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) orplacebo (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.
RCT Entities:
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 modifiedvaccinia 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.
Authors: Robert E Eckart; Suzanne S Love; J Edwin Atwood; Mark K Arness; Dimitri C Cassimatis; Charles L Campbell; Sheri Y Boyd; Joseph G Murphy; David L Swerdlow; Limone C Collins; James R Riddle; David N Tornberg; John D Grabenstein; Renata J M Engler Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2004-07-07 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: J W Hooper; E Thompson; C Wilhelmsen; M Zimmerman; M Ait Ichou; S E Steffen; C S Schmaljohn; A L Schmaljohn; P B Jahrling Journal: J Virol Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 5.103
Authors: Igor M Belyakov; Patricia Earl; Amiran Dzutsev; Vladimir A Kuznetsov; Michael Lemon; Linda S Wyatt; James T Snyder; Jeffrey D Ahlers; Genoveffa Franchini; Bernard Moss; Jay A Berzofsky Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2003-07-17 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Patricia L Earl; Jeffrey L Americo; Linda S Wyatt; Leigh Anne Eller; J Charles Whitbeck; Gary H Cohen; Roselyn J Eisenberg; Christopher J Hartmann; David L Jackson; David A Kulesh; Mark J Martinez; David M Miller; Eric M Mucker; Joshua D Shamblin; Susan H Zwiers; John W Huggins; Peter B Jahrling; Bernard Moss Journal: Nature Date: 2004-03-11 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Dimitri C Cassimatis; J Edwin Atwood; Renata M Engler; Peter E Linz; John D Grabenstein; Marina N Vernalis Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2004-05-05 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Sharon E Frey; Patricia L Winokur; Heather Hill; Johannes B Goll; Paul Chaplin; Robert B Belshe Journal: Vaccine Date: 2014-03-06 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Stephen R Walsh; Michael S Seaman; Lauren E Grandpre; Cherie Charbonneau; Katherine E Yanosick; Barbara Metch; Michael C Keefer; Raphael Dolin; Lindsey R Baden Journal: Vaccine Date: 2012-11-07 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Corinna La Rosa; Jeff Longmate; Joy Martinez; Qiao Zhou; Teodora I Kaltcheva; Weimin Tsai; Jennifer Drake; Mary Carroll; Felix Wussow; Flavia Chiuppesi; Nicola Hardwick; Sanjeet Dadwal; Ibrahim Aldoss; Ryotaro Nakamura; John A Zaia; Don J Diamond Journal: Blood Date: 2016-10-19 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Sharon E Frey; Patricia L Winokur; Robert A Salata; Samer S El-Kamary; Christine B Turley; Emmanuel B Walter; Christine Mhorag Hay; Frances K Newman; Heather R Hill; Ying Zhang; Paul Chaplin; Magdalena Tary-Lehmann; Robert B Belshe Journal: Vaccine Date: 2013-05-09 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Joseph W Golden; Matthew Josleyn; Eric M Mucker; Chien-Fu Hung; Peter T Loudon; T C Wu; Jay W Hooper Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-07-31 Impact factor: 3.240