1048. Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Phase 2b Multicenter Trial of V160, a Replication-Defective Human Cytomegalovirus (CMV) Vaccine
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Preventing congenital cytomegalovirus infection (CMVi) is an important unmet need. Natural maternal immunity to CMV acquired prior to pregnancy appears to reduce fetal transmission. In a Phase 1 trial, V160, a replication-defective CMV vaccine expressing the pentameric complex, induced humoral and cell-mediated immune (CMI) responses comparable to natural immunity. Methods Healthy, CMV-seronegative women aged 16–35 years were randomized 1:1:1 to receive double-blind V160 in a 3- or 2-dose regimen or placebo. Primary and secondary endpoints were efficacy in reducing the incidence of CMVi with 3-dose or 2-dose regimens of V160 vs placebo, respectively, using a fixed-event design. Monthly urine and saliva samples were collected to identify CMVi by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) with a single positive sample considered evidence of infection. Immunoglobulin G (IgG) binding to glycoprotein B (gB) and CMV-specific neutralizing antibody (NAb) were measured in all participants, and CMI responses were measured in a subset. Injection-site and systemic adverse events (AEs) were collected for 5 days and 14 days, respectively, after each vaccination and serious AEs were collected for the trial duration. Results 2200 women from 7 countries were enrolled (of 7458 screened). Over 80% of participants received all doses, and compliance with saliva and urine samples was > 95%. Vaccine efficacy (VE) of 42.4% (95% CI -13.5, 71.1%) was demonstrated in the 3-dose group vs placebo. In the 2-dose group, VE was -32.0% (95% CI -135.0, 25.0%). Both the quantity and duration of CMV shedding in urine and saliva among cases of CMVi decreased in the 3-dose, but not the 2-dose group vs placebo. Both V160 regimens elicited humoral and CMI responses detected by CMV-specific NAb, gB IgG, and ELISpot, which peaked at Month 7 and continued to be detectable at Month 24. Mild to moderate AEs were more frequently reported in V160 vs placebo recipients, but no vaccine-related serious AEs or deaths were reported. Conclusion V160 was well tolerated and immunogenic, but neither the 3-dose nor 2-dose regimen demonstrated significant efficacy against CMVi as defined in this trial. The quantity and duration of CMV shedding was reduced in the 3-dose group, suggesting V160 may improve immune control of viral replication after CMVi. Disclosures Rituparna Das, MD, Merck & Co, Inc. (Employee) Daniel Blazquez-Gamero, MD, MSD (Other Financial or Material Support, Fees for lectures in educational activities) Soren Gantt, MD, Altona Diagnostics (Research Grant or Support)Merck (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Meridian Biosciences (Research Grant or Support)Moderna (Consultant, Research Grant or Support)VBI Vaccines Inc (Research Grant or Support) Oliver Bautista, PhD, Merck & Co, Inc. (Employee) Karen Beck, RN, BSN, Merck & Co, Inc. (Employee) Anthony Conlon, PhD, Merck & Co, Inc. (Employee) Daniel Rosenbloom, PhD, Merck & Co, Inc. (Employee) Dai Wang, PhD, Merck & Co, Inc. (Employee) Michael Ritter, BA, Merck & Co, Inc. (Employee) Beth Arnold, MS, Merck & Co, Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Paula Annunziato, MD, Merck & Co, Inc. (Employee) Kevin Russell, MD, MTM&H, Merck & Co., Inc. (Employee, Shareholder)
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».