Efficacy and immunogenicity of single-dose AdVAV intranasal anthrax vaccine compared to anthrax vaccine absorbed in an aerosolized spore rabbit challenge model.

AdVAV is a replication-deficient adenovirus type 5-vectored vaccine expressing the 83-kDa protective antigen (PA83) from Bacillus anthracis that is being developed for the prevention of disease caused by inhalation of aerosolized B. anthracis spores. A noninferiority study comparing the efficacy of AdVAV to the currently licensed Anthrax Vaccine Absorbed (AVA; BioThrax) was performed in New Zealand White rabbits using postchallenge survival as the study endpoint (20% noninferiority margin for survival). Three groups of 32 rabbits were vaccinated with a single intranasal dose of AdVAV (7.5 × 10(7), 1.5 × 10(9), or 3.5 × 10(10) viral particles). Three additional groups of 32 animals received two doses of either intranasal AdVAV (3.5 × 10(10) viral particles) or intramuscular AVA (diluted 1:16 or 1:64) 28 days apart. The placebo group of 16 rabbits received a single intranasal dose of AdVAV formulation buffer. All animals were challenged via the inhalation route with a targeted dose of 200 times the 50% lethal dose (LD50) of aerosolized B. anthracis Ames spores 70 days after the initial vaccination and were followed for 3 weeks. PA83 immunogenicity was evaluated by validated toxin neutralizing antibody and serum anti-PA83 IgG enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs). All animals in the placebo cohort died from the challenge. Three of the four AdVAV dose cohorts tested, including two single-dose cohorts, achieved statistical noninferiority relative to the AVA comparator group, with survival rates between 97% and 100%. Vaccination with AdVAV also produced antibody titers with earlier onset and greater persistence than vaccination with AVA.

Safety and immunogenicity of an influenza vaccine A/H5N1 (A/Vietnam/1194/2004) when coadministered with a heat-labile enterotoxin (LT) adjuvant patch.

BACKGROUND: The use of adjuvants to enhance the immune response to novel pandemic influenza vaccine candidates may overcome the poor immune responses seen in immunologically naïve populations. The confluence of a highly pathogenic H5N1 influenza virus and the widespread absence of pre-existing immunity has driven the search for effective strategies for immunization in the face of a lethal pandemic. The potent adjuvant, heat labile enterotoxin from E. coli (LT), placed over the immunization site in a patch, is a novel adjuvant strategy for immune enhancement, and was evaluated using an H5N1 injectable vaccine. METHODS: In this observer-blind, placebo-controlled clinical study, 500 healthy adults 18-49 years of age were randomized to receive two intramuscular doses of A/Vietnam/1194/2004 A/H5N1 vaccine (5microg, 15microg or 45microg) or placebo (saline) 21 days apart. For each of the influenza vaccine doses, a 50microg LT adjuvant patch was applied over the injection site at either the second or both immunizations and the HI responses (titers) were compared to H5N1 vaccine alone. The study's primary endpoint was safety, and secondary immunogenicity endpoints were evaluated using European (CHMP) licensure criteria. RESULTS: The vaccine was safe and well tolerated, and subjects generally lacked pre-existing H5N1 immunity. The single-dose injection 45microg HA/LT patch regimen met all CHMP licensure criteria, including a 73% seroprotection rate compared to 49% seroprotection without a patch. Significant adjuvant effects were seen at all HA doses on Day 21. By contrast, only modest adjuvant effects were observed with the boosting regimen in subjects first primed with H5N1 alone and given the adjuvant patch only on the second immunization. The two-injection/two-patch 45microg HA regimen achieved significantly higher titers and GMFR compared to injection alone (GMFR 33.1 vs. 16.9, HI 226 vs. 94, p<0.05) and a 94% seroprotection rate. CONCLUSIONS: The LT adjuvant patch placed over the injection site was safe, significantly enhanced the immune response to an H5N1 candidate vaccine, and achieved a 73% seroprotection rate after a single dose. The LT adjuvant patch has more modest benefits in recently primed populations similar to other candidate vaccine adjuvants, but a two-dose patch plus injection regimen resulted in robust HI responses.

Use of a patch containing heat-labile toxin from Escherichia coli against travellers' diarrhoea: a phase II, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled field trial.

BACKGROUND: Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli (ETEC) is a major cause of travellers' diarrhoea. We investigated the rate of diarrhoea attacks, safety, and feasibility of a vaccine containing heat-labile enterotoxin (LT) from ETEC delivered to the skin by patch in travellers to Mexico and Guatemala. METHODS: In this phase II study, healthy adults (aged 18-64 years) who planned to travel to Mexico or Guatemala and had access to a US regional vaccination centre were eligible. A centralised randomisation code was used for allocation, which was masked to participants and site staff. Primary endpoints were to investigate the field rate of ETEC diarrhoea, and to assess the safety of heat-labile toxins from E coli (LT) delivered via patch. Secondary endpoints included vaccine efficacy against travellers' diarrhoea and ETEC. Participants were vaccinated before travel, with two patches given 2-3 weeks apart. Patches contained either 37.5 mug of LT or placebo. Participants tracked stool output on diary cards in country and provided samples for pathogen identification if diarrhoea occurred. Diarrhoea was graded by the number of loose stools in 24 h: mild (three), moderate (four or five), and severe (at least six). Analysis was per protocol. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00516659. FINDINGS: Recruitment closed after 201 participants were assigned patches. 178 individuals received two vaccinations and travelled and 170 were analysed. 24 (22%) of 111 placebo recipients had diarrhoea, of whom 11 (10%) had ETEC diarrhoea. The vaccine was safe and immunogenic. The 59 LT-patch recipients were protected against moderate-to-severe diarrhoea (protective efficacy [PE] 75%, p=0.0070) and severe diarrhoea (PE 84%, p=0.0332). LT-patch recipients who became ill had shorter episodes of diarrhoea (0.5 days vs 2.1 days, p=0.0006) with fewer loose stools (3.7 vs 10.5, p<0.0001) than placebo. INTERPRETATION: Travellers' diarrhoea is a common ailment, with ETEC diarrhoea illness occurring in 10% of cases. The vaccine patch is safe and feasible, with benefits to the rate and severity of travellers' diarrhoea.