A systematic review of safety data reporting in clinical trials of vaccines against malaria, tuberculosis, and human immunodeficiency virus.

INTRODUCTION: Malaria, tuberculosis (TB) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) are diseases with devastating effects on global public health, especially in the developing world. Clinical trials of candidate vaccines for these diseases are being conducted at an accelerating rate, and require accurate and consistent methods for safety data collection and reporting. We performed a systematic review of publications describing the safety results from clinical trials of malaria, TB and HIV vaccines, to ascertain the nature and consistency of safety data collection and reporting. METHODS: The target for the review was pre-licensure trials for malaria, TB and HIV vaccines published in English from 2000 to 2009. Search strategies were customized for each of the databases utilized (MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Reviews and Effects). Data extracted included age of trial participants, vaccine platform, route and method of vaccine administration, duration of participant follow-up, reporting of laboratory abnormalities, and the type, case definitions, severity, reporting methods and internal reporting consistency of adverse events. RESULTS: Of 2278 publications screened, 124 were eligible for inclusion (malaria: 66, TB: 9, HIV: 49). Safety data reporting was found to be highly variable among publications and often incomplete: overall, 269 overlapping terms were used to describe specific adverse events. 17% of publications did not mention fever. Descriptions of severity or degree of relatedness to immunization of adverse events were frequently omitted. 26% (32/124) of publications failed to report data on serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: The review demonstrated lack of standardized safety data reporting in trials for vaccines against malaria, TB and HIV. Standardization of safety data collection and reporting should be encouraged to improve data quality and comparability. LIMITATIONS: The search strategy missed studies published in languages other than English and excluded studies reporting on vaccine trials for diseases besides malaria, TB and HIV.

Human adenovirus 5-vectored Plasmodium falciparum NMRC-M3V-Ad-PfCA vaccine encoding CSP and AMA1 is safe, well-tolerated and immunogenic but does not protect against controlled human malaria infection.

BACKGROUND: In a prior study, a DNA prime / adenovirus boost vaccine (DNA/Ad) expressing P. falciparum circumsporozoite protein (CSP) and apical membrane antigen-1 (AMA1) (NMRC-M3V-D/Ad-PfCA Vaccine) induced 27% protection against controlled human malaria infection (CHMI). To investigate the contribution of DNA priming, we tested the efficacy of adenovirus vaccine alone (NMRC-M3V-Ad-PfCA ) in a Phase 1 clinical trial. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The regimen was a single intramuscular injection with two non-replicating human serotype 5 adenovectors encoding CSP and AMA1, respectively. One x 10 (10) particle units of each construct were combined prior to administration. The regimen was safe and well-tolerated. Four weeks later, 18 study subjects received P. falciparum CHMI administered by mosquito bite. None were fully protected although one showed delayed onset of parasitemia. Antibody responses were low, with geometric mean CSP ELISA titer of 381 (range<50-1626) and AMA1 ELISA of 4.95 µg/mL (range 0.2-38). Summed ex vivo IFN-γ ELISpot responses to overlapping peptides were robust, with geometric mean spot forming cells/million peripheral blood mononuclear cells [sfc/m] for CSP of 273 (range 38-2550) and for AMA1 of 1303 (range 435-4594). CD4+ and CD8+ T cell IFN-γ responses to CSP were positive by flow cytometry in 25% and 56% of the research subjects, respectively, and to AMA1 in 94% and 100%, respectively. SIGNIFICANCE: In contrast to DNA/Ad, Ad alone did not protect against CHMI despite inducing broad, cell-mediated immunity, indicating that DNA priming is required for protection by the adenovirus-vectored vaccine. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00392015.

Adenovirus-5-vectored P. falciparum vaccine expressing CSP and AMA1. Part B: safety, immunogenicity and protective efficacy of the CSP component.

BACKGROUND: A protective malaria vaccine will likely need to elicit both cell-mediated and antibody responses. As adenovirus vaccine vectors induce both these responses in humans, a Phase 1/2a clinical trial was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of an adenovirus serotype 5-vectored malaria vaccine against sporozoite challenge. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: NMRC-MV-Ad-PfC is an adenovirus vector encoding the Plasmodium falciparum 3D7 circumsporozoite protein (CSP). It is one component of a two-component vaccine NMRC-M3V-Ad-PfCA consisting of one adenovector encoding CSP and one encoding apical membrane antigen-1 (AMA1) that was evaluated for safety and immunogenicity in an earlier study (see companion paper, Sedegah et al). Fourteen Ad5 seropositive or negative adults received two doses of NMRC-MV-Ad-PfC sixteen weeks apart, at 1 x 1010 particle units per dose. The vaccine was safe and well tolerated. All volunteers developed positive ELISpot responses by 28 days after the first immunization (geometric mean 272 spot forming cells/million[sfc/m]) that declined during the following 16 weeks and increased after the second dose to levels that in most cases were less than the initial peak (geometric mean 119 sfc/m). CD8+ predominated over CD4+ responses, as in the first clinical trial. Antibody responses were poor and like ELISpot responses increased after the second immunization but did not exceed the initial peak. Pre-existing neutralizing antibodies (NAb) to Ad5 did not affect the immunogenicity of the first dose, but the fold increase in NAb induced by the first dose was significantly associated with poorer antibody responses after the second dose, while ELISpot responses remained unaffected. When challenged by the bite of P. falciparum-infected mosquitoes, two of 11 volunteers showed a delay in the time to patency compared to infectivity controls, but no volunteers were sterilely protected. SIGNIFICANCE: The NMRC-MV-Ad-PfC vaccine expressing CSP was safe and well tolerated given as two doses, but did not provide sterile protection. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00392015.