Phase I clinical trial shows immunogenicity and safety of Tdcp vaccine in participants aged 6 years and above, indicating its potential effectiveness.
Pertussis remains a significant global public health challenge, particularly in China, where no licensed pertussis-containing vaccines are available for individuals aged 6 years and older. This blind, randomised, and controlled phase I clinical trial evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of the Tetanus, Reduced Diphtheria, and Acellular Pertussis (Five Components) Combined Vaccine, Adsorbed (Tdcp). Participants aged 6 years and above were divided into three age subgroups (6–11, 12–17, and ≥18 years) and randomised to receive Tdcp or control vaccines (PPV23 or DT). Safety endpoints included the incidence of adverse reactions within 30 days post-vaccination, while immunogenicity was assessed through seroconversion rates and geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) of anti-DT, TT, PT, FHA, PRN, and FIM 2&3 antibodies at 30 days post-vaccination. Among 178 participants, the incidence of total adverse reactions in the Tdcp group was 54.62%, primarily local reactions such as pain and itching, with no significant differences compared to controls (p > 0.05). Immunogenicity analysis revealed robust immune responses in the Tdcp groups, with seroconversion rates for pertussis-related antigens exceeding 75% in all age groups. The GMCs for anti-PT antibodies reached 125.60 IU/mL, 150.28 IU/mL, and 131.14 IU/mL in the ≥18 years, 12–17 years, and 6–11 years of Tdcp groups, respectively. Overall, the Tdcp vaccine demonstrated a good safety profile and robust immunogenicity in participants aged 6 years and above. The inclusion of five pertussis antigens, particularly PT, elicited strong immune responses, supporting its potential as an effective booster vaccine for adolescents and adults. Clinical trial registration https://clinicaltrials.gov/ , identifier NCT06056050.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liu et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: