Safety and Immunogenicity of a Heterologous Prime-Boost Ebola Virus Vaccine Regimen in Healthy Adults in the United Kingdom and Senegal.

BACKGROUND: The 2014 West African outbreak of Ebola virus disease highlighted the urgent need to develop an effective Ebola vaccine. METHODS: We undertook 2 phase 1 studies assessing safety and immunogenicity of the viral vector modified vaccinia Ankara virus vectored Ebola Zaire vaccine (MVA-EBO-Z), manufactured rapidly on a new duck cell line either alone or in a heterologous prime-boost regimen with recombinant chimpanzee adenovirus type 3 vectored Ebola Zaire vaccine (ChAd3-EBO-Z) followed by MVA-EBO-Z. Adult volunteers in the United Kingdom (n = 38) and Senegal (n = 40) were vaccinated and an accelerated 1-week prime-boost regimen was assessed in Senegal. Safety was assessed by active and passive collection of local and systemic adverse events. RESULTS: The standard and accelerated heterologous prime-boost regimens were well-tolerated and elicited potent cellular and humoral immunogenicity in the United Kingdom and Senegal, but vaccine-induced antibody responses were significantly lower in Senegal. Cellular immune responses measured by flow cytometry were significantly greater in African vaccinees receiving ChAd3 and MVA vaccines in the same rather than the contralateral limb. CONCLUSIONS: MVA biomanufactured on an immortalized duck cell line shows potential for very large-scale manufacturing with lower cost of goods. This first trial of MVA-EBO-Z in humans encourages further testing in phase 2 studies, with the 1-week prime-boost interval regimen appearing to be particularly suitable for outbreak control. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02451891; NCT02485912.

Vaccination coverage and immunization timeliness among children aged 12-23 months in Senegal: a Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analysis approach.

INTRODUCTION: Expanded programme on immunizations in resource-limited settings currently measure vaccination coverage defined as the proportion of children aged 12-23 months that have completed their vaccination. However, this indicator does not address the important question of when the scheduled vaccines were administered. We assessed the determinants of timely immunization to help the national EPI program manage vaccine-preventable diseases and impact positively on child survival in Senegal. METHODS: Vaccination data were obtained from the Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) carried out across the 14 regions in the country. Children were aged between 12-23 months. The assessment of vaccination coverage was done with the health card and/or by the mother's recall of the vaccination act. For each vaccine, an assessment of delay in age-appropriate vaccination was done following WHO recommendations. Additionally, Kaplan-Meier survival function was used to estimate the proportion vaccinated by age and cox-proportional hazards models were used to examine risk factors for delays. RESULTS: A total of 2444 living children between 12-23 months of age were included in the analysis. The country vaccination was below the WHO recommended coverage level and, there was a gap in timeliness of children immunization. While BCG vaccine uptake was over 95%, coverage decreased with increasing number of Pentavalent vaccine doses (Penta 1: 95.6%, Penta 2: 93.5%: Penta 3: 89.2%). Median delay for BCG was 1.7 weeks. For polio at birth, the median delay was 5 days; all other vaccine doses had median delays of 2-4 weeks. For Penta 1 and Penta 3, 23.5% and 15.7% were given late respectively. A quarter of measles vaccines were not administered or were scheduled after the recommended age. Vaccinations that were not administered within the recommended age ranges were associated with mothers' poor education level, multiple siblings, low socio-economic status and living in rural areas. CONCLUSION: A significant delay in receipt of infant vaccines is found in Senegal while vaccine coverage is suboptimal. The national expanded program on immunization should consider measuring age at immunization or using seroepidemiological data to better monitor its impact.

Safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of the candidate tuberculosis vaccine MVA85A in healthy adults infected with HIV-1: a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: HIV-1 infection is associated with increased risk of tuberculosis and a safe and effective vaccine would assist control measures. We assessed the safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of a candidate tuberculosis vaccine, modified vaccinia virus Ankara expressing antigen 85A (MVA85A), in adults infected with HIV-1. METHODS: We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial of MVA85A in adults infected with HIV-1, at two clinical sites, in Cape Town, South Africa and Dakar, Senegal. Eligible participants were aged 18-50 years, had no evidence of active tuberculosis, and had baseline CD4 counts greater than 350 cells per µL if they had never received antiretroviral therapy or greater than 300 cells per µL (and with undetectable viral load before randomisation) if they were receiving antiretroviral therapy; participants with latent tuberculosis infection were eligible if they had completed at least 5 months of isoniazid preventive therapy, unless they had completed treatment for tuberculosis disease within 3 years before randomisation. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) in blocks of four by randomly generated sequence to receive two intradermal injections of either MVA85A or placebo. Randomisation was stratified by antiretroviral therapy status and study site. Participants, nurses, investigators, and laboratory staff were masked to group allocation. The second (booster) injection of MVA85A or placebo was given 6-12 months after the first vaccination. The primary study outcome was safety in all vaccinated participants (the safety analysis population). Safety was assessed throughout the trial as defined in the protocol. Secondary outcomes were immunogenicity and vaccine efficacy against Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection and disease, assessed in the per-protocol population. Immunogenicity was assessed in a subset of participants at day 7 and day 28 after the first and second vaccination, and M tuberculosis infection and disease were assessed at the end of the study. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01151189. FINDINGS: Between Aug 4, 2011, and April 24, 2013, 650 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned; 649 were included in the safety analysis (324 in the MVA85A group and 325 in the placebo group) and 645 in the per-protocol analysis (320 and 325). 513 (71%) participants had CD4 counts greater than 300 cells per µL and were receiving antiretroviral therapy; 136 (21%) had CD4 counts above 350 cells per µL and had never received antiretroviral therapy. 277 (43%) had received isoniazid prophylaxis before enrolment. Solicited adverse events were more frequent in participants who received MVA85A (288 [89%]) than in those given placebo (235 [72%]). 34 serious adverse events were reported, 17 (5%) in each group. MVA85A induced a significant increase in antigen 85A-specific T-cell response, which peaked 7 days after both vaccinations and was primarily monofunctional. The number of participants with negative QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube findings at baseline who converted to positive by the end of the study was 38 (20%) of 186 in the MVA85A group and 40 (23%) of 173 in the placebo group, for a vaccine efficacy of 11·7% (95% CI -41·3 to 44·9). In the per-protocol population, six (2%) cases of tuberculosis disease occurred in the MVA85A group and nine (3%) occurred in the placebo group, for a vaccine efficacy of 32·8% (95% CI -111·5 to 80·3). INTERPRETATION: MVA85A was well tolerated and immunogenic in adults infected with HIV-1. However, we detected no efficacy against M tuberculosis infection or disease, although the study was underpowered to detect an effect against disease. Potential reasons for the absence of detectable efficacy in this trial include insufficient induction of a vaccine-induced immune response or the wrong type of vaccine-induced immune response, or both. FUNDING: European & Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (IP.2007.32080.002), Aeras, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome Trust, and Oxford-Emergent Tuberculosis Consortium.

Multisite evaluation of a point-of-care instrument for CD4(+) T-cell enumeration using venous and finger-prick blood: the PIMA CD4.

BACKGROUND: CD4(+) T-cell enumeration (CD4 count) is used as a criterion to initiate antiretroviral therapy (ART) in HIV patients and to monitor treatment efficacy. However, simple, affordable, and reliable point-of-care (POC) instruments adapted to resource-limited settings are still lacking. The PIMA CD4 analyzer is a new POC instrument for CD4 counting that uses disposable cartridges and a battery-powered analyzer. METHODS: Whole blood samples were taken by venipuncture or by finger prick from 300 subjects, including HIV-infected patients and HIV (-) controls. CD4 counts were measured by PIMA (using venous or capillary blood) and by FACSCount (using venous blood) considered as the reference. RESULTS: Similar CD4 counts were obtained by PIMA and FACSCount using either HIV+ venous blood or HIV+ finger-prick blood samples. However, with a concordance coefficient of 0.88 and a Pearson correlation of 0.89, finger-prick blood performed not as good as venous blood (0.97 and 0.98, respectively). For a clinical decision to start ART at 200 CD4 cells per microliter, sensitivity of PIMA was 90%/91% and specificity 98%/96% for venous/finger-prick blood, respectively, and for a treatment threshold of 350 CD4 cells per microliter, the sensitivity was 98%/91% and the specificity was 79%/80% for venous/finger-prick blood, respectively. Repeatability (precision) on venous blood resulted in a coefficient of variation of 4%. Using finger-prick blood, the average instrument error frequency resulting in aborted analyses was 14%. CONCLUSIONS: PIMA is a good POC instrument for screening adult HIV-infected patients in resource-limited settings for treatment eligibility. Its performance on finger-prick blood is not as good as on venous blood. Adequate training for correct use of finger-prick blood samples is mandatory.