4.5 Article

Safety and immunogenicity of three different formulations of an adjuvanted varicella-zoster virus subunit candidate vaccine in older adults: A phase II, randomized, controlled study

期刊

VACCINE
卷 32, 期 15, 页码 1745-1753

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.01.019

关键词

Varicella-zoster virus; Herpes zoster; Vaccine; Adjuvant; gE

资金

  1. GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA, Belgium

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: This study investigated the safety and immunogenicity of different formulations and schedules of a candidate subunit herpes zoster vaccine containing varicella-zoster virus glycoprotein E (gE) with or without the adjuvant system ASO1(B). Methods: In this phase II, single-blind, randomized, controlled study, adults aged >= 60 years (N = 714) received one dose of 100 mu g gE/AS01(B), two doses, two months apart, of 25, 50, or 100 mu g gE/AS01(B), or two doses of unadjuvanted 100 mu g gE/saline. Frequencies of CD4(+) T cells expressing >= 2 activation markers following induction with gE were measured by intracellular cytokine staining and serum anti-gE antibody concentrations by ELISA. Results: Frequencies of gE-specific CD4(+) T cells were >3-fold higher after two doses of all gE/AS01(B) formulations than after one dose of 100 mu g gE/AS01(B) or two doses of 100 mu g gE/saline. Frequencies were comparable after two doses of 25, 50, or 100 mu g gE/AS01g. Serum anti-gE antibody concentrations were comparable after two doses of 50 or 100 mu g gE/AS01(B) and higher than in the other groups. Immune responses persisted for at least 36 months. Reactogenicities of all gE/AS01(B) formulations were similar but greater than with gE/saline. Conclusions: The three formulations of gE/AS01(B) were immunogenic and well tolerated in adults aged >= 60 years. Two vaccinations with gE/AS01(B) induced higher immune responses than one and the dose of gE impacted humoral but not cellular immune responses (NCT00434577). (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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