4.4 Article

From research to licensure and beyond: clinical development of MenB-FHbp, a broadly protective meningococcal B vaccine

期刊

EXPERT REVIEW OF VACCINES
卷 17, 期 6, 页码 461-477

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/14760584.2018.1483726

关键词

Bivalent rLP2086; factor H binding protein; MenB-FHbp; meningococcal serogroup B disease; Trumenba (R); vaccine coverage

资金

  1. Nicole Gudleski O'Regan - Pfizer Inc.
  2. Wellcome Trust
  3. European Union
  4. Pfizer Inc.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Given the characteristics of meningococcal carriage and transmission and the sudden, often severe onset and long-term consequences of disease, vaccination can most effectively provide large-scale control of invasive disease. Six serogroups (A, B, C, W, X, and Y) cause nearly all meningococcal disease globally. Capsular polysaccharide conjugate vaccines can prevent serogroups A, C, W, and Y disease. More recently, recombinant protein vaccines for preventing serogroup B meningococcal (MenB) disease have become available, with a major target of vaccine-induced immune response for both vaccines being bacterial factor H binding protein (FHbp). Importantly, FHbp segregates into only two distinct subfamilies (A [also classified as variants 2 and 3] and B [variant 1]). This review summarizes the complete clinical development program supporting licensure of MenB-FHbp (Trumenba (R), Bivalent rLP2086), the only MenB vaccine containing antigens from both FHbp subfamilies.Areas covered: Eleven published clinical studies assessing MenB-FHbp efficacy and safety among 20,803 adolescents and adults are examined. Particular focus is on the methodology of immunogenicity assessments used as a surrogate for clinical efficacy.Expert commentary: Clinical studies in adolescents and adults consistently demonstrated MenB-FHbp safety and induction of immunologic responses against antigenically and epidemiologically diverse MenB isolates, supporting licensure and immunization recommendations.

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

4.4
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