Cargando…

Comparison of lyophilized versus liquid modified vaccinia Ankara (MVA) formulations and subcutaneous versus intradermal routes of administration in healthy vaccinia-naïve subjects

BACKGROUND: Modified vaccinia Ankara (MVA) is being developed as a safer smallpox vaccine and is being placed in the US Strategic National Stockpile (SNS) as a liquid formulation for subcutaneous (SC) administration at a dose of 1 × 10(8) TCID(50) in a volume of 0.5 mL. This study compared the safet...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Frey, Sharon E., Wald, Anna, Edupuganti, Srilatha, Jackson, Lisa A., Stapleton, Jack T., Sahly, Hana El, El-Kamary, Samer S., Edwards, Kathryn, Keyserling, Harry, Winokur, Patricia, Keitel, Wendy, Hill, Heather, Goll, Johannes B., Anderson, Edwin L., Graham, Irene L., Johnston, Christine, Mulligan, Mark, Rouphael, Nadine, Atmar, Robert, Patel, Shital, Chen, Wilbur, Kotloff, Karen, Creech, C. Buddy, Chaplin, Paul, Belshe, Robert B.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9533873/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26143613
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.06.075
_version_ 1784802432551747584
author Frey, Sharon E.
Wald, Anna
Edupuganti, Srilatha
Jackson, Lisa A.
Stapleton, Jack T.
Sahly, Hana El
El-Kamary, Samer S.
Edwards, Kathryn
Keyserling, Harry
Winokur, Patricia
Keitel, Wendy
Hill, Heather
Goll, Johannes B.
Anderson, Edwin L.
Graham, Irene L.
Johnston, Christine
Mulligan, Mark
Rouphael, Nadine
Atmar, Robert
Patel, Shital
Chen, Wilbur
Kotloff, Karen
Creech, C. Buddy
Chaplin, Paul
Belshe, Robert B.
author_facet Frey, Sharon E.
Wald, Anna
Edupuganti, Srilatha
Jackson, Lisa A.
Stapleton, Jack T.
Sahly, Hana El
El-Kamary, Samer S.
Edwards, Kathryn
Keyserling, Harry
Winokur, Patricia
Keitel, Wendy
Hill, Heather
Goll, Johannes B.
Anderson, Edwin L.
Graham, Irene L.
Johnston, Christine
Mulligan, Mark
Rouphael, Nadine
Atmar, Robert
Patel, Shital
Chen, Wilbur
Kotloff, Karen
Creech, C. Buddy
Chaplin, Paul
Belshe, Robert B.
author_sort Frey, Sharon E.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Modified vaccinia Ankara (MVA) is being developed as a safer smallpox vaccine and is being placed in the US Strategic National Stockpile (SNS) as a liquid formulation for subcutaneous (SC) administration at a dose of 1 × 10(8) TCID(50) in a volume of 0.5 mL. This study compared the safety and immunogenicity of the standard formulation, dose and route with both a more stable, lyophilized formulation and with an antigen-sparing intradermal (ID) route of administration. METHODS: 524 subjects were randomized to receive either a full dose of Lyophilized-SC, a full dose of Liquid-SC or 20% (2 × 10(7) TCID(50) in 0.1 mL) of a full dose Liquid-ID MVA on Days 0 and 28. Safety and immunogenicity were followed through 180 days post second vaccination. RESULTS: Among the 3 groups, the proportion of subjects with moderate/severe functional local reactions was significantly different (P = 0.0013) between the Lyophilized-SC group (30.3%), the Liquid-SC group (13.8%) and Liquid-ID group (22.0%) only after first vaccination; and for moderate/severe measured erythema and/or induration after any vaccination (P = 0.0001) between the Lyophilized-SC group (58.2%), the Liquid-SC group (58.1%) and the Liquid-ID group (94.8%) and the reactions lasted longer in the Liquid-ID group. In the ID Group, 36.1% of subjects had mild injection site skin discoloration lasting ≥6 months. After second vaccination Day (42–208), geometric mean of peak neutralization titers were 87.8, 49.5 and 59.5 for the Lyophilized-SC, Liquid-SC and Liquid-ID groups, respectively, and the maximum number of responders based on peak titer in each group was 142/145 (97.9%), 142/149 (95.3%) and 138/146 (94.5%), respectively. At 180 days after the second vaccination, geometric mean neutralization titers declined to 11.7, 10.2 and 10.4 with only 54.3%, 39.2% and 35.2% of subjects remaining seropositive for the Lyophilized-SC, Liquid-SC and Liquid-ID groups, respectively. Both the Lyophilized-SC and Liquid-ID groups were considered non-inferior (primary objective) to the Liquid-SC group. CONCLUSIONS: Transitioning to a lyophilized formulation, which has a longer shelf life, will not negatively impact immunogenicity. In a situation where insufficient vaccine is available, ID vaccination could be used, increasing the number of available doses of vaccine in the SNS 5-fold (i.e., from 20 million to 100 million doses).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9533873
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Elsevier Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95338732022-10-07 Comparison of lyophilized versus liquid modified vaccinia Ankara (MVA) formulations and subcutaneous versus intradermal routes of administration in healthy vaccinia-naïve subjects Frey, Sharon E. Wald, Anna Edupuganti, Srilatha Jackson, Lisa A. Stapleton, Jack T. Sahly, Hana El El-Kamary, Samer S. Edwards, Kathryn Keyserling, Harry Winokur, Patricia Keitel, Wendy Hill, Heather Goll, Johannes B. Anderson, Edwin L. Graham, Irene L. Johnston, Christine Mulligan, Mark Rouphael, Nadine Atmar, Robert Patel, Shital Chen, Wilbur Kotloff, Karen Creech, C. Buddy Chaplin, Paul Belshe, Robert B. Vaccine Article BACKGROUND: Modified vaccinia Ankara (MVA) is being developed as a safer smallpox vaccine and is being placed in the US Strategic National Stockpile (SNS) as a liquid formulation for subcutaneous (SC) administration at a dose of 1 × 10(8) TCID(50) in a volume of 0.5 mL. This study compared the safety and immunogenicity of the standard formulation, dose and route with both a more stable, lyophilized formulation and with an antigen-sparing intradermal (ID) route of administration. METHODS: 524 subjects were randomized to receive either a full dose of Lyophilized-SC, a full dose of Liquid-SC or 20% (2 × 10(7) TCID(50) in 0.1 mL) of a full dose Liquid-ID MVA on Days 0 and 28. Safety and immunogenicity were followed through 180 days post second vaccination. RESULTS: Among the 3 groups, the proportion of subjects with moderate/severe functional local reactions was significantly different (P = 0.0013) between the Lyophilized-SC group (30.3%), the Liquid-SC group (13.8%) and Liquid-ID group (22.0%) only after first vaccination; and for moderate/severe measured erythema and/or induration after any vaccination (P = 0.0001) between the Lyophilized-SC group (58.2%), the Liquid-SC group (58.1%) and the Liquid-ID group (94.8%) and the reactions lasted longer in the Liquid-ID group. In the ID Group, 36.1% of subjects had mild injection site skin discoloration lasting ≥6 months. After second vaccination Day (42–208), geometric mean of peak neutralization titers were 87.8, 49.5 and 59.5 for the Lyophilized-SC, Liquid-SC and Liquid-ID groups, respectively, and the maximum number of responders based on peak titer in each group was 142/145 (97.9%), 142/149 (95.3%) and 138/146 (94.5%), respectively. At 180 days after the second vaccination, geometric mean neutralization titers declined to 11.7, 10.2 and 10.4 with only 54.3%, 39.2% and 35.2% of subjects remaining seropositive for the Lyophilized-SC, Liquid-SC and Liquid-ID groups, respectively. Both the Lyophilized-SC and Liquid-ID groups were considered non-inferior (primary objective) to the Liquid-SC group. CONCLUSIONS: Transitioning to a lyophilized formulation, which has a longer shelf life, will not negatively impact immunogenicity. In a situation where insufficient vaccine is available, ID vaccination could be used, increasing the number of available doses of vaccine in the SNS 5-fold (i.e., from 20 million to 100 million doses). Elsevier Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. 2015-09-22 2015-07-02 /pmc/articles/PMC9533873/ /pubmed/26143613 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.06.075 Text en Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Elsevier has created a Monkeypox Information Center in response to the declared public health emergency of international concern, with free information in English on the monkeypox virus. The Monkeypox Information Center is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its monkeypox related research that is available on the Monkeypox Information Center - including this research content - immediately available in publicly funded repositories, with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the Monkeypox Information Center remains active.
spellingShingle Article
Frey, Sharon E.
Wald, Anna
Edupuganti, Srilatha
Jackson, Lisa A.
Stapleton, Jack T.
Sahly, Hana El
El-Kamary, Samer S.
Edwards, Kathryn
Keyserling, Harry
Winokur, Patricia
Keitel, Wendy
Hill, Heather
Goll, Johannes B.
Anderson, Edwin L.
Graham, Irene L.
Johnston, Christine
Mulligan, Mark
Rouphael, Nadine
Atmar, Robert
Patel, Shital
Chen, Wilbur
Kotloff, Karen
Creech, C. Buddy
Chaplin, Paul
Belshe, Robert B.
Comparison of lyophilized versus liquid modified vaccinia Ankara (MVA) formulations and subcutaneous versus intradermal routes of administration in healthy vaccinia-naïve subjects
title Comparison of lyophilized versus liquid modified vaccinia Ankara (MVA) formulations and subcutaneous versus intradermal routes of administration in healthy vaccinia-naïve subjects
title_full Comparison of lyophilized versus liquid modified vaccinia Ankara (MVA) formulations and subcutaneous versus intradermal routes of administration in healthy vaccinia-naïve subjects
title_fullStr Comparison of lyophilized versus liquid modified vaccinia Ankara (MVA) formulations and subcutaneous versus intradermal routes of administration in healthy vaccinia-naïve subjects
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of lyophilized versus liquid modified vaccinia Ankara (MVA) formulations and subcutaneous versus intradermal routes of administration in healthy vaccinia-naïve subjects
title_short Comparison of lyophilized versus liquid modified vaccinia Ankara (MVA) formulations and subcutaneous versus intradermal routes of administration in healthy vaccinia-naïve subjects
title_sort comparison of lyophilized versus liquid modified vaccinia ankara (mva) formulations and subcutaneous versus intradermal routes of administration in healthy vaccinia-naïve subjects
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9533873/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26143613
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.06.075
work_keys_str_mv AT freysharone comparisonoflyophilizedversusliquidmodifiedvacciniaankaramvaformulationsandsubcutaneousversusintradermalroutesofadministrationinhealthyvaccinianaivesubjects
AT waldanna comparisonoflyophilizedversusliquidmodifiedvacciniaankaramvaformulationsandsubcutaneousversusintradermalroutesofadministrationinhealthyvaccinianaivesubjects
AT edupugantisrilatha comparisonoflyophilizedversusliquidmodifiedvacciniaankaramvaformulationsandsubcutaneousversusintradermalroutesofadministrationinhealthyvaccinianaivesubjects
AT jacksonlisaa comparisonoflyophilizedversusliquidmodifiedvacciniaankaramvaformulationsandsubcutaneousversusintradermalroutesofadministrationinhealthyvaccinianaivesubjects
AT stapletonjackt comparisonoflyophilizedversusliquidmodifiedvacciniaankaramvaformulationsandsubcutaneousversusintradermalroutesofadministrationinhealthyvaccinianaivesubjects
AT sahlyhanael comparisonoflyophilizedversusliquidmodifiedvacciniaankaramvaformulationsandsubcutaneousversusintradermalroutesofadministrationinhealthyvaccinianaivesubjects
AT elkamarysamers comparisonoflyophilizedversusliquidmodifiedvacciniaankaramvaformulationsandsubcutaneousversusintradermalroutesofadministrationinhealthyvaccinianaivesubjects
AT edwardskathryn comparisonoflyophilizedversusliquidmodifiedvacciniaankaramvaformulationsandsubcutaneousversusintradermalroutesofadministrationinhealthyvaccinianaivesubjects
AT keyserlingharry comparisonoflyophilizedversusliquidmodifiedvacciniaankaramvaformulationsandsubcutaneousversusintradermalroutesofadministrationinhealthyvaccinianaivesubjects
AT winokurpatricia comparisonoflyophilizedversusliquidmodifiedvacciniaankaramvaformulationsandsubcutaneousversusintradermalroutesofadministrationinhealthyvaccinianaivesubjects
AT keitelwendy comparisonoflyophilizedversusliquidmodifiedvacciniaankaramvaformulationsandsubcutaneousversusintradermalroutesofadministrationinhealthyvaccinianaivesubjects
AT hillheather comparisonoflyophilizedversusliquidmodifiedvacciniaankaramvaformulationsandsubcutaneousversusintradermalroutesofadministrationinhealthyvaccinianaivesubjects
AT golljohannesb comparisonoflyophilizedversusliquidmodifiedvacciniaankaramvaformulationsandsubcutaneousversusintradermalroutesofadministrationinhealthyvaccinianaivesubjects
AT andersonedwinl comparisonoflyophilizedversusliquidmodifiedvacciniaankaramvaformulationsandsubcutaneousversusintradermalroutesofadministrationinhealthyvaccinianaivesubjects
AT grahamirenel comparisonoflyophilizedversusliquidmodifiedvacciniaankaramvaformulationsandsubcutaneousversusintradermalroutesofadministrationinhealthyvaccinianaivesubjects
AT johnstonchristine comparisonoflyophilizedversusliquidmodifiedvacciniaankaramvaformulationsandsubcutaneousversusintradermalroutesofadministrationinhealthyvaccinianaivesubjects
AT mulliganmark comparisonoflyophilizedversusliquidmodifiedvacciniaankaramvaformulationsandsubcutaneousversusintradermalroutesofadministrationinhealthyvaccinianaivesubjects
AT rouphaelnadine comparisonoflyophilizedversusliquidmodifiedvacciniaankaramvaformulationsandsubcutaneousversusintradermalroutesofadministrationinhealthyvaccinianaivesubjects
AT atmarrobert comparisonoflyophilizedversusliquidmodifiedvacciniaankaramvaformulationsandsubcutaneousversusintradermalroutesofadministrationinhealthyvaccinianaivesubjects
AT patelshital comparisonoflyophilizedversusliquidmodifiedvacciniaankaramvaformulationsandsubcutaneousversusintradermalroutesofadministrationinhealthyvaccinianaivesubjects
AT chenwilbur comparisonoflyophilizedversusliquidmodifiedvacciniaankaramvaformulationsandsubcutaneousversusintradermalroutesofadministrationinhealthyvaccinianaivesubjects
AT kotloffkaren comparisonoflyophilizedversusliquidmodifiedvacciniaankaramvaformulationsandsubcutaneousversusintradermalroutesofadministrationinhealthyvaccinianaivesubjects
AT creechcbuddy comparisonoflyophilizedversusliquidmodifiedvacciniaankaramvaformulationsandsubcutaneousversusintradermalroutesofadministrationinhealthyvaccinianaivesubjects
AT chaplinpaul comparisonoflyophilizedversusliquidmodifiedvacciniaankaramvaformulationsandsubcutaneousversusintradermalroutesofadministrationinhealthyvaccinianaivesubjects
AT belsherobertb comparisonoflyophilizedversusliquidmodifiedvacciniaankaramvaformulationsandsubcutaneousversusintradermalroutesofadministrationinhealthyvaccinianaivesubjects