Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
País/Região como assunto
Tipo de documento
País de afiliação
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
J Infect Dis ; 216(9): 1080-1090, 2017 11 27.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28968759

RESUMO

Background: We report the first-in-human safety and immunogenicity evaluation of PENNVAX-G DNA/modified vaccinia Ankara-Chiang Mai double recombinant (MVA-CMDR) prime-boost human immuonodeficiency virus (HIV) vaccine, with intramuscular DNA delivery by either Biojector 2000 needle-free injection system (Biojector) or CELLECTRA electroporation device. Methods: Healthy, HIV-uninfected adults were randomized to receive 4 mg of PENNVAX-G DNA delivered intramuscularly by Biojector or electroporation at baseline and week 4 followed by intramuscular injection of 108 plaque forming units of MVA-CMDR at weeks 12 and 24. The open-label part A was conducted in the United States, followed by a double-blind, placebo-controlled part B in East Africa. Solicited and unsolicited adverse events were recorded, and immune responses were measured. Results: Eighty-eight of 100 enrolled participants completed all study injections, which were generally safe and well tolerated, with more immediate, but transient, pain in the electroporation group. Cellular responses were observed in 57% of vaccine recipients tested and were CD4 predominant. High rates of binding antibody responses to CRF01_AE antigens, including gp70 V1V2 scaffold, were observed. Neutralizing antibodies were detected in a peripheral blood mononuclear cell assay, and moderate antibody-dependent, cell-mediated cytotoxicity activity was demonstrated. Discussion: The PVG/MVA-CMDR HIV-1 vaccine regimen is safe and immunogenic. Substantial differences in safety or immunogenicity between modes of DNA delivery were not observed. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT01260727.


Assuntos
Vacinas contra a AIDS/administração & dosagem , Vacinas contra a AIDS/imunologia , Anticorpos Anti-HIV/sangue , Infecções por HIV/prevenção & controle , Imunidade Celular/efeitos dos fármacos , Vaccinia virus/imunologia , Adulto , África Oriental , Método Duplo-Cego , Eletroporação , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estados Unidos , Vacinação
2.
Lancet ; 385(9977): 1545-54, 2015 Apr 18.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25540891

RESUMO

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.


Assuntos
Anticorpos Antivirais/sangue , Vacinas contra Ebola/efeitos adversos , Ebolavirus/imunologia , Marburgvirus/imunologia , Vacinas de DNA/efeitos adversos , Proteínas Virais de Fusão/imunologia , Adolescente , Adulto , Método Duplo-Cego , Vacinas contra Ebola/administração & dosagem , Vacinas contra Ebola/imunologia , Feminino , Humanos , Análise de Intenção de Tratamento , Masculino , Uganda , Vacinas de DNA/administração & dosagem , Vacinas de DNA/imunologia , Adulto Jovem
3.
Vaccine ; 42(22): 126197, 2024 Sep 17.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39153293

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: In 2016, the World Health Organization recommended that a fractional dose of yellow fever (YF) vaccine could be used in persons 2 years of age or older in response to an emergency that resulted in a global shortage of available YF vaccine. However, this recommendation did not extend to the youngest age group licensed for YF vaccine because there were no published data on the use or safety of fractional dose YF vaccination in children aged 9-23 months. We conducted a single-blind randomized controlled trial, comparing the immunogenicity and safety of fractional one-fifth and one-half doses of Bio-Manguinhos 17DD YF vaccine with full dose in children aged 9-23 months old in Uganda. In this paper, we present the interim analysis on safety. METHODS: Children aged 9-23 months presenting for routine well-child services were recruited for inclusion at one of three study sites. We collected data during March 26, 2019-August 31, 2020, on all adverse events following immunization (AEFI) during active surveillance for 28 days post-vaccination using multiple collection tools including a diary card with an objective measurement of fever. An independent team from the Uganda national AEFI Committee investigated and classified serious AEFI (SAE) according to Brighton Collaboration Criteria. RESULTS: Among 1053 enrolled children, 672 (64%) were reported to have a non-serious AEFI (NSAE) and 17 (2%) were reported to have a SAE. The most common AEFI were diarrhoea, fever, and rash, each reported by 355 (34%), 338 (33%), and 188 (18%) participants, respectively. Among 17 participants with SAE, eight were reported to have had seizures and five were hospitalised for seizures or other causes (respiratory symptoms, gastrointestinal illness, malaria). Four SAEs (deaths) occurred >28 days after vaccination. There were no reported cases of pre-specified or vaccine-related SAEs. We observed no significant difference in frequency or severity of adverse events among the study groups. CONCLUSIONS: Using comprehensive active surveillance monitoring, we did not identify any unexpected safety concerns among children aged <2 years receiving YF vaccination, including with the fractional doses. Although we identified a high number of both serious and non-serious AEFI, none were determined to be causally related to YF vaccination. These results provide evidence for the safety of fractional dose YF vaccination among children aged 9-23 months.


Assuntos
Vacina contra Febre Amarela , Febre Amarela , Humanos , Lactente , Vacina contra Febre Amarela/efeitos adversos , Vacina contra Febre Amarela/administração & dosagem , Uganda/epidemiologia , Masculino , Feminino , Febre Amarela/prevenção & controle , Método Simples-Cego , Vacinação/efeitos adversos , Vacinação/métodos , Efeitos Colaterais e Reações Adversas Relacionados a Medicamentos/epidemiologia , Esquemas de Imunização
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA