4.5 Article

Immunogenicity of the 10-Valent Pneumococcal Non-typeable Haemophilus influenzae Protein D Conjugate Vaccine (PHiD-CV) Compared to the Licensed 7vCRM Vaccine

期刊

PEDIATRIC INFECTIOUS DISEASE JOURNAL
卷 28, 期 4, 页码 S66-S76

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/INF.0b013e318199f8ef

关键词

pneumococcal conjugate vaccine; ELISA; opsonophagocytic activity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The immunogenicity of the 10-valent pneumococcal non-typeable Haemophilus influenzae protein D-conjugate vaccine (PHiD-CV) was assessed and compared with the 7-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (7vCRM). Methods: Healthy subjects (1650) were randomized to be vaccinated with 3 doses of PHiD-CV or 7vCRM (Prevenar(TM)/Prevnar(TM) at 2-3-4 months of age and a fourth booster dose at 12-18 months. Serotype-specific pneumococcal responses (GlaxoSmithKline's ELISA with 22F-inhibition) and opsonophagocytic activity (OPA) were measured I month after primary and booster vaccinations. Results: The primary objective to demonstrate noninferiority of PHiD-CV versus 7vCRM (in terms of percentage of subjects with antibody concentration >= 0.2 mu g/mL) for at least 7 of the 10 vaccine serotypes was reached as noninferiority was demonstrated for 8 serotypes. Although, noninferiority could not be demonstrated for ELISA responses against serotypes 6B and 23F, a post-hoc analysis of the percentage of subjects with OPA titers >= 8 suggested noninferiority for the 7 serotypes common to both vaccines including 613 and 23F. Priming of the immune system against all vaccine serotypes was confirmed by robust increases in ELISA antibody levels (similar to 6.0-17 fold) and OPA titers (similar to 8-93 fold) after a fourth consecutive dose of PHiD-CV. Conclusions: PHiD-CV induces ELISA and functional OPA antibodies for all vaccine serotypes after primary vaccination and is noninferior to 7vCRM in terms of ELISA and/or OPA threshold responses. Effective printing is further indicated by robust booster responses.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据