Effect of vaccination with modified vaccinia Ankara (ACAM3000) on subsequent challenge with Dryvax.

BACKGROUND: Despite the success of smallpox vaccination, the immunological correlates of protection are not fully understood. To investigate this question, we examined the effect of immunization with modified vaccinia Ankara (MVA) on subsequent challenge with replication-competent vaccinia virus (Dryvax). METHODS: Dryvax challenge by scarification was conducted in 36 healthy subjects who had received MVA (n = 29) or placebo (n = 7) in a previous study of doses and routes of immunization. Subjects were followed up for clinical take, viral shedding, and immune responses. RESULTS: MVA administration attenuated clinical takes in 21 (72%) of 29 subjects, compared with 0 of 7 placebo recipients (P = .001). Attenuation was most significant in MVA groups that received 1 x 10(7) median tissue culture infective doses (TCID(50)) intradermally (P = .001) and 1 x 10(7) TCID(50) intramuscularly (P = .001). Both duration and peak titer of viral shedding were reduced in MVA recipients. Peak neutralizing antibody responses to vaccinia virus or MVA previously induced by MVA immunization were associated with attenuated takes (P = .02) and reduced duration (P = .001) and titer (P = .005) of viral shedding. CONCLUSIONS: MVA immunization results in clinical and virologic protection against Dryvax challenge. Protection is associated with prior induction of neutralizing antibodies to MVA or vaccinia virus. MVA administered intradermally has protective and immunologic responses similar to those of a 10-fold-higher dose given subcutaneously.

Safety and immunogenicity of modified vaccinia Ankara (ACAM3000): effect of dose and route of administration.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a clinical trial of the safety and immunogenicity of modified vaccinia Ankara (MVA) to examine the effects of dose and route of administration. METHODS: Seventy-two healthy, vaccinia virus-naive subjects received 1 of 6 regimens of MVA (ACAM3000) or placebo consisting of 2 administrations given 1 month apart. RESULTS: MVA was generally well tolerated at all dose levels and by all routes. More pronounced local reactogenicity was seen with the intradermal and subcutaneous routes than with intramuscular administration. Binding antibodies to whole virus and neutralizing antibodies to the intracellular mature virion and extracellular enveloped virion forms of vaccinia virus were elicited by all routes of MVA administration and were greater for the higher dose by each route. Similar levels of neutralizing antibodies were seen at a 10-fold-lower dose given intradermally (1 x 10(7) median tissue culture infective doses [TCID(50)]), compared with responses after 1 x 10(8) TCID(50) given intramuscularly or subcutaneously. T cell immune responses to vaccinia virus were detected by an interferon gamma enzyme-linked immunospot assay but had no clear relationship to dose or route. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that intradermal immunization with MVA provides a dose-sparing effect by eliciting antibody responses similar in magnitude and kinetics to those elicited by the intramuscular or subcutaneous routes but at a 10-fold-lower dose.