A Phase II, Comparative Study of Seroconversion of Single-Dose and Two-Dose Measles Vaccination in HIV-Infected and HIV-Uninfected Children: A Multicenter Trial of the Pediatric AIDS Clinical Trials Group
Attenuvax
+ M-M-R-II
HIV Infections
+ Measles
See all eligibility criteria
Treatment Study
See protocol details
Summary
To compare measles seroconversion rates (development of antibodies) at 13 months of age in HIV-infected and uninfected children on one of two immunization schedules: attenuated measles/mumps/rubella virus (M-M-R II) vaccine at 12 months versus attenuated measles vaccine (Attenuvax) at 6 months plus M-M-R II vaccine at 12 months. Recommendations for the age at vaccination should balance the need to minimize the risk of morbidity and mortality with the benefit of achieving the highest seroconversion rates. Immunizing a more intact immune system at an earlier stage of HIV infection may in turn achieve better and long-lasting measles protection. This study will help define a more effective measles vaccine regimen for children diagnosed with HIV infection and will provide greater insight into the functional status of the HIV-infected children's humoral immune system. Recommendations for the age at vaccination should balance the need to minimize the risk of morbidity and mortality with the benefit of achieving the highest seroconversion rates. Immunizing a more intact immune system at an earlier stage of HIV infection may in turn achieve better and long-lasting measles protection. This study will help define a more effective measles vaccine regimen for children diagnosed with HIV infection and will provide greater insight into the functional status of the HIV-infected children's humoral immune system. Patients, HIV infected and uninfected, are randomized to one of two attenuated measles vaccine schedules: at 6 and 12 months of age, or at 12 months of age only. Attenuvax is administered as the month 6 vaccine and M-M-R II as the month 12 vaccine. Patients are followed for 24 months after the last vaccination.
Protocol
This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.In this clinical study, participants are placed into groups randomly, like flipping a coin. This ensures that the study is fair and unbiased, making the results more reliable. By assigning participants by chance, researchers can better compare treatments without external influences.
Other Ways to Assign Participants
Non-randomized allocation: Participants are assigned based on specific factors, such as their medical condition or a doctor's decision.
None (Single-arm trial): If the study has only one group, all participants receive the same treatment, and no allocation is needed.
Participants are divided into different groups, each receiving a specific treatment at the same time. This helps researchers compare how well different treatments work against each other.
Other Ways to Assign Treatments
Single-group assignment: Everyone gets the same treatment.
Cross-over assignment: Participants switch between treatments during the study.
Factorial assignment: Participants receive different combinations of treatments.
Sequential assignment: Participants receive treatments one after another in a specific order, possibly based on individual responses.
Other assignment: Treatment assignment does not follow a standard or predefined design.
In a non placebo-controlled study, no participants receive an inert substance (placebo) to compare outcomes. Instead, all participants receive either the experimental treatment or an alternative treatment (often the Standard of Care). This method allows researchers to compare the effects of the experimental treatment with those of a different active intervention, rather than a placebo.
Other Options
Placebo-Controlled: A placebo is used to compare the effects of the experimental treatment with those of an inert substance, isolating the true treatment effect.
Everyone involved in the study knows which treatment is being given. This is typically used when it's not possible or necessary to hide the treatment details from participants or researchers.
Other Ways to Mask Information
Single-blind: Participants do not know which treatment they are receiving, but researchers do.
Double-blind: Neither participants nor researchers know which treatment is given.
Triple-blind: Participants, researchers, and outcome assessors do not know which treatment is given.
Quadruple-blind: Participants, researchers, outcome assessors, and care providers all do not know which treatment is given.
Eligibility
Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria: person's general health condition or prior treatments.Conditions
Criteria
Study Plan
Find out more about all the medication administered in this study, their detailed description and what they involve.are designated in this study