Enhanced Adenovirus Vaccine Safety Surveillance in Military Setting, United States.

The US Coast Guard Academy began adenovirus vaccination of incoming cadets in 2022. Of 294 vaccine recipients, 15%-20% had mild respiratory or systemic symptoms within 10 days postvaccination but no serious adverse events after 90 days. Our findings support the continued use of adenovirus vaccines in congregate military settings.

Vaccines for the common cold.

BACKGROUND: The common cold is a spontaneously remitting infection of the upper respiratory tract, characterised by a runny nose, nasal congestion, sneezing, cough, malaise, sore throat, and fever (usually < 37.8 ºC). Whilst the common cold is generally not harmful, it is a cause of economic burden due to school and work absenteeism. In the United States, economic loss due to the common cold is estimated at more than USD 40 billion per year, including an estimate of 70 million workdays missed by employees, 189 million school days missed by children, and 126 million workdays missed by parents caring for children with a cold. Additionally, data from Europe show that the total cost per episode may be up to EUR 1102. There is also a large expenditure due to inappropriate antimicrobial prescription. Vaccine development for the common cold has been difficult due to antigenic variability of the common cold viruses; even bacteria can act as infective agents. Uncertainty remains regarding the efficacy and safety of interventions for preventing the common cold in healthy people, thus we performed an update of this Cochrane Review, which was first published in 2011 and updated in 2013 and 2017. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of vaccines for preventing the common cold in healthy people. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (April 2022), MEDLINE (1948 to April 2022), Embase (1974 to April 2022), CINAHL (1981 to April 2022), and LILACS (1982 to April 2022). We also searched three trials registers for ongoing studies, and four websites for additional trials (April 2022). We did not impose any language or date restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any virus vaccine compared with placebo to prevent the common cold in healthy people. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used Cochrane's Screen4Me workflow to assess the initial search results. Four review authors independently performed title and abstract screening to identify potentially relevant studies. We retrieved the full-text articles for those studies deemed potentially relevant, and the review authors independently screened the full-text reports for inclusion in the review, recording reasons for exclusion of the excluded studies. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion or by consulting a third review author when needed. Two review authors independently collected data on a data extraction form, resolving any disagreements by consensus or by involving a third review author. We double-checked data transferred into Review Manager 5 software. Three review authors independently assessed risk of bias using RoB 1 tool as outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We carried out statistical analysis using Review Manager 5. We did not conduct a meta-analysis, and we did not assess publication bias. We used GRADEpro GDT software to assess the certainty of the evidence and to create a summary of findings table.  MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any new RCTs for inclusion in this update. This review includes one RCT conducted in 1965 with an overall high risk of bias. The RCT included 2307 healthy young men in a military facility, all of whom were included in the analyses, and compared the effect of three adenovirus vaccines (live, inactivated type 4, and inactivated type 4 and 7) against a placebo (injection of physiological saline or gelatin capsule). There were 13 (1.14%) events in 1139 participants in the vaccine group, and 14 (1.19%) events in 1168 participants in the placebo group. Overall, we do not know if there is a difference between the adenovirus vaccine and placebo in reducing the incidence of the common cold (risk ratio 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 2.02; very low-certainty evidence). Furthermore, no difference in adverse events when comparing live vaccine preparation with placebo was reported. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence to very low due to unclear risk of bias, indirectness because the population of this study was only young men, and imprecision because confidence intervals were wide and the number of events was low. The included study did not assess vaccine-related or all-cause mortality.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This Cochrane Review was based on one study with very low-certainty evidence, which showed that there may be no difference between the adenovirus vaccine and placebo in reducing the incidence of the common cold. We identified a need for well-designed, adequately powered RCTs to investigate vaccines for the common cold in healthy people. Future trials on interventions for preventing the common cold should assess a variety of virus vaccines for this condition, and should measure such outcomes as common cold incidence, vaccine safety, and mortality (all-cause and related to the vaccine).

Protocolo estadual para atendimento de casos suspeitos ou confirmados de síndrome de trombose com trombocitopenia (STT) associada à vacinação com vacinas de vetor de adenovírus não replicante contra a covid-19 / State protocol for the care of suspected or confirmed cases of thrombosis syndrome with thrombocytopenia (STT) associated with vaccination with non-replicating adenovirus vector vaccines against covid-19

Os efeitos generalizados exercidos pela pandemia da doença do Coronavírus 2019 (COVID-19) obrigaram governos e instituições de saúde mundiais a deslocar recursos para a contenção da crise sanitária e a desenvolver métodos para reduzi-los. As vacinas foram elencadas como principal método para conter a pandemia, com mais de um bilhão de doses administradas em todo o mundo. Entre as vacinas produzidas até o momento para combate ao vírus causador, SARS-CoV-2, estão as vacinas de vetores de adenovírus da Oxford-AstraZeneca (AZD1222) e a da Johnson & Johnson (Ad26.COV2.S). Após a implementação da vacinação em massa da população mundial, relatou-se um distúrbio pró-trombótico extremamente raro associado a ambas vacinas com trombocitopenia concomitante e desenvolvimento de anticorpos antiplaquetários fator 4 (anti-PF4). Esta desordem foi denominada inicialmente como Síndrome da Trombose com Trombocitopenia (STT) e posteriormente como Trombose Trombocitopênica Imune induzida por Vacina (TTIV). Os primeiros casos de trombose relacionados à vacinação para o SARS-CoV-2 começaram a ser reportados no final de fevereiro de 2021. Os relatos levaram à abertura de uma investigação pelas Agências do Reino Unido de Regulação de Produtos de Saúde e Medicina (MHRA) e Europeia de Medicina (EMA), as quais anunciaram em 11 de março de 2021 que não havia uma associação identificada. Entretanto, três grupos de cientistas da Noruega, Alemanha e Reino Unido reportaram, na semana seguinte, um caso de trombose localizada no seio venoso cerebral com trombocitopenia e anticorpos antiplaquetários fator 4 em um indivíduo que havia recebido a vacina da Oxford-AstraZeneca. Após maiores investigações, em 7 de abril de 2021, MHRA e EMA anunciaram a nova Síndrome de Trombose com Trombocitopenia e anticorpos antiplaquetários fator 4. Em 11 de novembro de 2021, houve a elaboração de uma definição de caso para STT, realizada pelo Brighton Collaboration, a qual engloba 5 critérios: (1) evidência de trombocitopenia sem exposição recente à heparina; (2) presença de trombose ou tromboembolismo confirmado por exame de imagem, procedimento cirúrgico, exame patológico ou dor de cabeça persistente com elevação de D-dímero (sugerindo trombose de seio venoso cerebral); (3) sintomas clínicos de trombose (Quadro 1); (4) exames de imagem e achados laboratoriais que confirmem o diagnóstico de trombose ou tromboembolismo; (5) achados laboratoriais que confirmem o diagnóstico de anticorpos de ativação plaquetária mediados por trombose, como enzima-imunoensaio (EIA) positivo para anti-PF4 e teste funcional positivo de ativação plaquetária com adição de PF4.

A three-antigen Plasmodium falciparum DNA prime-Adenovirus boost malaria vaccine regimen is superior to a two-antigen regimen and protects against controlled human malaria infection in healthy malaria-naïve adults.

BACKGROUND: A DNA-prime/human adenovirus serotype 5 (HuAd5) boost vaccine encoding Plasmodium falciparum (Pf) circumsporozoite protein (PfCSP) and Pf apical membrane antigen-1 (PfAMA1), elicited protection in 4/15 (27%) of subjects against controlled human malaria infection (CHMI) that was statistically associated with CD8+ T cell responses. Subjects with high level pre-existing immunity to HuAd5 were not protected, suggesting an adverse effect on vaccine efficacy (VE). We replaced HuAd5 with chimpanzee adenovirus 63 (ChAd63), and repeated the study, assessing both the two-antigen (CSP, AMA1 = CA) vaccine, and a novel three-antigen (CSP, AMA1, ME-TRAP = CAT) vaccine that included a third pre-erythrocytic stage antigen [malaria multiple epitopes (ME) fused to the Pf thrombospondin-related adhesive protein (TRAP)] to potentially enhance protection. METHODOLOGY: This was an open label, randomized Phase 1 trial, assessing safety, tolerability, and VE against CHMI in healthy, malaria naïve adults. Forty subjects (20 each group) were to receive three monthly CA or CAT DNA priming immunizations, followed by corresponding ChAd63 boost four months later. Four weeks after the boost, immunized subjects and 12 infectivity controls underwent CHMI by mosquito bite using the Pf3D7 strain. VE was assessed by determining the differences in time to parasitemia as detected by thick blood smears up to 28-days post CHMI and utilizing the log rank test, and by calculating the risk ratio of each treatment group and subtracting from 1, with significance calculated by the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method. RESULTS: In both groups, systemic adverse events (AEs) were significantly higher after the ChAd63 boost than DNA immunizations. Eleven of 12 infectivity controls developed parasitemia (mean 11.7 days). In the CA group, 15 of 16 (93.8%) immunized subjects developed parasitemia (mean 12.0 days). In the CAT group, 11 of 16 (63.8%) immunized subjects developed parasitemia (mean 13.0 days), indicating significant protection by log rank test compared to infectivity controls (p = 0.0406) and the CA group (p = 0.0229). VE (1 minus the risk ratio) in the CAT group was 25% compared to -2% in the CA group. The CA and CAT vaccines induced robust humoral (ELISA antibodies against CSP, AMA1 and TRAP, and IFA responses against sporozoites and Pf3D7 blood stages), and cellular responses (IFN-γ FluoroSpot responses to CSP, AMA1 and TRAP) that were not associated with protection. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that the ChAd63 CAT vaccine exhibited significant protective efficacy, and confirmed protection was afforded by adding a third antigen (T) to a two-antigen (CA) formulation to achieve increased VE. Although the ChAd63-CAT vaccine was associated with increased frequencies of systemic AEs compared to the CA vaccine and, historically, compared to the HuAd5 vectored malaria vaccine encoding CSP and AMA1, they were transient and associated with increased vector dosing.

Safety and effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines currently undergoing clinical trials. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched to collect open human COVID-19 vaccines randomized controlled trials, without limiting the search time and language. The research papers collected in the above-mentioned databases were initially screened according to the title and abstract content and merged, and the repeated ones were removed. After reading the full text of the remaining research, the studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria were excluded, and finally, nine studies were obtained. After extracting the statistical data of adverse events in the study, load them into Review Manager for heterogeneity analysis. RESULTS: The incidence of adverse reactions of inactivated virus vaccines, RNA vaccines, and adenovirus vector vaccines was higher than that of placebo. Common adverse reactions included pain, swelling, and fever at the injection site. CONCLUSION: From the perspective of effectiveness, RNA vaccine > adenovirus vector vaccine > inactivated virus vaccine. From the perspective of safety, the incidence of adverse reactions of the three vaccines is higher than that of a placebo, and the incidence of adverse reactions of the adenovirus vector vaccine is higher.

Potential Anionic Substances Binding to Platelet Factor 4 in Vaccine-Induced Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia of ChAdOx1-S Vaccine for SARS-CoV-2.

Recent reports of rare ChAdOx1-S vaccine-related venous thrombosis led to the suspension of its usage in several countries. Vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) is characterized by thrombocytopenia and thrombosis in association with anti-platelet factor 4 (PF4) antibodies. Herein, we propose five potential anionic substances of the ChAdOx1-S vaccine that can combine with PF4 and trigger VITT, including (1) the proteins on the surface of adenovirus, e.g., negative charged glycoprotein, (2) the adjuvant components of the vaccine, e.g., Tween 80, (3) the DNA of adenovirus, (4) the S protein antigen expressed by the vaccine, and (5) the negatively charged impurity proteins expressed by the vaccine, e.g., adenovirus skeleton proteins. After analysis of each case, we consider the most possible trigger to be the negatively charged impurity proteins expressed by the vaccine. Then, we display the possible extravascular route and intravascular route of the formation of PF4 autoantibodies triggered by the negatively charged impurity proteins, which is accordant with the clinical situation. Accordingly, the susceptible individuals of VITT after ChAdOx1-S vaccination may be people who express negatively charged impurity proteins and reach a certain high titer.

Adverse events following adenovirus type 4 and type 7 vaccine, live, oral in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), United States, October 2011-July 2018.

BACKGROUND: In March 2011, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration licensed adenovirus type 4 and type 7 vaccine, live, oral (Barr Labs, Inc.) (adenovirus vaccine) for use in military personnel 17 through 50 years of age. The vaccine was first universally administered to U.S. military recruits in October 2011. We investigated adverse event (AE) reports following the adenovirus vaccine submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). METHODS: We searched the VAERS database for U.S. reports among persons who received adenovirus vaccine during October 2011 through July 2018 including participants in a military observational study. We reviewed all serious reports and accompanying medical records. We compared the proportion of serious reports in a proxy military recruit population and reviewed all reports of suspected allergic reactions following adenovirus vaccination. RESULTS: During the analytic period, VAERS received 100 reports following adenovirus vaccination; 39 (39%) were classified as serious and of these, 17 (44%) were from the observational study. One death was reported. Males accounted for 72% of reports. Median age of vaccinees was 19 years (range 17-32). The most frequently reported serious AEs were Guillain Barré syndrome (GBS) (n = 12) and anaphylaxis (n = 8); of these, two GBS and all the anaphylaxis reports were reported in the observational study. Reports documented concurrent receipt of multiple other vaccines (95%) and penicillin G (IM Pen G) or other antibiotics (50%). CONCLUSIONS: The reporting rate for serious AEs was higher than with other vaccines administered in the comparison military recruit population (39% vs 18%); however, we identified no unexpected or concerning pattern of adenovirus vaccine AEs. Co-administration of vaccines and IM Pen G was commonly reported in this military population. These exposures may have contributed to the GBS and anaphylaxis outcomes observed with the adenovirus vaccine. Future adenovirus vaccine safety studies in a population without these co-administrations would be helpful in clarifying the vaccine's safety profile.

Safety evaluation of adenovirus type 4 and type 7 vaccine live, oral in military recruits.

Before the widespread adoption of vaccination, adenovirus type 4 and type 7 were long associated with respiratory illnesses among military recruits. When supplies were depleted and vaccination was suspended in 1999 for approximately a decade, respiratory illnesses due to adenovirus infections resurged. In March 2011, a new live, oral adenovirus vaccine was licensed by the US Food and Drug Administration and was first universally administered to military recruits in October 2011, leading to rapid, dramatic elimination of the disease within a few months. As part of licensure, a postmarketing study (Sentinel Surveillance Plan) was performed to detect potential safety signals within 42days after immunization of military recruits. This study retrospectively evaluated possible adverse events related to vaccination using data from the Armed Forces Health Surveillance Branch Defense Medical Surveillance System (DMSS) database. Among 100,000 recruits who received the adenovirus vaccine, no statistically significant greater risk of prespecified medical events was observed within 42days after vaccination when compared with a historical cohort of 100,000 unvaccinated recruits. In an initial statistical analysis of International Classification of Disease, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification codes, a statistically significant higher risk for 19 other (not prespecified) medical events occurring in 5 or more recruits was observed among vaccinated compared with unvaccinated groups. After case record data abstraction for attribution and validation, two events (psoriasis [21 vs 7 cases] and serum reactions [12 vs 4 cases]) occurred more frequently in the vaccinated cohort. A causal relation of these rare events with adenovirus vaccination could not be established given confounding factors in the DMSS, such as coadministration of other vaccines and incomplete or inaccurate medical information, for some recruits. Prospective surveillance assessing these uncommon, but potentially relevant, immune-related symptoms may be beneficial in defining potential causal association with adenovirus vaccination.

A single intraduodenal administration of human adenovirus 40 vaccine effectively prevents anaphylactic shock.

Vaccine administration into the intestine is known to induce mucosal tolerance most efficiently. Therefore, developing a delivery system that targets the intestinal mucosa is expected to improve the efficiency of immunosuppression. Human enteric adenovirus serotype 40 (Ad40)-based vectors have the advantage of targeting intestinal mucosa, making them prime candidates as mucosal vaccine carriers for immunosuppression. Here, after both oral and intraduodenal administrations, the vector distribution of replication-defective recombinant Ad40 vectors (rAd40) was significantly higher than that of a conventional Ad vector based on human adenovirus 5 (Ad5) in ilea containing Peyer's patches. Single intraduodenal administration of rAd40 induced antigen-specific mucosal immunoreaction mediated by intestinal mucosal and systemic immunity. In ovalbumin-induced allergy mouse models, this approach inhibited antigen-specific delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions, diarrhea occurrence, and systemic anaphylaxis. Thus, a single intraduodenal administration of rAd40 provides a potent method of inducing allergen-specific mucosal tolerance and a new allergen-specific immunotherapy for overcoming problems with current therapies against life-threatening allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis.

A phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the safety and efficacy of the live, oral adenovirus type 4 and type 7 vaccine, in U.S. military recruits.

Adenovirus (ADV) types 4 (ADV-4) and 7 (ADV-7) are presently the major cause of febrile acute respiratory disease (ARD) in U.S. military recruits. We conducted a multi-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study of the new vaccine to assess its safety and efficacy. Healthy adults at two basic training sites were randomly assigned to receive either vaccine (two enteric-coated tablets consisting of no less than 4.5 log10 TCID50 of live ADV-4 or ADV-7) or placebo in a 3:1 ratio. Volunteers were observed throughout the approximate eight weeks of their basic training and also returned for four scheduled visits. The primary endpoints were prevention of febrile ARD due to ADV-4 and seroconversion of neutralizing serum antibodies to ADV-7, which was not expected to circulate in the study population during the course of the trial. A total of 4151 volunteers were enrolled and 4040 (97%) were randomized and included in the primary analysis (110 were removed prior to randomization and one was removed after randomization due to inability to swallow tablets). A total of 49 ADV-4 febrile ARD cases were identified with 48 in the placebo group and 1 in the vaccine group (attack rates of 4.76% and 0.03%, respectively). Vaccine efficacy was 99.3% (95% CI, 96.0-99.9; P<0.001). Seroconversion rates for vaccine recipients for ADV-4 and ADV-7 were 94.5% (95% CI, 93.4-95.5%) and 93.8% (95% CI: 93.4-95.2%), respectively. The vaccine was well tolerated as compared to placebo. We conclude that the new live, oral ADV-4 and ADV-7 vaccine is safe and effective for use in groups represented by the study population.