RESUMEN
Although the smallpox virus was eradicated over 20 years ago, its potential release through bioterrorism has generated renewed interest in vaccination. To develop a modern smallpox vaccine, we have adapted vaccinia virus that was derived from the existing Dryvax vaccine for growth in a human diploid cell line. We characterized six cloned and one uncloned vaccine candidates. One clone, designated ACAM1000, was chosen for development based on its comparability to Dryvax when tested in mice, rabbits and monkeys for virulence and immunogenicity. By most measures, ACAM1000 was less virulent than Dryvax. We compared ACAM1000 and Dryvax in a randomized, double-blind human clinical study. The vaccines were equivalent in their ability to produce major cutaneous reactions ('takes') and to induce neutralizing antibody and cell-mediated immunity against vaccinia virus.
Asunto(s)
Vacuna contra Viruela/inmunología , Vacuna contra Viruela/farmacología , Virus Vaccinia/inmunología , Animales , Bioterrorismo , Línea Celular/virología , Células Clonales , Método Doble Ciego , Evaluación Preclínica de Medicamentos/métodos , Humanos , Macaca mulatta , Ratones , Ratones Endogámicos BALB C , Pruebas de Neutralización , Conejos , Virus Vaccinia/patogenicidad , Cultivo de Virus/métodosRESUMEN
The threat of smallpox as a biological weapon has spurred efforts to create stockpiles of vaccine for emergency preparedness. In lieu of preparing vaccine in animal skin (the original method), we cloned vaccinia virus (New York City Board of Health strain, Dryvax by plaque purification and amplified the clone in cell culture. The overarching goal was to produce a modern vaccine that was equivalent to the currently licensed Dryvax in its preclinical and clinical properties, and could thus reliably protect humans against smallpox. A variety of clones were evaluated, and many were unacceptably virulent in animal models. One clonal virus (ACAM1000) was selected and produced at clinical grade in MRC-5 human diploid cells. ACAM1000 was comparable to Dryvax in immunogenicity and protective activity but was less neurovirulent for mice and nonhuman primates. To meet requirements for large quantities of vaccine after the events of September 11th 2001, the ACAM1000 master virus seed was used to prepare vaccine (designated ACAM2000) at large scale in Vero cells under serum-free conditions. The genomes of ACAM1000 and ACAM2000 had identical nucleotide sequences, and the vaccines had comparable biological phenotypes. ACAM1000 and ACAM2000 were evaluated in three Phase 1 clinical trials. The vaccines produced major cutaneous reactions and evoked neutralizing antibody and cell-mediated immune responses in the vast majority of subjects and had a reactogenicity profile similar to that of Dryvax.
Asunto(s)
Vacuna contra Viruela/inmunología , Viruela/prevención & control , Virus Vaccinia/inmunología , Animales , Bioterrorismo/prevención & control , Chlorocebus aethiops , Humanos , Vacuna contra Viruela/toxicidad , Células Vero , Cultivo de VirusRESUMEN
Despite the eradication of smallpox as a naturally occurring disease, concern persists over its potential use as a bioterrorist agent. The development of a new-generation smallpox vaccine represents an important contribution to a cogent biodefense strategy. We conducted a phase 2 randomized, double-blind, controlled trial at four sites in the United States to determine whether a clonal smallpox vaccine manufactured in cell culture, ACAM2000, is equivalent to the standard calf-lymph vaccine, Dryvax, in terms of cutaneous response rate, antibody responses and safety. Subjects received either Dryvax or one of four dose levels of ACAM2000 administered percutaneously using a bifurcated needle. All subjects in the highest ACAM2000 dose group and the Dryvax group experienced a successful vaccination. Dilution doses of ACAM2000 were associated with success rates below the 90% threshold established for efficacy. There were no differences in the proportion of subjects who developed neutralizing antibody: 94% in the highest ACAM2000 dose group (95% CI, 84-99) and 96% in the Dryvax group (95% CI, 86-100). No significant differences were seen between the effective ACAM2000 and Dryvax groups regarding the occurrence of adverse events. One subject who received ACAM2000 developed myopericarditis. In healthy, primary vaccines ACAM2000 has a similar vaccination success rate, antibody response, and safety profile to Dryvax.