4.5 Article

Validation and evaluation of serological correlates of protection for inactivated enterovirus 71 vaccine in children aged 6-35 months

Journal

HUMAN VACCINES & IMMUNOTHERAPEUTICS
Volume 12, Issue 4, Pages 916-921

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2015.1118595

Keywords

correlate of protection; Enterovirus 71 vaccine; Prentice criterion; surrogate endpoints; the scaled logit model; vaccine efficacy trial

Funding

  1. China 12-5 National Major Infectious Disease Programs [2012ZX10004-703, 2012ZX10002-001]
  2. Beijing Vigoo Biological

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: A primary goal of this study was to establish the serological mechanistic correlate of protection (mCoP) for an inactivated Enterovirus 71 (EV71) vaccine.Methods: We used the Prentice criterion framework and scaled logit model to explore the relationship between the neutralizing antibody (NTAb) and EV71-associated disease, and to build a protection curve for estimating the efficacy of EV71 vaccine. Data of NTAb at day 56 post-vaccination and the occurrence of EV71-associated disease during a 12-month follow-up period were collected from a phase 3 efficacy trial of EV71 vaccine in this study.Results: NTAb at day 56 post-vaccination in participants met the Prentice criterion framework. According to the protection curve, the antibody levels of 14.7, 27.8, 55.7, 129.0 and 459.4 (U/mL) were associated with 50%, 60%, 70%, 80% and 90% clinical protection rate, respectively. Vaccine efficacy predicted by the model was 81.5%, which was very similar to the actual vaccine efficacy of 80.4% (95% CI, 58.2, 90.8) observed in the phase 3 trial.Conclusions: NTAb titers post-vaccination can be validated as mCoP for evaluating the efficacy of an inactivated enterovirus 71 vaccine, with a titers of 14.7 (U/ml) as a surrogate associated with the protection of 50% against EV71-associated disease.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available