This 2 year, prospective, observational study showed that, compared to oral antipsychotics, RLAI was associated with better treatment retention, greater improvement in clinical symptoms and functioning, and greater reduction in hospital stays and days in hospital in patients with schizophrenia. Improved treatment adherence, increased efficacy and reduced hospitalization with RLAI offer the opportunity of substantial therapeutic improvement in schizophrenia.
BackgroundM-M-RTMII (MMRII; Merck & Co) is currently the only measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine licensed in the United States. Another licensed vaccine would reinforce MMR supply. This study assessed the immunogenicity of a candidate vaccine (PriorixTM, GlaxoSmithKline Vaccines [MMR-RIT]) when used as a first dose among eligible children in the United States.MethodsIn this exploratory Phase-2, multicenter, observer-blind study, 1220 healthy subjects aged 12–15 months were randomized (3:3:3:3) and received 1 dose of 1 of 3 MMR-RIT lots with differing mumps virus titers (MMR-RIT-1 [4.8 log10]; MMR-RIT-2 [4.1 log10]; MMR-RIT-3 [3.7 log10] CCID50) or MMRII co-administered with hepatitis A vaccine (HAV), varicella vaccine (VAR) and 7-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV7). Immune response to measles, mumps, and rubella viruses was evaluated at Day 42 post-vaccination. Incidence of solicited injection site, general, and serious adverse events was assessed.ResultsSeroresponse rates for MMR vaccine viral components in MMR-RIT lots were 98.3–99.2% (measles), 89.7–90.7% (mumps), and 97.5–98.8% (rubella), and for MMRII were 99.6%, 91.1%, and 100%, respectively. Immune responses to HAV, VAR, and PCV7 were similar when co-administered with any of the 3 MMR-RIT lots or MMRII. There were no apparent differences in solicited or serious adverse events among the 4 groups.ConclusionsImmune responses were above threshold levels for projected protection against the 3 viruses from MMR-RIT lots with differing mumps virus titers. MMR-RIT had an acceptable safety profile when co-administered with HAV, VAR, and PCV7.Clinical Trials RegistrationNCT00861744; etrack; 111870
PurposeThis study (NCT00751348) evaluated the immunogenicity and safety of a combined measles-mumps-rubella-varicella (MMRV) vaccine compared to co-administration of measles-mumps-rubella and varicella (MMR+V) vaccines in Korean children during their second year of life.Materials and MethodsHealthy children aged 11-24 months received one dose of MMRV or MMR+V. Antibody titers against measles, mumps and rubella were measured using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and against varicella using an immunofluorescence assay. Parents/guardians recorded adverse events in diary cards for up to 43 days post-vaccination. The primary objective was to demonstrate non-inferiority of MMRV to MMR+V for all antigens in terms of seroconversion rates (SCRs), defined as a group difference with a lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI)>-10%.ResultsOf 474 subjects enrolled, 458 (MMRV, 301; MMR+V, 157) were included in the according-to-protocol cohort. For measles (98.0% vs. 99.4%), rubella (99.7% vs. 100%) and varicella (98.9% vs. 100%) SCRs, the lower limits of the 95% CIs for group differences were greater than -10%; however, for mumps SCRs (88.8% vs. 94.2%), it was -10.40%. The primary objective of non-inferiority in mumps SCRs was therefore not met, although the observed group difference in a post-hoc analysis of anti-mumps antibodies using a plaque reduction neutralization assay was 0.39% with a 95% CI lower limit of -4.03%. Adverse events occurred at comparable frequencies for both groups, except for more frequent fever in MMRV recipients.ConclusionBased on the pre-specified non-inferiority criterion, SCRs of the MMRV vaccine were non-inferior to that elicited by MMR+V vaccines for all antigens except mumps.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.