Immunogenicity and Safety of a Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine Administered as a First Dose to Children Aged 12 to 15 Months: A Phase III, Randomized, Noninferiority, Lot-to-Lot Consistency Study

Measles, Mumps, Rubella Vaccine (PRIORIX): Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices - United States, 2022

Vaccination is the main means for preventing measles, mumps, and rubella virus infections and their related complications (1,2). Achieving and maintaining high 2-dose measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination coverage in the United States has led to elimination of endemic measles in 2000, rubella and congenital rubella syndrome in 2004, and a sharp decrease in mumps cases. However, measles and rubella remain endemic in many countries, leading to importations of cases and occasional local transmission within the United States (3). Reported U.S. mumps cases declined >99% from the prevaccine period (4); however, mumps is endemic worldwide, and since 2006, the number of mumps cases and mumps outbreaks has increased in the United States, with wider geographic spread since 2016 (4). Given the risk for importation of measles and rubella and the resurgence of mumps, maintaining high measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccination coverage is important. Since 1978, only one MMR vaccine, M-M-R II (Merck and Co., Inc.), has been available in the United States. On June 6, 2022, the Food and Drug Administration approved a second MMR vaccine, PRIORIX (GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals), for the prevention of measles, mumps, and rubella in persons aged ≥12 months. The three live attenuated viruses contained in PRIORIX are genetically similar or identical to the corresponding components in M-M-R II (Table) (5-7). On June 23, 2022, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) unanimously recommended PRIORIX as an option to prevent measles, mumps, and rubella according to the existing recommended schedules and for off-label uses (i.e., indications not included in the package insert)* (1,2). ACIP considered PRIORIX to be safe, immunogenic, and noninferior to M-M-R II. Both PRIORIX and M-M-R II are fully interchangeable for all indications for which MMR vaccination is recommended. This report contains ACIP recommendations specific to PRIORIX and supplements the existing ACIP recommendations for MMR use (1,2).

Immunogenicity and safety of the inactivated enterovirus 71 vaccine administered concomitantly with the measles-rubella vaccine in infants aged 8 months in China: A noninferiority randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the immunogenicity and safety of simultaneous administration of the enterovirus 71 (EV71) vaccine with the measles and rubella (MR) combined vaccine.

METHODS

In this phase 4, randomized, open-label and noninferiority study, a total of 680 infants aged 8 months were enrolled and assigned to the simultaneous administration group (infants received the first dose of EV71 vaccine and MR vaccine on Day 0, and the second dose of EV71 vaccine on Day 28), or the separate administration groups (EV71 group: infants received two doses of EV71 vaccine on Day 0 and Day 28, respectively; MR group: infants received MR vaccine on Day 0). Blood sample was obtained on Day 0 and Day 56 to measure antibody responses to each of the antigens in terms of antibody titer or concentration, respectively. Local and systemic adverse reactions (ARs) and other adverse events (AEs) following each dose were monitored and compared among groups.

RESULTS

After vaccination, simultaneous administration group showed similar seroconversion rates of antibody against EV71(97.9%), measles (97.4%), and rubella (94.3%) compared to EV71 group (99.6% for anti-EV71) or MR group (98.4% for anti-measles and 98.9% for anti-rubella, respectively). Noninferiority was demonstrated for all antibodies as the lower limits of two-sided 97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) of the difference in seroconversion rates between simultaneous administration group and separate administration groups were above the predefined margin of -10%. Additionally, the adverse reaction rates were comparable among groups (54.4% in the simultaneous group versus 43.9% in the MR group versus 52.6% in the EV71 group).

CONCLUSION

Antibody responses induced by simultaneous administration of EV71 vaccine with MR vaccine were robust and noninferior to those by single administration alone. Like the previous findings by single administration alone, simultaneous administration demonstrated comparable reactogenicity and safety profiles.

Epidemiological Impact and Cost-Effectiveness of Varicella Vaccination Strategies in the United Kingdom

Background

Despite the burden of varicella, there is no universal varicella vaccination (UVV) program in the United Kingdom (UK) due to concerns that it could increase herpes zoster (HZ) incidence. We assessed the cost-utility of a first-dose monovalent (varicella [V]) or quadrivalent (measles-mumps-rubella-varicella [MMRV]) followed by a second-dose MMRV UVV program. GSK and MSD varicella-containing vaccines (VCVs) were considered.

Methods

Dynamic transmission and cost-effectiveness models were adapted to the UK. Outcomes measured included varicella and HZ incidences and the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICURs) over a lifetime horizon. Payer and societal perspectives were evaluated.

Results

The impact of V-MMRV and MMRV-MMRV UVV programs on varicella incidence was comparable between both VCVs at equilibrium. HZ incidence increased by 1.6%–1.7% over 7 years after UVV start, regardless of the strategies, then decreased by >95% at equilibrium. ICURs ranged from £5665 (100 years) to £18 513 (20 years) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with V-MMRV and from £9220 to £27 101 per QALY gained with MMRV-MMRV (payer perspective). MMRV-MMRV was cost-effective in the medium- and long-terms with GSK VCV and only cost-effective in the long term with MSD VCV at a £20 000 per QALY gained threshold. Without the exogenous boosting hypothesis, HZ incidence decreased through UVV implementation. ICURs were most sensitive to discount rates and MMRV price.

Conclusions

A 2-dose UVV was demonstrated to be a cost-effective alternative to no vaccination. With comparable effectiveness as MSD VCV at lower costs, GSK VCV may offer higher value for the money.

Prevention of measles, mumps and rubella: 40 years of global experience with M-M-RII

Measles, mumps, and rubella are highly contagious diseases that caused significant global mortality and morbidity in the pre-vaccine era. Since its first approval in the United States over 40 years ago, M-M-R_II has been used in >75 countries for prevention of these diseases. The vaccine has been part of immunization programs that have achieved dramatic global reductions in case numbers and mortality rates, as well as the elimination of measles and rubella in several countries and regions. This report summarizes over four decades of global safety, immunogenicity, efficacy, and effectiveness data for the vaccine. We include studies on the use of M-M-R_II in different age groups, concomitant use with other routine childhood vaccines, administration via different routes, persistence of immunity, and vaccine effectiveness during outbreaks of measles and mumps. We conclude that M-M-R_II is well tolerated and has shown consistently high performance during routine use in multiple countries, in randomized controlled trials with diverse designs, and in outbreak settings, including use as measles postexposure prophylaxis. Physicians, parents, and the public can continue to have a high degree of confidence in the use of M-M-R_II as a vital part of global public health programs.

Evaluation of the Safety and Immunogenicity of M-M-RII (Combination Measles-mumps-rubella Vaccine): Clinical Trials of Healthy Children and Adults Published Between 2010 and 2019

BACKGROUND

The safety and immunogenicity of M-M-RII (measles, mumps and rubella virus vaccine live, Merck & Co., Inc., West Point, PA)-the only combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccine licensed for use in the United States-were previously reported in pre- and postlicensure clinical trials conducted from 1988 to 2009. M-M-RII continues to be evaluated as a comparator in clinical trials of other vaccines. Here, we review safety and efficacy data from more recent clinical trials of M-M-RII.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature review of trials using M-M-RII published from 2010 to 2019.

RESULTS

In the 15 studies that met the inclusion criteria, a total of 12,032 subjects were vaccinated: 7667 persons received a first dose only, 2137 participated in 2-dose studies (128 received 1 dose and 2009 received both) and 2063 received a single dose of M-M-RII as their second dose. Dose number was not specified for 165 participants, ≥6 years old, in 2 studies in which a single dose of M-M-RII was administered. Similar to previous reports, M-M-RII was well tolerated and immunogenic when administered alone or concomitantly with other routinely recommended vaccinations. The most common adverse events included transient injection site pain and fever. Serious adverse events were extremely rare, with only 4 probable or potential vaccine-related events reported among the 12,032 participating subjects.

CONCLUSIONS

In trials published from 2010 to 2019, M-M-RII continued to be safe and immunogenic in all age groups studied. These data, along with the results of earlier trials, indicate that the performance of the vaccine has been consistent across more than 30 years of postlicensure studies.

A randomized trial assessing the efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of vaccination with live attenuated varicella zoster virus-containing vaccines: ten-year follow-up in Russian children

In Russia, a universal varicella vaccination (UVV) program has not been implemented, and varicella vaccination coverage is low. We assessed the efficacy, antibody persistence, and safety of one- and two-dose varicella vaccination schedules in Russian children with a ten-year follow-up period, as part of an international phase IIIB, observer-blind, randomized, controlled trial (NCT00226499). Children aged 12-22 months were randomized (3:3:1) to receive two doses of tetravalent measles-mumps-rubella-varicella vaccine (V2 group), one dose trivalent measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine and one dose of varicella vaccine (V1 group), or two doses of MMR vaccine (V0 [control] group), 42 days apart. Main study outcomes were: vaccine efficacy (VE) against confirmed varicella cases, anti-varicella zoster virus (VZV) seropositivity rates and geometric mean concentrations, and reporting of (serious) adverse events ([S]AEs). The total vaccinated cohort in Russia comprised 1000 children; 900 were followed up until study end (year [Y] 10). VE estimates against confirmed varicella (Y10) were 92.4% in the V2 group and 74.7% in the V1 group. Anti-VZV seropositivity rates remained ≥99.4% in the V2 group and ≥89.7% in the V1 group from day 42 post-vaccination 2 until Y10. Occurrence of (un)solicited AEs and SAEs was similar across groups and confirmed the safety profile of the vaccines. No vaccination-related SAEs or deaths were reported. These results are consistent with the global trial results, i.e., the highest VE estimates observed following the two-dose schedule compared to the one-dose schedule. These data may inform decision-making related to potential implementation of a UVV program.

Mumps Outbreaks in Vaccinated Populations-Is It Time to Re-assess the Clinical Efficacy of Vaccines?

History illustrates the remarkable public health impact of mass vaccination, by dramatically improving life expectancy and reducing the burden of infectious diseases and co-morbidities worldwide. It has been perceived that if an individual adhered to the MMR vaccine schedule that immunity to mumps virus (MuV) would be lifelong. Recent mumps outbreaks in individuals who had received two doses of the Measles Mumps Rubella (MMR) vaccine has challenged the efficacy of the MMR vaccine. However, clinical symptoms, complications, viral shedding and transmission associated with mumps infection has been shown to be reduced in vaccinated individuals, demonstrating a benefit of this vaccine. Therefore, the question of what constitutes a good mumps vaccine and how its impact is assessed in this modern era remains to be addressed. Epidemiology of the individuals most affected by the outbreaks (predominantly young adults) and variance in the circulating MuV genotype have been well-described alluding to a collection of influences such as vaccine hesitancy, heterogeneous vaccine uptake, primary, and/or secondary vaccine failures. This review aims to discuss in detail the interplay of factors thought to be contributing to the current mumps outbreaks seen in highly vaccinated populations. In addition, how mumps diagnoses has progressed and impacted the understanding of mumps infection since a mumps vaccine was first developed, the limitations of current laboratory tests in confirming protection in vaccinated individuals and how vaccine effectiveness is quantified are also considered. By highlighting knowledge gaps within this area, this state-of-the-art review proposes a change of perspective regarding the impact of a vaccine in a highly vaccinated population from a clinical, diagnostic and public perspective, highlighting a need for a paradigm shift on what is considered vaccine immunity.