Differences in reactogenicity in infants compared with older age groups may be due to age-related differences in innate immune function. Specifically, studies have shown differences in complement protein concentrations [20] and [21] and the phagocytic activity of neutrophils in infants compared Luminespib cell line with older children [21]. However, although unlikely, the possibility also remains that differences

in reactogenicity in infants may be related to a socio-psychological event that resulted in an increased reporting of fevers in this patient group. Overall, a strength of this study lies in the power of its design to quickly identify safety signals while exposing few subjects to the vaccine. Although the study design was sufficient to quickly determine acceptability of rLP2086 in this patient population, important limitations are that early study termination precluded Epacadostat molecular weight collection of any immunogenicity data and limited safety analysis to only 46 subjects, leaving the possibility that high fever rates were an artifact of small study numbers. Although the rLP2086 vaccine is reactogenic in infants, previous

phase 1 and 2 studies suggest that the rLP2086 vaccine is acceptable in other at-risk age groups including toddlers, children, adolescents, and young adults [10], [12], [13], [14] and [15]. Based on the immunogenicity and tolerability profile observed in these studies, the 120-μg dose was selected for further clinical development. Future studies of bivalent rLP2086 vaccine will aim to find the lower age limit where the vaccine becomes not acceptable. Future studies may also consider alternative

administration protocols. Editorial/medical writing support was provided by Nicole Gudleski O’Regan, PhD, at Complete Healthcare Communications, Inc., and was funded by Pfizer Inc. FMT’s research activities have been supported by grants from Conselleríade Sanidade/Xunta de Galicia (RHI07/2-intensificación actividad investigadora, PS09749 and 10PXIB918184PR), Instituto Carlos III (Intensificación de la actividad investigadora) and Fondo de Investigación Sanitaria (FIS; PI070069/PI1000540) del plan nacional deI+D+I Idoxuridine and ‘fondos FEDER’. Contributors: Other investigators who contributed to this study include A. Carmona (Instituto Hispalense de Pediatria, Seville, Spain), J. Mares (Pediatrics Department De la Costa Brava, Blanes, Spain), J.L. Arimany Montaña (Hospital General de Cataluna, Barcelona, Spain), F. Gimenez Garrido (Hospital Torreccrdenas, Almeria, Spain), A. Concheiro Guisan (Complexo Hospitalario Xeral-Cies de Vigo, Vigo, Spain), J.C. Tejedor (Servicio de Pediatria, Madrid, Spain), J.T. Ramos Amador (Hospital Universitario de Getafe, Madrid, Spain), P. Rojo Conejo (Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Madrid, Spain), L.