Phase 2b study evaluates immunogenicity and safety of MenABCWY vaccination in healthy adolescents, suggesting flexible dosing.
Background/Objectives: Meningococcal disease is primarily caused by serogroups A, B, C, W, and Y. Current US vaccination recommendations include routine serogroup A/C/W/Y (MenACWY) vaccination (ages 11–12 and 16 years) and a two-dose, 0-, 6-month MenB vaccination series (age 16–23 years) based on shared clinical decision-making. Administration of the first-in-class Pfizer pentavalent MenABCWY vaccine (PenbrayaTM), which received US licensure in 2023 as a two-dose, 0-, 6-month series, is endorsed when the MenACWY and MenB vaccines are recommended at the same visit. This study evaluated the immunogenicity and safety of two extended two-dose schedules of MenABCWY in healthy adolescents. Methods: In this observer-blinded, phase 2b study (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04440176; 19 June 2020), 309 healthy 11- to 14-year-olds were randomized 1:1 to receive a 0-, 36-month or 0-, 12-month Pfizer MenABCWY schedule, which more closely aligns with current US MenACWY vaccination recommendations. Endpoints included serum bactericidal assay using human complement seroprotection rates (titers ≥ 1:8 or ≥1:16, depending on strain), seroresponse rates (≥4-fold increase from baseline titer), and geometric mean titers (GMTs). Safety was also assessed. Results: One month after the second Pfizer MenABCWY dose, serogroup A/B/C/W/Y seroprotection rates were 100% for the 0-, 36-month schedule and 96.6–100% for the 0-, 12-month schedule; seroresponse rates were 100% and 92.9–100%, respectively. GMTs generally trended higher with the 0-, 36-month schedule. Seroprotection rates through 24 months after the second dose of the 0-, 12-month schedule were 44.0–75.0% for serogroup B and 88.9–100% for serogroup A/C/W/Y). No safety issues were identified. Conclusions: These data support Pfizer MenABCWY dosing flexibility and utility within the current or possible future US meningococcal vaccination framework.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jones et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: