Why the study?
Does an inactivated human enterovirus 71 vaccine improve immunogenicity and safety in healthy infants?
Does an inactivated human enterovirus 71 vaccine improve immunogenicity and safety in healthy infants?
The 400 U dose of the novel inactivated EV71 vaccine demonstrated optimal immunogenicity and safety in healthy infants, supporting its use in phase III trials.
Supports advancing the 400 U EV71 vaccine to phase III; extends RCT immunogenicity data for inactivated vaccines in infants.
BACKGROUND: Vaccination is considered a top priority for the control of human enterovirus 71 (EV71) infection outbreaks. METHODS: On the basis of phase I trial results, we conducted a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial to evaluate the optimal dose, immunogenicity, safety and immune persistence of the vaccine. A total of 480 healthy infants were randomly assigned to receive 2 injections of 100 U of vaccine, 200 U of vaccine, 400 U of vaccine, or placebo. Solicited adverse events (AEs) within 7 days and unsolicited AEs within 28 days after each vaccination were collected for safety evaluation. Blood samples were collected for neutralizing antibody assay. RESULTS: EV71 vaccine was well tolerated, and no dose-related safety concerns were observed. Two doses of the vaccine yielded seropositivity frequencies of 92.3%, 95.9%, and 99.0% (with titers ≥1:8) in the 100 U, 200 U, and 400 U groups, respectively. Geometric mean titers measured by neutralizing antibody assay increased to 60.2 (95% confidence interval [CI], 41.9-86.4), 72.8 (95% CI, 50.8-104.3), and 252.1 (95% CI, 180.8-351.6) for the 100 U, 200 U, and 400 U groups, respectively. The dose-response relationship, with the 400 U dose showing higher immunogenicity than the 100 U and 200 U doses, remained until 13 months after the second vaccination, despite waning antibody levels. CONCLUSIONS: The 400 U dose was recommended as the optimal dose for the phase III trial because of its good safety profile and higher immunogenicity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: