Influenza and other respiratory viruses · 2020
Clinical phase II and III studies of an AS03-adjuvanted H5N1 influenza vaccine produced in an EB66® cell culture platform.
Клиническое исследование II фазыКлиническое исследование III фазыСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Endo Masafumi, Tanishima Mitsuyoshi, Ibaragi Kayo, Hayashida Kenshi, Fukuda Tadashi, Tanabe Tetsuro, Naruse Takeshi, Kino Yoichiro, Ueda Kohji
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: We have developed an AS03-adjuvanted H5N1 influenza vaccine produced in an EB66® cell culture platform (KD-295).
OBJECTIVES: In accordance with Japanese guidelines for development of pandemic prototype vaccines, the phase II study was conducted in a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group comparison study and the phase III study was conducted in an open-label, non-randomized, uncontrolled study.
METHODS: Healthy adult volunteers aged 20 - 64 years enrolled in the phase II and III studies (N = 248 and N = 369) received KD-295 intramuscularly twice with a 21-day interval. After administration, immune response and adverse events were evaluated. In the phase II study, four different vaccine formulations were compared: MA (3.75 μg hemagglutinin [HA] antigen + AS03 adjuvant system), MB (3.75 μg HA + 1/2AS03), HA (7.5 μg HA + AS03), and HB (7.5 μg HA + 1/2AS03). In the phase III study, the MA formulation was further evaluated.
RESULTS: In the phase II study, all four vaccine formulations were well-tolerated and no SAE related to vaccination were observed. The MA formulation was slightly more immunogenic and less reactogenic among the vaccine formulations. Therefore, the MA formulation was selected for the phase III study, and it was well-tolerated and no serious adverse drug reactions were observed. The vaccine fulfilled the three immunogenicity criteria described in the Japanese guidelines.
CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that the MA formulation of KD-295 was well-tolerated and highly immunogenic and it can be considered a useful pandemic and pre-pandemic influenza vaccine.
OBJECTIVES: In accordance with Japanese guidelines for development of pandemic prototype vaccines, the phase II study was conducted in a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group comparison study and the phase III study was conducted in an open-label, non-randomized, uncontrolled study.
METHODS: Healthy adult volunteers aged 20 - 64 years enrolled in the phase II and III studies (N = 248 and N = 369) received KD-295 intramuscularly twice with a 21-day interval. After administration, immune response and adverse events were evaluated. In the phase II study, four different vaccine formulations were compared: MA (3.75 μg hemagglutinin [HA] antigen + AS03 adjuvant system), MB (3.75 μg HA + 1/2AS03), HA (7.5 μg HA + AS03), and HB (7.5 μg HA + 1/2AS03). In the phase III study, the MA formulation was further evaluated.
RESULTS: In the phase II study, all four vaccine formulations were well-tolerated and no SAE related to vaccination were observed. The MA formulation was slightly more immunogenic and less reactogenic among the vaccine formulations. Therefore, the MA formulation was selected for the phase III study, and it was well-tolerated and no serious adverse drug reactions were observed. The vaccine fulfilled the three immunogenicity criteria described in the Japanese guidelines.
CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that the MA formulation of KD-295 was well-tolerated and highly immunogenic and it can be considered a useful pandemic and pre-pandemic influenza vaccine.