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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |