1. Progress towards a MenABCWY vaccine
Matthew Snape
Associate Professor
NIHR Oxford BRC Consultant in Paediatrics and Vaccinology
Oxford Vaccine Group, Department of Paediatrics, University of Oxford
Jenner Investigator
NIHR Senior Investigator
Director of National Immunisation Schedule Evaluation Consortium (NISEC)
2. Pro’s and Con’s of combined MenABCWY
vaccine vs separate immunisation
• Pro’s
• Potentially
• Simplifies immunisationschedules
• Reduces costs
• could make introduction of MenB into an
adolesecent schedule cost effective?
• Enhances uptake
• Reduces number of injections
• Reduces distress
• Cons
• Potentially
• Reduces flexibility*
• Reduces adaptability tolocal
epidemiology*
• Increases reactogenicity
• Reduces immunogenicity
• Increases risks of interference with
concomitantvaccines
* Dependent on whether MenABCWY would be licensed in addition to, or as a replacement for, existing meningococcalvaccines
Are likely to require a 2 dose schedule, so may not reduce number of immunisation episodes
3. Pfizer Studies combiningrlp-2086 (Trumenba) with MenACWY-CRM (Nimenrix)
Infant study (N = 1325) launchedNov 2020
No OMV - Less likely protective against gonococcus
Clinicaltrials.gov
4. Peterson et al, ID Week 2020
Healthy adolescents, approx50%
previously immunized with
MenACWY
Immunised with:
- Combined rlp-2086 and
MenACWY (MenABCWY) at a
0, 6 month interval
- MenACWY at 0 months and
rlp-2086 at0, 6 months
6. GSK Five studies combining 4CMenB with MenACWY-CRM (Menveo)
Clinicaltrials.gov
5 clinicaltrials
evaluating
MenACWY
+4CMenB
7. Saez-Llorens et al, HVI 2015
Healthy adolescents
Further studies focused on MenACWY + 4CMenB…….
8. Vesikariet al HVI 2021
Healthy adolescentsaged 10 – 18 years
Primary immunisation and 2 years FU
% SBA >= 1:4
Healthy adolescents
Immunised with 4CMenB or
MenABCWY at variable intervals