Mark J Mulligan1, Jack T Stapleton2, Wendy A Keitel3, Sharon E Frey4, Wilbur H Chen5, Nadine Rouphael6, Srilatha Edupuganti6, Allison Beck6, Patricia L Winokur2, Hana M El Sahly3, Shital M Patel3, Robert L Atmar3, Irene Graham4, Edwin Anderson4, Samer S El-Kamary5, Marcela F Pasetti5, Marcelo B Sztein5, Heather Hill7, Johannes B Goll7. 1. The Hope Clinic of the Emory Vaccine Center, Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Emory University School of Medicine, 500 Irvin Court, Suite 200, Decatur, GA 30030, USA. Electronic address: mark.mulligan@emory.edu. 2. University of Iowa, SW54-4, GH, 200 Hawkins Drive, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA. 3. Departments of Molecular Virology and Microbiology, and Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, BCM MS 280, One Baylor Plaza, Houston, TX 77030, USA. 4. Division of Infectious Diseases, Allergy and Immunology, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, 1100 South Grand Boulevard, DRC-8, St. Louis, MO 63104, USA. 5. Center for Vaccine Development, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 685 W. Baltimore St., Suite 480, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA. 6. The Hope Clinic of the Emory Vaccine Center, Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Emory University School of Medicine, 500 Irvin Court, Suite 200, Decatur, GA 30030, USA. 7. The Emmes Corporation, 401 North Washington Street, Suite 700, Rockville, MD 20850, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tularemia is caused by Francisella tularensis, a gram-negative bacterium that has been weaponized as an aerosol. For protection of personnel conducting biodefense research, the United States Army required clinical evaluation of a new lot of tularemia live vaccine strain manufactured in accordance with Current Good Manufacturing Practices. METHODS: A phase 2 randomized clinical trial compared the new lot (DVC-LVS) to the existing vaccine that has been in use for decades (USAMRIID-LVS). The vaccines were delivered by scarification to 228 participants. Safety, reactogenicity, take and/orantibody levels were assessed on days 0, 1, 2, 8, 14, 28, 56, and 180. PRINCIPAL RESULTS: Both vaccines were safe and had acceptable reactogenicity profiles during six months of follow-up. There were no serious or grade 3 and 4 laboratory adverse events. Moderate systemic reactogenicity (mostly headache or feeling tired) was reported by ∼23% of participants receiving either vaccine. Injection site reactogenicity was mostly mild itchiness and pain. The frequencies of vaccine take skin reactions were 73% (95% CI, 64, 81) for DVC-LVS and 80% (95% CI, 71, 87) for USAMRIID-LVS. The 90% CI for the difference in proportions was -6.9% (-16.4, 2.6). The rates of seroconversion measured by microagglutination assay on days 28 or 56 were 94% (95% CI, 88, 98; n=98/104) for DVC-LVS and 94% (95% CI, 87, 97; n=103/110) for USAMRIID-LVS (p=1.00). Day 14 sera revealed more rapid seroconversion for DVC-LVS relative to USAMRIID-LVS: 82% (95% CI, 73, 89) versus 55% (95% CI, 45, 65), respectively (p<0.0001). MAJOR CONCLUSIONS: The DVC-LVS vaccine had similar safety, reactogenicity, take and antibody responses compared to the older USAMRIID vaccine, and was superior for early (day 14) antibody production. Vaccination take was not a sensitive surrogate for seroconversion in a multi-center study where personnel at five research clinics performed assessments. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01150695.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Tularemia is caused by Francisella tularensis, a gram-negative bacterium that has been weaponized as an aerosol. For protection of personnel conducting biodefense research, the United States Army required clinical evaluation of a new lot of tularemia live vaccine strain manufactured in accordance with Current Good Manufacturing Practices. METHODS: A phase 2 randomized clinical trial compared the new lot (DVC-LVS) to the existing vaccine that has been in use for decades (USAMRIID-LVS). The vaccines were delivered by scarification to 228 participants. Safety, reactogenicity, take and/or antibody levels were assessed on days 0, 1, 2, 8, 14, 28, 56, and 180. PRINCIPAL RESULTS: Both vaccines were safe and had acceptable reactogenicity profiles during six months of follow-up. There were no serious or grade 3 and 4 laboratory adverse events. Moderate systemic reactogenicity (mostly headache or feeling tired) was reported by ∼23% of participants receiving either vaccine. Injection site reactogenicity was mostly mild itchiness and pain. The frequencies of vaccine take skin reactions were 73% (95% CI, 64, 81) for DVC-LVS and 80% (95% CI, 71, 87) for USAMRIID-LVS. The 90% CI for the difference in proportions was -6.9% (-16.4, 2.6). The rates of seroconversion measured by microagglutination assay on days 28 or 56 were 94% (95% CI, 88, 98; n=98/104) for DVC-LVS and 94% (95% CI, 87, 97; n=103/110) for USAMRIID-LVS (p=1.00). Day 14 sera revealed more rapid seroconversion for DVC-LVS relative to USAMRIID-LVS: 82% (95% CI, 73, 89) versus 55% (95% CI, 45, 65), respectively (p<0.0001). MAJOR CONCLUSIONS: The DVC-LVS vaccine had similar safety, reactogenicity, take and antibody responses compared to the older USAMRIID vaccine, and was superior for early (day 14) antibody production. Vaccination take was not a sensitive surrogate for seroconversion in a multi-center study where personnel at five research clinics performed assessments. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01150695.
Authors: H M El Sahly; R L Atmar; S M Patel; J M Wells; T Cate; M Ho; K Guo; M F Pasetti; D E Lewis; M B Sztein; W A Keitel Journal: Vaccine Date: 2009-06-28 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: D T Dennis; T V Inglesby; D A Henderson; J G Bartlett; M S Ascher; E Eitzen; A D Fine; A M Friedlander; J Hauer; M Layton; S R Lillibridge; J E McDade; M T Osterholm; T O'Toole; G Parker; T M Perl; P K Russell; K Tonat Journal: JAMA Date: 2001-06-06 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Marcela F Pasetti; Lilian Cuberos; Thomas L Horn; Jeffry D Shearer; Stephen J Matthews; Robert V House; Marcelo B Sztein Journal: Vaccine Date: 2008-01-29 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Muktha S Natrajan; Nadine Rouphael; Lilin Lai; Dmitri Kazmin; Travis L Jensen; David S Weiss; Chris Ibegbu; Marcelo B Sztein; William F Hooper; Heather Hill; Evan J Anderson; Robert Johnson; Patrick Sanz; Bali Pulendran; Johannes B Goll; Mark J Mulligan Journal: Vaccines (Basel) Date: 2019-12-24
Authors: Johannes B Goll; Shuzhao Li; James L Edwards; Steven E Bosinger; Travis L Jensen; Yating Wang; William F Hooper; Casey E Gelber; Katherine L Sanders; Evan J Anderson; Nadine Rouphael; Muktha S Natrajan; Robert A Johnson; Patrick Sanz; Daniel Hoft; Mark J Mulligan Journal: Vaccines (Basel) Date: 2020-07-24
Authors: Yie-Hwa Chang; Duc M Duong; Johannes B Goll; David C Wood; Travis L Jensen; Luming Yin; Casey E Gelber; Nicholas T Seyfried; Evan Anderson; Muktha S Natrajan; Nadine Rouphael; Robert A Johnson; Patrick Sanz; Mark J Mulligan; Daniel F Hoft Journal: Vaccines (Basel) Date: 2020-07-24
Authors: Kristal M Maner-Smith; Johannes B Goll; Manoj Khadka; Travis L Jensen; Jennifer K Colucci; Casey E Gelber; Carolyn J Albert; Steven E Bosinger; Jacob D Franke; Muktha Natrajan; Nadine Rouphael; Robert A Johnson; Patrick Sanz; Evan J Anderson; Daniel F Hoft; Mark J Mulligan; David A Ford; Eric A Ortlund Journal: Vaccines (Basel) Date: 2020-07-24
Authors: Rosangela Salerno-Gonçalves; Wilbur H Chen; Mark J Mulligan; Sharon E Frey; Jack T Stapleton; Wendy A Keitel; Jason Bailey; Eli Sendra; Heather Hill; Robert A Johnson; Marcelo B Sztein Journal: Clin Transl Immunology Date: 2021-01-19
Authors: Qingmei Jia; Helle Bielefeldt-Ohmann; Rachel M Maison; Saša Masleša-Galić; Sarah K Cooper; Richard A Bowen; Marcus A Horwitz Journal: NPJ Vaccines Date: 2021-03-30 Impact factor: 7.344
Authors: J Wayne Conlan; Anders Sjöstedt; H Carl Gelhaus; Perry Fleming; Kevan McRae; Ronald R Cobb; Roberto De Pascalis; Karen L Elkins Journal: Pathogens Date: 2021-06-23