BACKGROUND:A 9-valent human papillomavirus (9vHPV) vaccine has recently been reported to be safe and highly efficacious against infection and disease related to HPV6/11/16/18/31/33/45/52/58. We evaluated the immunogenicity and safety of the 9vHPV vaccine administered concomitantly with REPEVAX (diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis and inactivated poliomyelitis vaccine).

METHODS:This open-label, randomized, multicenter study enrolled 1054 males and females ages 11-15 years. Subjects were randomly assigned to each group in a 1:1 ratio. Subjects received a 0.5 mL dose of 9vHPV vaccine intramuscularly at day 1, months 2 and 6 and a 0.5 mL dose of REPEVAX either on day 1 (concomitant vaccination group; n = 526) or at month 1 (nonconcomitant vaccination group, n = 528). Serologic responses for each vaccine component were tested by 1-sided tests of noninferiority between groups. Systemic and injection-site adverse experiences (AEs) and serious AEs were monitored.

RESULTS:Noninferiority of anti-HPV geometric mean titers and seroconversion rates for all 9vHPV antigens were demonstrated for the concomitant group compared with the nonconcomitant group. Seroconversion rates for the 9vHPV vaccine types were≥99.8% in both groups at month 7. For REPEVAX, noninferiority of immune response was established for diphtheria, tetanus, all polio and pertussis antigens for both groups. There were no vaccine-related serious AEs.

CONCLUSION:Overall, concomitant administration of 9vHPV vaccine and REPEVAX was generally well tolerated and did not interfere with the immune response to either vaccine. This strategy would minimize the number of visits required to deliver each vaccine individually.

Revaxis(®) is a vaccine against diphtheria, tetanus and poliomyelitis (dT-IPV). This vaccine should not be administered by the intradermal or intravenous route. Poor injection techniques and related consequences are rare. We report a case of bursitis associated with reactive glenohumeral effusion complicated by bone erosion occurring after injection of the dT-IPV vaccine. A 26 year old patient was admitted for painful left shoulder causing functional impairment. Control magnetic resonance imaging showed bone oedema on the upper outer part of the humeral head, with a slight cortical irregularity, indicating that the vaccine was injected in contact with the bone at this location, causing erosion. Outcome was favourable after intra-articular corticosteroids. Reports of articular or periarticular injury after vaccination are extremely rare, in view of the substantial number of vaccines administeredevery year. The potential complications of vaccination are well known to general practitioners but under-reported in the literature.

Four premature infants developed apnoeas severe enough to warrant resuscitation after immunisation with diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus (DPT), and Haemophilus influenzae B (Hib). One required re-intubation and ventilation. Although apnoeas after immunisation are recognised, they are not well documented. It is time for further research to elucidate the best time to immunise such infants.

BACKGROUND:This study evaluated immunogenicity and safety of the adjuvanted recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) and the reduced-antigen-content diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis vaccine (Tdap) when co-administered in adults aged≥50 years.

METHODS:In this open label, multi-center study (NCT02052596), participants were randomized 1:1 to the Co-Administration group (RZV dose 1 and Tdap at Day 0 [D0], RZV dose 2 at Month 2 [M2]) or Control group (Tdap at D0, RZV dose 1 at M2, RZV dose 2 at M4). Co-primary objectives were evaluation of the vaccine response rate (VRR) to RZV in the Co-Administration group, and demonstration of non-inferiority of the humoral responses to RZV and Tdap in the Co-Administration compared to Control group. Reactogenicity and safety of RZV and Tdap were also assessed.

RESULTS:VRR to RZV was 97.8% in the Co-Administration group. The non-inferiority criterion was met for the humoral response to RZV and for 4 Tdap antigens, but was not met for the Tdap antigen pertactin. Occurrences of solicited, unsolicited and serious adverse events, and potential immune-mediated diseases were similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS:Co-administration of RZV and Tdap did not interfere with the humoral immune response to RZV or 4 of the 5 Tdap antigens. No safety concerns were identified.