Safety and Immunogenicity of a Parenterally Administered, Structure-Based Rationally Modified Recombinant Staphylococcal Enterotoxin B Protein Vaccine, STEBVax.

Staphylococcus aureus produces several enterotoxins and superantigens, exposure to which can elicit profound toxic shock. A recombinant staphylococcal enterotoxin B (rSEB) containing 3 distinct mutations in the major histocompatibility complex class II binding site was combined with an alum adjuvant (Alhydrogel) and used as a potential parenteral vaccine named STEBVax. Consenting healthy adult volunteers (age range, 23 to 38 years) participated in a first-in-human open-label dose escalation study of parenteral doses of STEBVax ranging from 0.01 µg up to 20 µg. Safety was assessed by determination of the frequency of adverse events and reactogenicity. Immune responses to the vaccination were determined by measurement of anti-staphylococcal enterotoxin B (anti-SEB) IgG by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and a toxin neutralization assay (TNA). Twenty-eight participants were enrolled in 7 dosing cohorts. All doses were well tolerated. The participants exhibited heterogeneous baseline antibody titers. More seroconversions and a faster onset of serum anti-SEB IgG toxin-neutralizing antibodies were observed by TNA with increasing doses of STEBVax. There was a trend for a plateau in antibody responses with doses of STEBVax of between 2.5 and 20 µg. Among the participants vaccinated with 2.5 µg to 20 µg of STEBVax, ∼93% seroconverted for SEB toxin-neutralizing antibody. A strong correlation between individual SEB-specific serum IgG antibody titers and the neutralization of gamma interferon production was found in vitro STEBvax appeared to be safe and immunogenic, inducing functional toxin-neutralizing antibodies. These data support its continued clinical development. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration no. NCT00974935.).

Phase 1 testing of detoxified LPS/group B meningococcal outer membrane protein vaccine with and without synthetic CPG 7909 adjuvant for the prevention and treatment of sepsis.

BACKGROUND: Gram-negative bacteria (GNB) are a leading cause of nosocomial infection and sepsis. Increasing multi-antibiotic resistance has left clinicians with fewer therapeutic options. Antibodies to GNB lipopolysaccharide (LPS, or endotoxin) have reduced morbidity and mortality as a result of infection and are not subject to the resistance mechanisms deployed by bacteria against antibiotics. In this phase 1 study, we administered a vaccine that elicits antibodies against a highly conserved portion of LPS with and without a CpG oligodeoxynucleotide (ODN) TLR9 agonist as adjuvant. METHODS: A vaccine composed of the detoxified LPS (dLPS) from E. coli O111:B4 (J5 mutant) non-covalently complexed to group B meningococcal outer membrane protein (OMP). Twenty healthy adult subjects received three doses at 0, 29 and 59 days of antigen (10 µg dLPS) with or without CPG 7909 (250 or 500 µg). Subjects were evaluated for local and systemic adverse effects and laboratory findings. Anti-J5 LPS IgG and IgM antibody levels were measured by electrochemiluminesence. Due to premature study termination, not all subjects received all three doses. RESULTS: All vaccine formulations were well-tolerated with no local or systemic events of greater than moderate severity. The vaccine alone group achieved a ≥ 4-fold "responder" response in IgG and IgM antibody in only one of 6 subjects. In contrast, the vaccine plus CPG 7909 groups appeared to have earlier and more sustained (to 180 days) responses, greater mean-fold increases, and a higher proportion of "responders" achieving ≥ 4-fold increases over baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Although the study was halted before all enrolled subjects received all three doses, the J5dLPS/OMP vaccine, with or without CpG adjuvant, was safe and well-tolerated. The inclusion of CpG increased the number of subjects with a ≥ 4-fold antibody response, evident even after the second of three planned doses. A vaccine comprising J5dLPS/OMP antigen with CpG adjuvant merits further investigation. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01164514.

A double-blind placebo-controlled pilot study of controlled-release paroxetine on depression and quality of life in chronic heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Depression is frequently observed in patients with heart failure and is associated with poor quality of life and adverse prognosis. However, the prevalence of depression in heart failure could be overestimated because symptoms of depression overlap with those of heart failure. Similarly, the importance of depression may be overestimated if depression merely reflects worse heart failure. Because the response to depression treatment has not been evaluated in this patient population, we evaluated the efficacy of controlled-release paroxetine (paroxetine CR), a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, on depression and quality of life in chronic heart failure. METHODS: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled design was used to evaluate reductions in depression following 12 weeks of treatment with paroxetine CR (n = 14, age 62.1 +/- 12.3 years) or placebo (n = 14, age = 61.9 +/- 9.0 years). Patients with symptomatic congestive heart failure and a score of at least 10 on the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) were eligible. Beck Depression Inventory was obtained at baseline and 4, 8, and 12 weeks of follow-up. Quality of life was assessed using the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form and the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire. RESULTS: Controlled-release paroxetine resulted in significantly more recovery from depression (BDI <10) than placebo (69% vs 23%, P = .018) and resulted in lower continuous BDI scores throughout the intervention (P = .024). Controlled-release paroxetine was associated with higher general health levels compared with placebo on the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form survey (38 +/- 10 vs 30 +/- 6, P = .016) at 12 weeks of follow-up. Reductions in depression were correlated with improvements in psychological aspects of quality of life (P < .05) but not with physical quality of life measures (P > .10). CONCLUSION: Antidepressant therapy with paroxetine CR results in significant reductions in depression among patients with heart failure. The reductions in depression with paroxetine CR are accompanied by improvements in psychological aspects of quality of life. Larger controlled trials are needed to further document the effectiveness of paroxetine CR and other selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in patients with heart failure and to determine patient subgroups that are most likely to benefit from antidepressive interventions.

Nesiritide does not improve renal function in patients with chronic heart failure and worsening serum creatinine.

BACKGROUND: Nesiritide (synthetic human brain natriuretic peptide) is approved for the treatment of symptomatic heart failure. However, studies of brain natriuretic peptide in patients with heart failure have come to conflicting conclusions about effects on glomerular filtration rate (GFR), effective renal plasma flow, natriuresis, and diuresis. METHODS AND RESULTS: To identify a population at high risk of renal dysfunction with conventional treatment, we selected patients with a creatinine level increased from baseline (within 6 months). We examined the effects of nesiritide on GFR (measured by iothalamate clearance), renal plasma flow (measured by para-amino hippurate clearance), urinary sodium excretion, and urine output in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study. Patients received nesiritide (2 microg/kg IV bolus followed by an infusion of 0.01 microg/kg per minute) or placebo for 24 hours on consecutive days. Nesiritide and placebo data were compared by repeated-measures analysis and Student t test. We studied 15 patients with a recent mean baseline creatinine of 1.5+/-0.4 mg/dL and serum creatinine of 1.8+/-0.8 mg/dL on admission to the study. There were no differences in GFR, effective renal plasma flow, urine output, or sodium excretion for any time interval or for the entire 24-hour period between the nesiritide and placebo study days. For 24 hours, urine output was 113+/-51 mL/h with placebo and 110+/-56 mL/h with nesiritide. GFR during placebo was 40.9+/-25.9 mL/min and with nesiritide was 40.9+/-25.8. CONCLUSIONS: Nesiritide did not improve renal function in patients with decompensated heart failure, mild chronic renal insufficiency, and renal function that had worsened compared with baseline. The lack of effect may be related to renal insufficiency, hemodynamic alterations, sodium balance, severity of heart failure, or drug dose. Understanding the importance of these issues will permit effective and appropriate use of nesiritide.