Cargando…

Safety and immunogenicity of an oral, replicating adenovirus serotype 4 vector vaccine for H5N1 influenza: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1 study

BACKGROUND: Replication-competent virus vector vaccines might have advantages compared with non-replicating vector vaccines. We tested the safety and immunogenicity of an oral adenovirus serotype 4 vector vaccine candidate (Ad4-H5-Vtn) expressing the haemagglutinin from an avian influenza A H5N1 vir...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gurwith, Marc, Lock, Michael, Taylor, Eve M, Ishioka, Glenn, Alexander, Jeff, Mayall, Tim, Ervin, John E, Greenberg, Richard N, Strout, Cynthia, Treanor, John J, Webby, Richard, Wright, Peter F
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier Science ;, The Lancet Pub. Group 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3576519/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23369412
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(12)70345-6
_version_ 1782259865356337152
author Gurwith, Marc
Lock, Michael
Taylor, Eve M
Ishioka, Glenn
Alexander, Jeff
Mayall, Tim
Ervin, John E
Greenberg, Richard N
Strout, Cynthia
Treanor, John J
Webby, Richard
Wright, Peter F
author_facet Gurwith, Marc
Lock, Michael
Taylor, Eve M
Ishioka, Glenn
Alexander, Jeff
Mayall, Tim
Ervin, John E
Greenberg, Richard N
Strout, Cynthia
Treanor, John J
Webby, Richard
Wright, Peter F
author_sort Gurwith, Marc
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Replication-competent virus vector vaccines might have advantages compared with non-replicating vector vaccines. We tested the safety and immunogenicity of an oral adenovirus serotype 4 vector vaccine candidate (Ad4-H5-Vtn) expressing the haemagglutinin from an avian influenza A H5N1 virus. METHODS: We did this phase 1 study at four sites in the USA. We used a computer-generated randomisation list (block size eight, stratified by site) to assign healthy volunteers aged 18–40 years to receive one of five doses of Ad4-H5-Vtn (10(7) viral particles [VP], 10(8) VP, 10(9) VP, 10(10) VP, 10(11) VP) or placebo (3:1). Vaccine or placebo was given on three occasions, about 56 days apart. Participants, investigators, and study-site personnel were masked to assignment throughout the study. Subsequently, volunteers received a boost dose with 90 μg of an inactivated parenteral H5N1 vaccine. Primary immunogenicity endpoints were seroconversion by haemagglutination-inhibition (HAI), defined as a four-times rise compared with baseline titre, and HAI geometric mean titre (GMT). We solicited symptoms of reactogenicity daily for 7 days after each vaccination and recorded symptoms that persisted beyond 7 days as adverse events. Primary analysis was per protocol. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01006798. FINDINGS: We enrolled 166 participants (125 vaccine; 41 placebo) between Oct 19, 2009, and Sept 9, 2010. HAI responses were low: 13 of 123 vaccinees (11%, 95% CI 6–17) and three of 41 placebo recipients (7%, 2–20) seroconverted. HAI GMT was 6 (95% CI 5–7) for vaccinees, and 5 (5–6) for placebo recipients. However, when inactivated H5N1 vaccine became available, one H5N1 boost was offered to all participants. In this substudy, HAI seroconversion occurred in 19 of 19 participants in the 10(11) VP cohort (100%; 95% CI 82–100) and eight of 22 placebo recipients (36%; 17–59); 17 of 19 participants in the 10(11) VP cohort (89%; 67–99) achieved seroprotection compared with four of 22 placebo recipients (18%; 5–40); GMT was 135 (89–205) with 10(11) VP, compared with 13 (7–21) with placebo. The cumulative frequency of abdominal pain, diarrhoea, and nasal congestion after all three vaccinations was significantly higher in vaccinees than placebo recipients (21 [16·8%] of 125 vs one [2·4%] of 41, p=0·017; 24 [19·2%] of 125 vs two [4·9%] of 41, p=0·027; 41 [32·8%] of 125 vs six [14·6%] of 41, p=0·028; respectively). No serious treatment-related adverse events occurred. INTERPRETATION: Oral Ad4 vector priming might enhance the efficacy of poorly immunogenic vaccines such as H5N1. FUNDING: Wellcome Trust Foundation, PaxVax.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3576519
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Elsevier Science ;, The Lancet Pub. Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-35765192013-03-01 Safety and immunogenicity of an oral, replicating adenovirus serotype 4 vector vaccine for H5N1 influenza: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1 study Gurwith, Marc Lock, Michael Taylor, Eve M Ishioka, Glenn Alexander, Jeff Mayall, Tim Ervin, John E Greenberg, Richard N Strout, Cynthia Treanor, John J Webby, Richard Wright, Peter F Lancet Infect Dis Articles BACKGROUND: Replication-competent virus vector vaccines might have advantages compared with non-replicating vector vaccines. We tested the safety and immunogenicity of an oral adenovirus serotype 4 vector vaccine candidate (Ad4-H5-Vtn) expressing the haemagglutinin from an avian influenza A H5N1 virus. METHODS: We did this phase 1 study at four sites in the USA. We used a computer-generated randomisation list (block size eight, stratified by site) to assign healthy volunteers aged 18–40 years to receive one of five doses of Ad4-H5-Vtn (10(7) viral particles [VP], 10(8) VP, 10(9) VP, 10(10) VP, 10(11) VP) or placebo (3:1). Vaccine or placebo was given on three occasions, about 56 days apart. Participants, investigators, and study-site personnel were masked to assignment throughout the study. Subsequently, volunteers received a boost dose with 90 μg of an inactivated parenteral H5N1 vaccine. Primary immunogenicity endpoints were seroconversion by haemagglutination-inhibition (HAI), defined as a four-times rise compared with baseline titre, and HAI geometric mean titre (GMT). We solicited symptoms of reactogenicity daily for 7 days after each vaccination and recorded symptoms that persisted beyond 7 days as adverse events. Primary analysis was per protocol. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01006798. FINDINGS: We enrolled 166 participants (125 vaccine; 41 placebo) between Oct 19, 2009, and Sept 9, 2010. HAI responses were low: 13 of 123 vaccinees (11%, 95% CI 6–17) and three of 41 placebo recipients (7%, 2–20) seroconverted. HAI GMT was 6 (95% CI 5–7) for vaccinees, and 5 (5–6) for placebo recipients. However, when inactivated H5N1 vaccine became available, one H5N1 boost was offered to all participants. In this substudy, HAI seroconversion occurred in 19 of 19 participants in the 10(11) VP cohort (100%; 95% CI 82–100) and eight of 22 placebo recipients (36%; 17–59); 17 of 19 participants in the 10(11) VP cohort (89%; 67–99) achieved seroprotection compared with four of 22 placebo recipients (18%; 5–40); GMT was 135 (89–205) with 10(11) VP, compared with 13 (7–21) with placebo. The cumulative frequency of abdominal pain, diarrhoea, and nasal congestion after all three vaccinations was significantly higher in vaccinees than placebo recipients (21 [16·8%] of 125 vs one [2·4%] of 41, p=0·017; 24 [19·2%] of 125 vs two [4·9%] of 41, p=0·027; 41 [32·8%] of 125 vs six [14·6%] of 41, p=0·028; respectively). No serious treatment-related adverse events occurred. INTERPRETATION: Oral Ad4 vector priming might enhance the efficacy of poorly immunogenic vaccines such as H5N1. FUNDING: Wellcome Trust Foundation, PaxVax. Elsevier Science ;, The Lancet Pub. Group 2013-03 /pmc/articles/PMC3576519/ /pubmed/23369412 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(12)70345-6 Text en © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which allows reusers to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format, so long as attribution is given to the creator. The license allows for commercial use.
spellingShingle Articles
Gurwith, Marc
Lock, Michael
Taylor, Eve M
Ishioka, Glenn
Alexander, Jeff
Mayall, Tim
Ervin, John E
Greenberg, Richard N
Strout, Cynthia
Treanor, John J
Webby, Richard
Wright, Peter F
Safety and immunogenicity of an oral, replicating adenovirus serotype 4 vector vaccine for H5N1 influenza: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1 study
title Safety and immunogenicity of an oral, replicating adenovirus serotype 4 vector vaccine for H5N1 influenza: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1 study
title_full Safety and immunogenicity of an oral, replicating adenovirus serotype 4 vector vaccine for H5N1 influenza: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1 study
title_fullStr Safety and immunogenicity of an oral, replicating adenovirus serotype 4 vector vaccine for H5N1 influenza: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1 study
title_full_unstemmed Safety and immunogenicity of an oral, replicating adenovirus serotype 4 vector vaccine for H5N1 influenza: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1 study
title_short Safety and immunogenicity of an oral, replicating adenovirus serotype 4 vector vaccine for H5N1 influenza: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1 study
title_sort safety and immunogenicity of an oral, replicating adenovirus serotype 4 vector vaccine for h5n1 influenza: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1 study
topic Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3576519/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23369412
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(12)70345-6
work_keys_str_mv AT gurwithmarc safetyandimmunogenicityofanoralreplicatingadenovirusserotype4vectorvaccineforh5n1influenzaarandomiseddoubleblindplacebocontrolledphase1study
AT lockmichael safetyandimmunogenicityofanoralreplicatingadenovirusserotype4vectorvaccineforh5n1influenzaarandomiseddoubleblindplacebocontrolledphase1study
AT taylorevem safetyandimmunogenicityofanoralreplicatingadenovirusserotype4vectorvaccineforh5n1influenzaarandomiseddoubleblindplacebocontrolledphase1study
AT ishiokaglenn safetyandimmunogenicityofanoralreplicatingadenovirusserotype4vectorvaccineforh5n1influenzaarandomiseddoubleblindplacebocontrolledphase1study
AT alexanderjeff safetyandimmunogenicityofanoralreplicatingadenovirusserotype4vectorvaccineforh5n1influenzaarandomiseddoubleblindplacebocontrolledphase1study
AT mayalltim safetyandimmunogenicityofanoralreplicatingadenovirusserotype4vectorvaccineforh5n1influenzaarandomiseddoubleblindplacebocontrolledphase1study
AT ervinjohne safetyandimmunogenicityofanoralreplicatingadenovirusserotype4vectorvaccineforh5n1influenzaarandomiseddoubleblindplacebocontrolledphase1study
AT greenbergrichardn safetyandimmunogenicityofanoralreplicatingadenovirusserotype4vectorvaccineforh5n1influenzaarandomiseddoubleblindplacebocontrolledphase1study
AT stroutcynthia safetyandimmunogenicityofanoralreplicatingadenovirusserotype4vectorvaccineforh5n1influenzaarandomiseddoubleblindplacebocontrolledphase1study
AT treanorjohnj safetyandimmunogenicityofanoralreplicatingadenovirusserotype4vectorvaccineforh5n1influenzaarandomiseddoubleblindplacebocontrolledphase1study
AT webbyrichard safetyandimmunogenicityofanoralreplicatingadenovirusserotype4vectorvaccineforh5n1influenzaarandomiseddoubleblindplacebocontrolledphase1study
AT wrightpeterf safetyandimmunogenicityofanoralreplicatingadenovirusserotype4vectorvaccineforh5n1influenzaarandomiseddoubleblindplacebocontrolledphase1study