1
|
P KK, Chiteti SR, Aileni VK, Babji S, Blackwelder WC, Kumar A, Vagha J, Nayak U, Mitra M, D N, Kar S, Yadav S, Naidu S, Mahantshetti N, Khalatkar V, Mohapatra S, Purthi PK, Sharma P, Kannan A, Dhongade RK, Prasad SD, Ella R, Vadrevu KM. Phase III randomized clinical studies to evaluate the immunogenicity, lot-to-lot consistency, and safety of ROTAVAC® liquid formulations (ROTAVAC 5C & 5D) and non-inferiority comparisons with licensed ROTAVAC® (frozen formulation) in healthy infants. Hum Vaccin Immunother 2023; 19:2278346. [PMID: 37968237 PMCID: PMC10760372 DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2023.2278346] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/08/2023] [Accepted: 10/28/2023] [Indexed: 11/17/2023] Open
Abstract
The WHO pre-qualified rotavirus vaccine, ROTAVAC®, is derived naturally from the neonatal 116E rotavirus strain, and stored at -20°C. As refrigerator storage is preferable, immunogenicity and safety of liquid formulations kept at 2-8°C, having excipients to stabilize the rotavirus, with or without buffers, were compared with ROTAVAC® in different clinical studies. Study-1, the pivotal trial for this entire product development work, was a randomized, single-blind trial with two operationally seamless phases: (i) an exploratory phase involving 675 infants in which two formulations, ROTAVAC 5C (LnHRV-1.5 mL and LnHRV-2.0 mL) containing buffer and excipients to stabilize the virus against gastric acidity and temperature, were compared with ROTAVAC®. As the immune response of ROTAVAC 5C (LnHRV-2.0 mL) was non-inferior to ROTAVAC®, it was selected for (ii) confirmatory phase, involving 1,302 infants randomized 1:1:1:1 to receive three lots of LnHRV-2.0 mL, or ROTAVAC®. Primary objectives were the evaluation of non-inferiority and lot-to-lot consistency. The secondary objectives were to assess the safety and interference with the concomitant pentavalent vaccine. As it was separately established that buffers are not required for ROTAVAC®, in Study-2, the safety and immunogenicity of ROTAVAC 5D® (with excipients) were compared with ROTAVAC® and lot-to-lot consistency was assessed in another study. All lots elicited consistent immune responses, did not interfere with UIP vaccines, and had reactogenicity similar to ROTAVAC®. ROTAVAC 5C and ROTAVAC 5D® were immunogenic and well tolerated as ROTAVAC®. ROTAVAC 5D® had comparable immunogenicity and safety profiles with ROTAVAC® and can be stored at 2-8°C, leading to WHO pre-qualification.Clinical Trials Registration: Clinical Trials Registry of India (CTRI): CTRI/2015/02/005577CTRI/2016/11/007481 and CTRI/2019/03/017934.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Krishna Kumari P
- Medical Affairs Department, Bharat Biotech International Limited, Hyderabad, India
| | | | - Vinay K. Aileni
- Medical Affairs Department, Bharat Biotech International Limited, Hyderabad, India
| | - Sudhir Babji
- Division of Gastrointestinal Sciences, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India
| | | | - Ashok Kumar
- Department of Paediatrics, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India
| | - Jayant Vagha
- Department of Paediatrics, Datta Megha Institute of Medical Sciences, Wardha, India
| | - Uma Nayak
- Department of Paediatrics, GMERS Medical College, Vadodara, India
| | - Monjori Mitra
- Department of Paediatrics, Institute of Child Health, Kolkata, India
| | - Narayanaappa D
- Department of Paediatrics, Jagadguru Shivarathreeshwara Medical College, Mysore, India
| | - Sonali Kar
- Department of Community Medicine, Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar, India
| | - Sangeeta Yadav
- Department of Paediatrics, Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi, India
| | - Swamy Naidu
- Department of Paediatrics, King George Hospital, Vishakapatnam, India
| | - Niranjan Mahantshetti
- Department of Paediatrics, Dr. Prabhakar Kore Medical College & Hospital, Belgaum, India
| | | | | | - P. K. Purthi
- Department of Paediatrics, Sri Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi, India
| | - Pawan Sharma
- Department of Paediatrics, Maharshi Hospital & Research Centre, Jaipur, India
| | - A. Kannan
- Department of Paediatrics, Meenakshi Mission Hospital, Chennai, India
| | | | - Sai D. Prasad
- Medical Affairs Department, Bharat Biotech International Limited, Hyderabad, India
| | - Raches Ella
- Medical Affairs Department, Bharat Biotech International Limited, Hyderabad, India
| | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Ella R, Reddy S, Blackwelder W, Potdar V, Yadav P, Sarangi V, Aileni VK, Kanungo S, Rai S, Reddy P, Verma S, Singh C, Redkar S, Mohapatra S, Pandey A, Ranganadin P, Gumashta R, Multani M, Mohammad S, Bhatt P, Kumari L, Sapkal G, Gupta N, Abraham P, Panda S, Prasad S, Bhargava B, Ella K, Vadrevu KM. Efficacy, safety, and lot-to-lot immunogenicity of an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (BBV152): interim results of a randomised, double-blind, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2021; 398:2173-2184. [PMID: 34774196 PMCID: PMC8584828 DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(21)02000-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 196] [Impact Index Per Article: 65.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/24/2021] [Revised: 08/17/2021] [Accepted: 08/25/2021] [Indexed: 01/19/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND We report the clinical efficacy against COVID-19 infection of BBV152, a whole virion inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine formulated with a toll-like receptor 7/8 agonist molecule adsorbed to alum (Algel-IMDG) in Indian adults. METHODS We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre, phase 3 clinical trial in 25 Indian hospitals or medical clinics to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and immunological lot consistency of BBV152. Adults (age ≥18 years) who were healthy or had stable chronic medical conditions (not an immunocompromising condition or requiring treatment with immunosuppressive therapy) were randomised 1:1 with a computer-generated randomisation scheme (stratified for the presence or absence of chronic conditions) to receive two intramuscular doses of vaccine or placebo administered 4 weeks apart. Participants, investigators, study coordinators, study-related personnel, the sponsor, and nurses who administered the vaccines were masked to treatment group allocation; an unmasked contract research organisation and a masked expert adjudication panel assessed outcomes. The primary outcome was the efficacy of the BBV152 vaccine in preventing a first occurrence of laboratory-confirmed (RT-PCR-positive) symptomatic COVID-19 (any severity), occurring at least 14 days after the second dose in the per-protocol population. We also assessed safety and reactogenicity throughout the duration of the study in all participants who had received at least one dose of vaccine or placebo. This report contains interim results (data cutoff May 17, 2021) regarding immunogenicity and safety outcomes (captured on days 0 to 56) and efficacy results with a median of 99 days for the study population. The trial was registered on the Indian Clinical Trials Registry India, CTRI/2020/11/028976, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04641481 (active, not recruiting). FINDINGS Between Nov 16, 2020, and Jan 7, 2021, we recruited 25 798 participants who were randomly assigned to receive BBV152 or placebo; 24 419 received two doses of BBV152 (n=12 221) or placebo (n=12 198). Efficacy analysis was dependent on having 130 cases of symptomatic COVID-19, which occurred when 16 973 initially seronegative participants had at least 14 days follow-up after the second dose. 24 (0·3%) cases occurred among 8471 vaccine recipients and 106 (1·2%) among 8502 placebo recipients, giving an overall estimated vaccine efficacy of 77·8% (95% CI 65·2-86·4). In the safety population (n=25 753), 5959 adverse events occurred in 3194 participants. BBV152 was well tolerated; the same proportion of participants reported adverse events in the vaccine group (1597 [12·4%] of 12 879) and placebo group (1597 [12·4%] of 12 874), with no clinically significant differences in the distributions of solicited, unsolicited, or serious adverse events between the groups, and no cases of anaphylaxis or vaccine-related deaths. INTERPRETATION BBV152 was highly efficacious against laboratory-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 disease in adults. Vaccination was well tolerated with no safety concerns raised in this interim analysis. FUNDING Bharat Biotech International and Indian Council of Medical Research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Raches Ella
- Bharat Biotech International, Hyderabad, India
| | | | | | - Varsha Potdar
- National Institute of Virology, Indian Council of Medical Research, Pune, India
| | - Pragya Yadav
- National Institute of Virology, Indian Council of Medical Research, Pune, India
| | | | | | - Suman Kanungo
- National Institute of Cholera and Enteric Diseases, Indian Council of Medical Research, Kolkatta, India
| | - Sanjay Rai
- All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
| | | | - Savita Verma
- Pandit Bhagwat Dayal Sharma Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Rohtak, India
| | | | | | | | - Anil Pandey
- ESIC Medical College and Hospital, Faridabad, India
| | | | - Raghavendra Gumashta
- Department of Community Medicine, People's College of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, People's University, Bhopal, India
| | | | | | - Parul Bhatt
- GMERS Medical College and Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad, India
| | | | - Gajanan Sapkal
- National Institute of Virology, Indian Council of Medical Research, Pune, India
| | | | - Priya Abraham
- National Institute of Virology, Indian Council of Medical Research, Pune, India
| | - Samiran Panda
- Indian Council of Medical Research, New Delhi, India
| | - Sai Prasad
- Bharat Biotech International, Hyderabad, India
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|