusionsOur findings suggest that vaccines adjuvanted with either QS-21 or ISCOMATRIX posed no specific safety concern. Furthermore, our results indicate that the use of ISCOMATRIX enables a better systemic tolerability profile when compared to the use of QS-21. However, no better local tolerance was observed for ISCOMATRIX-adjuvanted vaccines in immunized non-healthy subjects. This meta-analysis is limited by the relatively small number of individuals recruited in the included trials, especially in the control groups.

Information about influenza vaccine effectiveness (IVE) is important for vaccine strain selection and immunization policy decisions. The test-negative design (TND) case-control study is commonly used to obtain IVE estimates. However, the definition of the control patients may influence IVE estimates. We have conducted a TND study using the Dutch Sentinel Practices of NIVEL Primary Care Database which includes data from patients who consulted the General Practitioner (GP) for an episode of acute influenza-like illness (ILI) or acute respiratory infection (ARI) with known influenza vaccination status. Cases were patients tested positive for influenza virus. Controls were grouped into those who tested (1) negative for influenza virus (all influenza negative), (2) negative for influenza virus, but positive for respiratory syncytial virus, rhinovirus or enterovirus (non-influenza virus positive), and (3) negative for these four viruses (pan-negative). We estimated the IVE over all epidemic seasons from 2003/2004 through 2013/2014, pooled IVE for influenza vaccine partial/full matched and mismatched seasons and the individual seasons using generalized linear mixed-effect and multiple logistic regression models. The overall IVE adjusted for age, GP ILI/ARI diagnosis, chronic disease and respiratory allergy was 35% (95% CI: 15-48), 64% (95% CI: 49-75) and 21% (95% CI: -1 to 39) for all influenza negative, non-influenza virus positive and pan-negative controls, respectively. In both the main and subgroup analyses IVE estimates were the highest using non-influenza virus positive controls, likely due to limiting inclusion of controls without laboratory-confirmation of a virus causing the respiratory disease.

BackgroundCurrent influenza vaccines, based on antibodies against surface antigens, are unable to provide protection against newly emerging virus strains which differ from the vaccine strains. Therefore the population has to be re-vaccinated annually. It is thus important to develop vaccines which induce protective immunity to a broad spectrum of influenza viruses. This trial is designed to evaluate the immunogenicity and safety of FLU-v, a vaccine composed of four synthetic peptides with conserved epitopes from influenza A and B strains expected to elicit both cell mediated immunity (CMI) and humoral immunity providing protection against a broad spectrum of influenza viruses.MethodsIn a single-center, randomized, double-blind and placebo-controlled phase IIb trial, 222 healthy volunteers aged 18–60 years will be randomized (2:2:1:1) to receive two injections of a suspension of 500 μg FLU-v in saline (arm 1), one dose of emulsified 500 μg FLU-v in Montanide ISA-51 and water for injection (WFI) followed by one saline dose (arm 2), two saline doses (arm 3), or one dose of Montanide ISA-51 and WFI emulsion followed by one saline dose (arm 4). All injections will be given subcutaneously. Primary endpoints are safety and FLU-v induced CMI, evaluated by cytokine production by antigen specific T cell populations (flow-cytometry and ELISA). Secondary outcomes are measurements of antibody responses (ELISA and multiplex), whereas exploratory outcomes include clinical efficacy and additional CMI assays (ELISpot) to show cross-reactivity.DiscussionBroadly protective influenza vaccines able to provide protection against multiple strains of influenza are urgently needed. FLU-v is a promising vaccine which has shown to trigger the cell-mediated immune response. The dosages and formulations tested in this current trial are also estimated to induce antibody response. Therefore, both cellular and humoral immune responses will be evaluated.Trial registrationEudraCT number 2015–001932-38; retrospectively registered clinicaltrials.gov NCT02962908 (November 7th 2016).