Safety and Immunogenicity of a ChAd155-Vectored Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) Vaccine in Healthy RSV-Seropositive Children 12–23 Months of Age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Safe and effective respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccines remain elusive. This was a phase I/II trial (NCT02927873) of ChAd155-RSV, an investigational chimpanzee adenovirus-RSV vaccine expressing 3 proteins (fusion, nucleoprotein, and M2-1), administered to 12-23-month-old RSV-seropositive children followed up for 2 years after vaccination. METHODS: Children were randomized to receive 2 doses of ChAd155-RSV or placebo (at a 1:1 ratio) (days 1 and 31). Doses escalated from 0.5 × 1010 (low dose [LD]) to 1.5 × 1010 (medium dose [MD]) to 5 × 1010 (high dose [HD]) viral particles after safety assessment. Study end points included anti-RSV-A neutralizing antibody (Nab) titers through year 1 and safety through year 2. RESULTS: Eighty-two participants were vaccinated, including 11, 14, and 18 in the RSV-LD, RSV-MD, and RSV-HD groups, respectively, and 39 in the placebo groups. Solicited adverse events were similar across groups, except for fever (more frequent with RSV-HD). Most fevers were mild (≤38.5°C). No vaccine-related serious adverse events or RSV-related hospitalizations were reported. There was a dose-dependent increase in RSV-A Nab titers in all groups after dose 1, without further increase after dose 2. RSV-A Nab titers remained higher than prevaccination levels at year 1. CONCLUSIONS: Three ChAd155-RSV dosages were found to be well tolerated. A dose-dependent immune response was observed after dose 1, with no observed booster effect after dose 2. Further investigation of ChAd155-RSV in RSV-seronegative children is warranted. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02927873.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".