Safety and immunogenicity of investigational seasonal influenza hemagglutinin DNA vaccine followed by trivalent inactivated vaccine administered intradermally or intramuscularly in healthy adults: An open-label randomized phase 1 clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Seasonal influenza results in significant morbidity and mortality worldwide, but the currently licensed inactivated vaccines generally have low vaccine efficacies and could be improved. In this phase 1 clinical trial, we compared seasonal influenza vaccine regimens with different priming strategies, prime-boost intervals, and administration routes to determine the impact of these variables on the resulting antibody response. METHODS: Between August 17, 2012 and January 25, 2013, four sites enrolled healthy adults 18-70 years of age. Subjects were randomized to receive one of the following vaccination regimens: trivalent hemagglutinin (HA) DNA prime followed by trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV3) boost with a 3.5 month interval (DNA-IIV3), IIV3 prime followed by IIV3 boost with a 10 month interval (IIV3-IIV3), or concurrent DNA and IIV3 prime followed by IIV3 boost with a 10 month interval (DNA/IIV3-IIV3). Each regimen was additionally stratified by an IIV3 administration route of either intramuscular (IM) or intradermal (ID). DNA vaccines were administered by a needle-free jet injector (Biojector). Study objectives included evaluating the safety and tolerability of each regimen and measuring the antibody response by hemagglutination inhibition (HAI). RESULTS: Three hundred and sixteen subjects enrolled. Local reactogenicity was mild to moderate in severity, with higher frequencies recorded following DNA vaccine administered by Biojector compared to IIV3 by either route (p <0.02 for pain, swelling, and redness) and following IIV3 by ID route compared to IM route (p <0.001 for swelling and redness). Systemic reactogenicity was similar between regimens. Though no overall differences were observed between regimens, the highest titers post boost were observed in the DNA-IIV3 group by ID route and in the IIV3-IIV3 group by IM route. CONCLUSIONS: All vaccination regimens were found to be safe and tolerable. While there were no overall differences between regimens, the DNA-IIV3 group by ID route, and the IIV3-IIV3 group by IM route, showed higher responses compared to the other same-route regimens.

DNA vaccine priming for seasonal influenza vaccine in children and adolescents 6 to 17 years of age: A phase 1 randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Children are susceptible to severe influenza infections and facilitate community transmission. One potential strategy to improve vaccine immunogenicity in children against seasonal influenza involves a trivalent hemagglutinin DNA prime-trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV3) boost regimen. METHODS: Sites enrolled adolescents, followed by younger children, to receive DNA prime (1 mg or 4 mg) intramuscularly by needle-free jet injector (Biojector), followed by split virus 2012/13 seasonal IIV3 boost by needle and syringe approximately 18 weeks later. A comparator group received IIV3 prime and boost at similar intervals. Primary study objectives included evaluation of the safety and tolerability of the vaccine regimens, with secondary objectives of measuring antibody responses at four weeks post boost by hemagglutination inhibition (HAI) and neutralization assays. RESULTS: Seventy-five children ≥6 to ≤17 years old enrolled. Local reactogenicity was higher after DNA prime compared to IIV3 prime (p<0.001 for pain/tenderness, redness, or swelling), but symptoms were mild to moderate in severity. Systemic reactogenicity was similar between vaccines. Overall, antibody responses were similar among groups, although HAI antibodies revealed a trend towards higher responses following 4 mg DNA-IIV3 compared to IIV3-IIV3. The fold increase of HAI antibodies to A/California/07/2009 [A(H1N1)pdm09] was significantly greater following 4 mg DNA-IIV3 (10.12 fold, 5.60-18.27 95%CI) compared to IIV3-IIV3 (3.86 fold, 2.32-6.44 95%CI). Similar neutralizing titers were observed between regimens, with a trend towards increased response frequencies in 4 mg DNA-IIV3. However, significant differences in fold increase, reported as geometric mean fold ratios, were detected against the H1N1 viruses within the neutralization panel: A/New Caledonia/20/1999 (1.41 fold, 1.10-1.81 95%CI) and A/South Carolina/1/1918 (1.55 fold, 1.27-1.89 95%CI). CONCLUSIONS: In this first pediatric DNA vaccine study conducted in the U.S., the DNA prime-IIV3 boost regimen was safe and well tolerated. In children, the 4 mg DNA-IIV3 regimen resulted in antibody responses comparable to the IIV3-IIV3 regimen.

An avian influenza H7 DNA priming vaccine is safe and immunogenic in a randomized phase I clinical trial.

A novel avian influenza subtype, A/H7N9, emerged in 2013 and represents a public health threat with pandemic potential. We have previously shown that DNA vaccine priming increases the magnitude and quality of antibody responses to H5N1 monovalent inactivated boost. We now report the safety and immunogenicity of a H7 DNA-H7N9 monovalent inactivated vaccine prime-boost regimen. In this Phase 1, open label, randomized clinical trial, we evaluated three H7N9 vaccination regimens in healthy adults, with a prime-boost interval of 16 weeks. Group 1 received H7 DNA vaccine prime and H7N9 monovalent inactivated vaccine boost. Group 2 received H7 DNA and H7N9 monovalent inactivated vaccine as a prime and H7N9 monovalent inactivated vaccine as a boost. Group 3 received H7N9 monovalent inactivated vaccine in a homologous prime-boost regimen. Overall, 30 individuals between 20 to 60 years old enrolled and 28 completed both vaccinations. All injections were well tolerated with no serious adverse events. 2 weeks post-boost, 50% of Group 1 and 33% of Group 2 achieved a HAI titer ≥1:40 compared with 11% of Group 3. Also, at least a fourfold increase in neutralizing antibody responses was seen in 90% of Group 1, 100% of Group 2, and 78% of Group 3 subjects. Peak neutralizing antibody geometric mean titers were significantly greater for Group 1 (GMT = 440.61, p < 0.05) and Group 2 (GMT = 331, p = 0.02) when compared with Group 3 (GMT = 86.11). A novel H7 DNA vaccine was safe, well-tolerated, and immunogenic when boosted with H7N9 monovalent inactivated vaccine, while priming for higher HAI and neutralizing antibody titers than H7N9 monovalent inactivated vaccine alone.

Attenuated PfSPZ Vaccine induces strain-transcending T cells and durable protection against heterologous controlled human malaria infection.

A live-attenuated malaria vaccine, Plasmodium falciparum sporozoite vaccine (PfSPZ Vaccine), confers sterile protection against controlled human malaria infection (CHMI) with Plasmodium falciparum (Pf) parasites homologous to the vaccine strain up to 14 mo after final vaccination. No injectable malaria vaccine has demonstrated long-term protection against CHMI using Pf parasites heterologous to the vaccine strain. Here, we conducted an open-label trial with PfSPZ Vaccine at a dose of 9.0 × 105 PfSPZ administered i.v. three times at 8-wk intervals to 15 malaria-naive adults. After CHMI with homologous Pf parasites 19 wk after final immunization, nine (64%) of 14 (95% CI, 35-87%) vaccinated volunteers remained without parasitemia compared with none of six nonvaccinated controls (P = 0.012). Of the nine nonparasitemic subjects, six underwent repeat CHMI with heterologous Pf7G8 parasites 33 wk after final immunization. Five (83%) of six (95% CI, 36-99%) remained without parasitemia compared with none of six nonvaccinated controls. PfSPZ-specific T-cell and antibody responses were detected in all vaccine recipients. Cytokine production by T cells from vaccinated subjects after in vitro stimulation with homologous (NF54) or heterologous (7G8) PfSPZ were highly correlated. Interestingly, PfSPZ-specific T-cell responses in the blood peaked after the first immunization and were not enhanced by subsequent immunizations. Collectively, these data suggest durable protection against homologous and heterologous Pf parasites can be achieved with PfSPZ Vaccine. Ongoing studies will determine whether protective efficacy can be enhanced by additional alterations in the vaccine dose and number of immunizations.

Chimpanzee Adenovirus Vector Ebola Vaccine.

BACKGROUND: The unprecedented 2014 epidemic of Ebola virus disease (EVD) prompted an international response to accelerate the availability of a preventive vaccine. A replication-defective recombinant chimpanzee adenovirus type 3-vectored ebolavirus vaccine (cAd3-EBO), encoding the glycoprotein from Zaire and Sudan species, that offers protection in the nonhuman primate model, was rapidly advanced into phase 1 clinical evaluation. METHODS: We conducted a phase 1, dose-escalation, open-label trial of cAd3-EBO. Twenty healthy adults, in sequentially enrolled groups of 10 each, received vaccination intramuscularly in doses of 2×1010 particle units or 2×1011 particle units. Primary and secondary end points related to safety and immunogenicity were assessed throughout the first 8 weeks after vaccination; in addition, longer-term vaccine durability was assessed at 48 weeks after vaccination. RESULTS: In this small study, no safety concerns were identified; however, transient fever developed within 1 day after vaccination in two participants who had received the 2×1011 particle-unit dose. Glycoprotein-specific antibodies were induced in all 20 participants; the titers were of greater magnitude in the group that received the 2×1011 particle-unit dose than in the group that received the 2×1010 particle-unit dose (geometric mean titer against the Zaire antigen at week 4, 2037 vs. 331; P=0.001). Glycoprotein-specific T-cell responses were more frequent among those who received the 2×1011 particle-unit dose than among those who received the 2×1010 particle-unit dose, with a CD4 response in 10 of 10 participants versus 3 of 10 participants (P=0.004) and a CD8 response in 7 of 10 participants versus 2 of 10 participants (P=0.07) at week 4. Assessment of the durability of the antibody response showed that titers remained high at week 48, with the highest titers in those who received the 2×1011 particle-unit dose. CONCLUSIONS: Reactogenicity and immune responses to cAd3-EBO vaccine were dose-dependent. At the 2×1011 particle-unit dose, glycoprotein Zaire-specific antibody responses were in the range reported to be associated with vaccine-induced protective immunity in challenge studies involving nonhuman primates, and responses were sustained to week 48. Phase 2 studies and efficacy trials assessing cAd3-EBO are in progress. (Funded by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health; VRC 207 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02231866 .).

Safety and Immunogenicity of a rAd35-EnvA Prototype HIV-1 Vaccine in Combination with rAd5-EnvA in Healthy Adults (VRC 012).

BACKGROUND: VRC 012 was a Phase I study of a prototype recombinant adenoviral-vector serotype-35 (rAd35) HIV vaccine, the precursor to two recently published clinical trials, HVTN 077 and 083. On the basis of prior evaluation of multiclade rAd5 HIV vaccines, Envelope A (EnvA) was selected as the standard antigen for a series of prototype HIV vaccines to compare various vaccine platforms. In addition, prior studies of rAd5-vectored vaccines suggested pre-existing human immunity may be a confounding factor in vaccine efficacy. rAd35 is less seroprevalent across human populations and was chosen for testing alone and in combination with a rAd5-EnvA vaccine in the present two-part phase I study. METHODS: First, five subjects each received a single injection of 109, 1010, or 1011 particle units (PU) of rAd35-EnvA in an open-label, dose-escalation study. Next, 20 Ad5/Ad35-seronegative subjects were randomized to blinded, heterologous prime-boost schedules combining rAd5-EnvA and rAd35-EnvA with a three month interval. rAd35-EnvA was given at 1010 or 1011 PU to ten subjects each; all rAd5-EnvA injections were 1010 PU. EnvA-specific immunogenicity was assessed four weeks post-injection. Solicited reactogenicity and clinical safety were followed after each injection. RESULTS: Vaccinations were well tolerated at all dosages. Antibody responses measured by ELISA were detected at 4 weeks in 30% and 50% of subjects after single doses of 1010 or 1011 PU rAd35, respectively, and in 89% after a single rAd5-EnvA 1010 PU injection. EnvA-specific IFN-γ ELISpot responses were detected at four weeks in 0%, 70%, and 50% of subjects after the respective rAd35-EnvA dosages compared to 89% of subjects after rAd5. T cell responses were higher after a single rAd5-EnvA 1010 PU injection than after a single rAd35-EnvA 1010 PU injection, and humoral responses were low after a single dose of either vector. Of those completing the vaccine schedule, 100% of rAd5-EnvA recipients and 90% of rAd35-EnvA recipients had both T cell and humoral responses after boosting with the heterologous vector. ELISpot response magnitude was similar in both regimens and comparable to a single dose of rAd5. A trend toward more robust CD8 T cell responses using rAd5-EnvA prime and rAd35-EnvA boost was observed. Humoral response magnitude was also similar after either heterologous regimen, but was several fold higher than after a single dose of rAd5. Adverse events (AEs) related to study vaccines were in general mild and limited to one episode of hematuria, Grade two. Activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) AEs were consistent with an in vitro effect on the laboratory assay for aPTT due to a transient induction of anti-phospholipid antibody, a phenomenon that has been reported in other adenoviral vector vaccine trials. CONCLUSIONS: Limitations of the rAd vaccine vectors, including the complex interactions among pre-existing adenoviral immunity and vaccine-induced immune responses, have prompted investigators to include less seroprevalent vectors such as rAd35-EnvA in prime-boost regimens. The rAd35-EnvA vaccine described here was well tolerated and immunogenic. While it effectively primed and boosted antibody responses when given in a reciprocal prime-boost regimen with rAd5-EnvA using a three-month interval, it did not significantly improve the frequency or magnitude of T cell responses above a single dose of rAd5. The humoral and cellular immunogenicity data reported here may inform future vaccine and study design. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00479999.

Protection against malaria at 1 year and immune correlates following PfSPZ vaccination.

An attenuated Plasmodium falciparum (Pf) sporozoite (SPZ) vaccine, PfSPZ Vaccine, is highly protective against controlled human malaria infection (CHMI) 3 weeks after immunization, but the durability of protection is unknown. We assessed how vaccine dosage, regimen, and route of administration affected durable protection in malaria-naive adults. After four intravenous immunizations with 2.7 × 10(5) PfSPZ, 6/11 (55%) vaccinated subjects remained without parasitemia following CHMI 21 weeks after immunization. Five non-parasitemic subjects from this dosage group underwent repeat CHMI at 59 weeks, and none developed parasitemia. Although Pf-specific serum antibody levels correlated with protection up to 21-25 weeks after immunization, antibody levels waned substantially by 59 weeks. Pf-specific T cell responses also declined in blood by 59 weeks. To determine whether T cell responses in blood reflected responses in liver, we vaccinated nonhuman primates with PfSPZ Vaccine. Pf-specific interferon-γ-producing CD8 T cells were present at ∼100-fold higher frequencies in liver than in blood. Our findings suggest that PfSPZ Vaccine conferred durable protection to malaria through long-lived tissue-resident T cells and that administration of higher doses may further enhance protection.

Virologic effects of broadly neutralizing antibody VRC01 administration during chronic HIV-1 infection.

Passive immunization with HIV-1-neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) is being considered for prevention and treatment of HIV-1 infection. As therapeutic agents, mAbs could be used to suppress active virus replication, maintain suppression induced by antiretroviral therapy (ART), and/or decrease the size of the persistent virus reservoir. We assessed the impact of VRC01, a potent human mAb targeting the HIV-1 CD4 binding site, on ART-treated and untreated HIV-1-infected subjects. Among six ART-treated individuals with undetectable plasma viremia, two infusions of VRC01 did not reduce the peripheral blood cell-associated virus reservoir measured 4 weeks after the second infusion. In contrast, six of eight ART-untreated, viremic subjects infused with a single dose of VRC01 experienced a 1.1 to 1.8 log10 reduction in plasma viremia. The two subjects with minimal responses to VRC01 were found to have predominantly VRC01-resistant virus before treatment. Notably, two subjects with plasma virus load <1000 copies/ml demonstrated virus suppression to undetectable levels for over 20 days until VRC01 levels declined. Among the remaining four subjects with baseline virus loads between 3000 and 30,000 copies, viremia was only partially suppressed by mAb infusion, and we observed strong selection pressure for the outgrowth of less neutralization-sensitive viruses. In summary, a single infusion of mAb VRC01 significantly decreased plasma viremia and preferentially suppressed neutralization-sensitive virus strains. These data demonstrate the virological effect of this neutralizing antibody and highlight the need for combination strategies to maintain virus suppression.

Phase I clinical evaluation of seasonal influenza hemagglutinin (HA) DNA vaccine prime followed by trivalent influenza inactivated vaccine (IIV3) boost.

Annual influenza vaccination reduces the risks of influenza when the vaccines are well matched to circulating strains, but development of an approach that induces broader and more durable immune responses would be beneficial. We conducted two companion Phase 1 studies, VRC 307 and VRC 309, over sequential seasons (2008-2009 and 2009-2010) in which only the influenza B strain component of the vaccines differed. Objectives were safety and immunogenicity of prime-boost vaccination schedules. A schedule of DNA vaccine encoding for seasonal influenza hemagglutinins (HA) prime followed by seasonal trivalent influenza inactivated vaccine (IIV3) boost (HA DNA-IIV3) was compared to placebo (PBS)-IIV3 or IIV3-IIV3. Cumulatively, 111 adults were randomized to HA DNA-IIV3 (n=66), PBS-IIV3 (n=25) or IIV3-IIV3 (n=20). Safety was assessed by clinical observations, laboratory parameters and 7-day solicited reactogenicity. The seasonal HA DNA prime-IIV3 boost regimen was evaluated as safe and well tolerated. There were no serious adverse events. The local and systemic reactogenicity for HA DNA, IIV and placebo were reported predominantly as none or mild within the first 5days post-vaccination. There was no significant difference in immunogenicity detected between the treatment groups as evaluated by hemagglutination inhibition (HAI) assay. The studies demonstrated the safety and immunogenicity of seasonal HA DNA-IIV3 regimen, but the 3-4week prime-boost interval was suboptimal for improving influenza-specific immune responses. This is consistent with observations in avian H5 DNA vaccine prime-boost studies in which a long interval, but not a short interval, was associated with improved immunogenicity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00858611 for VRC 307 and NCT00995982 for VRC 309.

DNA priming for seasonal influenza vaccine: a phase 1b double-blind randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of current influenza vaccines is limited in vulnerable populations. DNA vaccines can be produced rapidly, and may offer a potential strategy to improve vaccine immunogenicity, indicated by studies with H5 influenza DNA vaccine prime followed by inactivated vaccine boost. METHODS: Four sites enrolled healthy adults, randomized to receive 2011/12 seasonal influenza DNA vaccine prime (n=65) or phosphate buffered saline (PBS) (n=66) administered intramuscularly with Biojector. All subjects received the 2012/13 seasonal inactivated influenza vaccine, trivalent (IIV3) 36 weeks after the priming injection. Vaccine safety and tolerability was the primary objective and measurement of antibody response by hemagglutination inhibition (HAI) was the secondary objective. RESULTS: The DNA vaccine prime-IIV3 boost regimen was safe and well tolerated. Significant differences in HAI responses between the DNA vaccine prime and the PBS prime groups were not detected in this study. CONCLUSION: While DNA priming significantly improved the response to a conventional monovalent H5 vaccine in a previous study, it was not effective in adults using seasonal influenza strains, possibly due to pre-existing immunity to the prime, unmatched prime and boost antigens, or the lengthy 36 week boost interval. Careful optimization of the DNA prime-IIV3 boost regimen as related to antigen matching, interval between vaccinations, and pre-existing immune responses to influenza is likely to be needed in further evaluations of this vaccine strategy. In particular, testing this concept in younger age groups with less prior exposure to seasonal influenza strains may be informative. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01498718.

Phase 1 study of pandemic H1 DNA vaccine in healthy adults.

BACKGROUND: A novel, swine-origin influenza A (H1N1) virus was detected worldwide in April 2009, and the World Health Organization (WHO) declared a global pandemic that June. DNA vaccine priming improves responses to inactivated influenza vaccines. We describe the rapid production and clinical evaluation of a DNA vaccine encoding the hemagglutinin protein of the 2009 pandemic A/California/04/2009(H1N1) influenza virus, accomplished nearly two months faster than production of A/California/07/2009(H1N1) licensed monovalent inactivated vaccine (MIV). METHODS: 20 subjects received three H1 DNA vaccinations (4 mg intramuscularly with Biojector) at 4-week intervals. Eighteen subjects received an optional boost when the licensed H1N1 MIV became available. The interval between the third H1 DNA injection and MIV boost was 3-17 weeks. Vaccine safety was assessed by clinical observation, laboratory parameters, and 7-day solicited reactogenicity. Antibody responses were assessed by ELISA, HAI and neutralization assays, and T cell responses by ELISpot and flow cytometry. RESULTS: Vaccinations were safe and well-tolerated. As evaluated by HAI, 6/20 developed positive responses at 4 weeks after third DNA injection and 13/18 at 4 weeks after MIV boost. Similar results were detected in neutralization assays. T cell responses were detected after DNA and MIV. The antibody responses were significantly amplified by the MIV boost, however, the boost did not increased T cell responses induced by DNA vaccine. CONCLUSIONS: H1 DNA vaccine was produced quickly, was well-tolerated, and had modest immunogenicity as a single agent. Other HA DNA prime-MIV boost regimens utilizing one DNA prime vaccination and longer boost intervals have shown significant immunogenicity. Rapid and large-scale production of HA DNA vaccines has the potential to contribute to an efficient response against future influenza pandemics. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00973895.

Safety and immunogenicity of DNA vaccines encoding Ebolavirus and Marburgvirus wild-type glycoproteins in a phase I clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Ebolavirus and Marburgvirus cause severe hemorrhagic fever with high mortality and are potential bioterrorism agents. There are no available vaccines or therapeutic agents. Previous clinical trials evaluated transmembrane-deleted and point-mutation Ebolavirus glycoproteins (GPs) in candidate vaccines. Constructs evaluated in this trial encode wild-type (WT) GP from Ebolavirus Zaire and Sudan species and the Marburgvirus Angola strain expressed in a DNA vaccine. METHODS: The VRC 206 study evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of these DNA vaccines (4 mg administered intramuscularly by Biojector) at weeks 0, 4, and 8, with a homologous boost at or after week 32. Safety evaluations included solicited reactogenicity and coagulation parameters. Primary immune assessment was done by means of GP-specific enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. RESULTS: The vaccines were well tolerated, with no serious adverse events; 80% of subjects had positive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay results (≥30) at week 12. The fourth DNA vaccination boosted the immune responses. CONCLUSIONS: The investigational Ebolavirus and Marburgvirus WT GP DNA vaccines were safe, well tolerated, and immunogenic in this phase I study. These results will further inform filovirus vaccine research toward a goal of inducing protective immunity by using WT GP antigens in candidate vaccine regimens. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT00605514.

Safety and immunogenicity of Ebola virus and Marburg virus glycoprotein DNA vaccines assessed separately and concomitantly in healthy Ugandan adults: a phase 1b, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Ebola virus and Marburg virus cause serious disease outbreaks with high case fatality rates. We aimed to assess the safety and immunogenicity of two investigational DNA vaccines, one (EBO vaccine) encoding Ebola virus Zaire and Sudan glycoproteins and one (MAR) encoding Marburg virus glycoprotein. METHODS: RV 247 was a phase 1b, double-blinded, randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trial in Kampala, Uganda to examine the safety and immunogenicity of the EBO and MAR vaccines given individually and concomitantly. Healthy adult volunteers aged 18-50 years were randomly assigned (5:1) to receive three injections of vaccine or placebo at weeks 0, 4, and 8, with vaccine allocations divided equally between three active vaccine groups: EBO vaccine only, MAR vaccine only, and both vaccines. The primary study objective was to investigate the safety and tolerability of the vaccines, as assessed by local and systemic reactogenicity and adverse events. We also assessed immunogenicity on the basis of antibody responses (ELISA) and T-cell responses (ELISpot and intracellular cytokine staining assays) 4 weeks after the third injection. Participants and investigators were masked to group assignment. Analysis was based on the intention-to-treat principle. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00997607. FINDINGS: 108 participants were enrolled into the study between Nov 2, 2009, and April 15, 2010. All 108 participants received at least one study injection (including 100 who completed the injection schedule) and were included in safety and tolerability analyses; 107 for whom data were available were included in the immunogenicity analyses. Study injections were well tolerated, with no significant differences in local or systemic reactions between groups. The vaccines elicited antibody and T-cell responses specific to the glycoproteins received and we detected no differences between the separate and concomitant use of the two vaccines. 17 of 30 (57%, 95% CI 37-75) participants in the EBO vaccine group had an antibody response to the Ebola Zaire glycoprotein, as did 14 of 30 (47%, 28-66) in the group that received both vaccines. 15 of 30 (50%, 31-69) participants in the EBO vaccine group had an antibody response to the Ebola Sudan glycoprotein, as did 15 of 30 (50%, 31-69) in the group that received both vaccines. Nine of 29 (31%, 15-51) participants in the MAR vaccine groups had an antibody response to the Marburg glycoprotein, as did seven of 30 (23%, 10-42) in the group that received both vaccines. 19 of 30 (63%, 44-80) participants in the EBO vaccine group had a T-cell response to the Ebola Zaire glycoprotein, as did 10 of 30 (33%, 17-53) in the group that received both vaccines. 13 of 30 (43%, 25-63) participants in the EBO vaccine group had a T-cell response to the Ebola Sudan glycoprotein, as did 10 of 30 (33%, 17-53) in the group that received both vaccines. 15 of 29 (52%, 33-71) participants in the MAR vaccine group had a T-cell response to the Marburg glycoprotein, as did 13 of 30 (43%, 25-63) in the group that received both vaccines. INTERPRETATION: This study is the first Ebola or Marburg vaccine trial done in Africa, and the results show that, given separately or together, both vaccines were well tolerated and elicited antigen-specific humoral and cellular immune responses. These findings have contributed to the accelerated development of more potent Ebola virus vaccines that encode the same wild-type glycoprotein antigens as the EBO vaccine, which are being assessed during the 2014 Ebola virus disease outbreak in west Africa. FUNDING: US Department of Defense Infectious Disease Clinical Research Program and US National Institutes of Health Intramural Research Program.

Homologous boosting with adenoviral serotype 5 HIV vaccine (rAd5) vector can boost antibody responses despite preexisting vector-specific immunity in a randomized phase I clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Needle-free delivery improves the immunogenicity of DNA vaccines but is also associated with more local reactogenicity. Here we report the first comparison of Biojector and needle administration of a candidate rAd5 HIV vaccine. METHODS: Thirty-one adults, 18-55 years, 20 naive and 11 prior rAd5 vaccine recipients were randomized to receive single rAd5 vaccine via needle or Biojector IM injection at 1010 PU in a Phase I open label clinical trial. Solicited reactogenicity was collected for 5 days; clinical safety and immunogenicity follow-up was continued for 24 weeks. RESULTS: Overall, injections by either method were well tolerated. There were no serious adverse events. Frequency of any local reactogenicity was 16/16 (100%) for Biojector compared to 11/15 (73%) for needle injections. There was no difference in HIV Env-specific antibody response between Biojector and needle delivery. Env-specific antibody responses were more than 10-fold higher in subjects receiving a booster dose of rAd5 vaccine than after a single dose delivered by either method regardless of interval between prime and boost. CONCLUSIONS: Biojector delivery did not improve antibody responses to the rAd5 vaccine compared to needle administration. Homologous boosting with rAd5 gene-based vectors can boost insert-specific antibody responses despite pre-existing vector-specific immunity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00709605 NCT00709605.

Safety and tolerability of chikungunya virus-like particle vaccine in healthy adults: a phase 1 dose-escalation trial.

BACKGROUND: Chikungunya virus--a mosquito-borne alphavirus--is endemic in Africa and south and southeast Asia and has recently emerged in the Caribbean. No drugs or vaccines are available for treatment or prevention. We aimed to assess the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of a new candidate vaccine. METHODS: VRC 311 was a phase 1, dose-escalation, open-label clinical trial of a virus-like particle (VLP) chikungunya virus vaccine, VRC-CHKVLP059-00-VP, in healthy adults aged 18-50 years who were enrolled at the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center (Bethesda, MD, USA). Participants were assigned to sequential dose level groups to receive vaccinations at 10 µg, 20 µg, or 40 µg on weeks 0, 4, and 20, with follow-up for 44 weeks after enrolment. The primary endpoints were safety and tolerability of the vaccine. Secondary endpoints were chikungunya virus-specific immune responses assessed by ELISA and neutralising antibody assays. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01489358. FINDINGS: 25 participants were enrolled from Dec 12, 2011, to March 22, 2012, into the three dosage groups: 10 µg (n=5), 20 µg (n=10), and 40 µg (n=10). The protocol was completed by all five participants at the 10 µg dose, all ten participants at the 20 µg dose, and eight of ten participants at the 40 µg dose; non-completions were for personal circumstances unrelated to adverse events. 73 vaccinations were administered. All injections were well tolerated, with no serious adverse events reported. Neutralising antibodies were detected in all dose groups after the second vaccination (geometric mean titres of the half maximum inhibitory concentration: 2688 in the 10 µg group, 1775 in the 20 µg group, and 7246 in the 40 µg group), and a significant boost occurred after the third vaccination in all dose groups (10 µg group p=0·0197, 20 µg group p<0·0001, and 40 µg group p<0·0001). 4 weeks after the third vaccination, the geometric mean titres of the half maximum inhibitory concentration were 8745 for the 10 µg group, 4525 for the 20 µg group, and 5390 for the 40 µg group. INTERPRETATION: The chikungunya VLP vaccine was immunogenic, safe, and well tolerated. This study represents an important step in vaccine development to combat this rapidly emerging pathogen. Further studies should be done in a larger number of participants and in more diverse populations. FUNDING: Intramural Research Program of the Vaccine Research Center, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and National Institutes of Health.

Phase I randomized clinical trial of VRC DNA and rAd5 HIV-1 vaccine delivery by intramuscular (i.m.), subcutaneous (s.c.) and intradermal (i.d.) administration (VRC 011).

BACKGROUND: Phase 1 evaluation of the VRC HIV DNA and rAd5 vaccines delivered intramuscularly (i.m.) supported proceeding to a Phase 2 b efficacy study. Here we report comparison of the i.m., subcutaneous (s.c.) and intradermal (i.d.) routes of administration. METHODS: Sixty subjects were randomized to 6 schedules to evaluate the i.m., s.c. or i.d. route for prime injections. Three schedules included DNA primes (Wks 0,4,8) and 3 schedules included rAd5 prime (Wk0); all included rAd5 i.m. boost (Wk24). DNA vaccine dosage was 4 mg i.m. or s.c., but 0.4 mg i.d., while all rAd5 vaccinations were 1010 PU. All injections were administered by needle and syringe. RESULTS: Overall, 27/30 subjects completed 3 DNA primes; 30/30 subjects completed rAd5 primes. Mild local pruritus (itchiness), superficial skin lesions and injection site nodules were associated with i.d. and s.c., but not i.m. injections. All routes induced T-cell and antibody immune responses after rAd5 boosting. Overall, >95% had Env antibody and >80% had Env T-cell responses. CONCLUSIONS: The pattern of local reactogenicity following i.d. and s.c. injections differed from i.m. injections but all routes were well-tolerated. There was no evidence of an immunogenicity advantage following s.c. or i.d. delivery, supporting i.m. delivery as the preferred route of administration. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00321061.

Efficacy trial of a DNA/rAd5 HIV-1 preventive vaccine.

BACKGROUND: A safe and effective vaccine for the prevention of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection is a global priority. We tested the efficacy of a DNA prime-recombinant adenovirus type 5 boost (DNA/rAd5) vaccine regimen in persons at increased risk for HIV-1 infection in the United States. METHODS: At 21 sites, we randomly assigned 2504 men or transgender women who have sex with men to receive the DNA/rAd5 vaccine (1253 participants) or placebo (1251 participants). We assessed HIV-1 acquisition from week 28 through month 24 (termed week 28+ infection), viral-load set point (mean plasma HIV-1 RNA level 10 to 20 weeks after diagnosis), and safety. The 6-plasmid DNA vaccine (expressing clade B Gag, Pol, and Nef and Env proteins from clades A, B, and C) was administered at weeks 0, 4, and 8. The rAd5 vector boost (expressing clade B Gag-Pol fusion protein and Env glycoproteins from clades A, B, and C) was administered at week 24. RESULTS: In April 2013, the data and safety monitoring board recommended halting vaccinations for lack of efficacy. The primary analysis showed that week 28+ infection had been diagnosed in 27 participants in the vaccine group and 21 in the placebo group (vaccine efficacy, -25.0%; 95% confidence interval, -121.2 to 29.3; P=0.44), with mean viral-load set points of 4.46 and 4.47 HIV-1 RNA log10 copies per milliliter, respectively. Analysis of all infections during the study period (41 in the vaccine group and 31 in the placebo group) also showed lack of vaccine efficacy (P=0.28). The vaccine regimen had an acceptable side-effect profile. CONCLUSIONS: The DNA/rAd5 vaccine regimen did not reduce either the rate of HIV-1 acquisition or the viral-load set point in the population studied. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00865566.).

Protection against malaria by intravenous immunization with a nonreplicating sporozoite vaccine.

Consistent, high-level, vaccine-induced protection against human malaria has only been achieved by inoculation of Plasmodium falciparum (Pf) sporozoites (SPZ) by mosquito bites. We report that the PfSPZ Vaccine--composed of attenuated, aseptic, purified, cryopreserved PfSPZ--was safe and well tolerated when administered four to six times intravenously (IV) to 40 adults. Zero of six subjects receiving five doses and three of nine subjects receiving four doses of 1.35 × 10(5) PfSPZ Vaccine and five of six nonvaccinated controls developed malaria after controlled human malaria infection (P = 0.015 in the five-dose group and P = 0.028 for overall, both versus controls). PfSPZ-specific antibody and T cell responses were dose-dependent. These data indicate that there is a dose-dependent immunological threshold for establishing high-level protection against malaria that can be achieved with IV administration of a vaccine that is safe and meets regulatory standards.

Prime-boost interval matters: a randomized phase 1 study to identify the minimum interval necessary to observe the H5 DNA influenza vaccine priming effect.

BACKGROUND: H5 DNA priming was previously shown to improve the antibody response to influenza A(H5N1) monovalent inactivated vaccine (MIV) among individuals for whom there was a 24-week interval between prime and boost receipt. This study defines the shortest prime-boost interval associated with an improved response to MIV. METHODS: We administered H5 DNA followed by MIV at intervals of 4, 8, 12, 16, or 24 weeks and compared responses to that of 2 doses of MIV (prime-boost interval, 24 weeks). RESULTS: H5 DNA priming with an MIV boost ≥12 weeks later showed an improved response, with a positive hemagglutination inhibition (HAI) titer in 91% of recipients (geometric mean titer [GMT], 141-206), compared with 55%-70% of recipients with an H5 DNA and MIV prime-boost interval of ≤8 weeks (GMT, 51-70) and 44% with an MIV-MIV prime-boost interval of 24 weeks (GMT, 27). CONCLUSION: H5 DNA priming enhances antibody responses after an MIV boost when the prime-boost interval is 12-24 weeks. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT01086657.