BACKGROUND: Many countries have stockpiled vaccines because of concerns about the reemergence of smallpox. Traditional smallpox vaccines are based on replicating vaccinia viruses; these vaccines have considerable side effects. METHODS: To evaluate the efficacy of modified vaccinia Ankara (MVA) as a potential smallpox vaccine, we randomly assigned 440 participants to receive two doses ofMVA followed by one dose of the established replicating-vaccinia vaccine ACAM2000 (the MVA group) or to receive one dose of ACAM2000 (the ACAM2000-only group). The two primary end points were noninferiority of the MVA vaccine to ACAM2000 with respect to the peak serum neutralizing antibody titers and attenuation of the ACAM2000-associated major cutaneous reaction by previous MVA vaccination, measured according to the maximum lesion area and the derived area attenuation ratio. RESULTS:A total of 220 and 213 participants were randomly assigned and vaccinated in the MVA group and ACAM2000-onlygroup, respectively, and 208 participants received twoMVA vaccinations. At peak visits, MVA vaccination induced a geometric mean titer of neutralizing antibodies of 153.5 at week 6, as compared with 79.3 at week 4 with ACAM2000 (a ratio of 1.94 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.56 to 2.40]). At day 14, the geometric mean titer of neutralizing antibodies induced by a single MVA vaccination (16.2) was equal to that induced by ACAM2000 (16.2), and the percentages of participants with seroconversion were similar (90.8% and 91.8%, respectively). The median lesion areas of the major cutaneous reaction were 0 mm2 in the MVA group and 76.0 mm2 in the ACAM2000-only group, resulting in an area attenuation ratio of 97.9% (95% CI, 96.6 to 98.3). There were fewer adverse events or adverse events of grade 3 or higher after both MVA vaccination periods in the MVA group than in the ACAM2000-only group (17 vs. 64 participants with adverse events of grade 3 or higher, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: No safety concerns associated with the MVA vaccine were identified. Immune responses and attenuation of the major cutaneous reaction suggest that this MVA vaccine protected against variola infection. (Funded by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority of the Department of Health and Human Services and Bavarian Nordic; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01913353.).
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Many countries have stockpiled vaccines because of concerns about the reemergence of smallpox. Traditional smallpox vaccines are based on replicating vaccinia viruses; these vaccines have considerable side effects. METHODS: To evaluate the efficacy of modified vaccinia Ankara (MVA) as a potential smallpox vaccine, we randomly assigned 440 participants to receive two doses of MVA followed by one dose of the established replicating-vaccinia vaccine ACAM2000 (the MVA group) or to receive one dose of ACAM2000 (the ACAM2000-only group). The two primary end points were noninferiority of the MVA vaccine to ACAM2000 with respect to the peak serum neutralizing antibody titers and attenuation of the ACAM2000-associated major cutaneous reaction by previous MVA vaccination, measured according to the maximum lesion area and the derived area attenuation ratio. RESULTS: A total of 220 and 213 participants were randomly assigned and vaccinated in the MVA group and ACAM2000-only group, respectively, and 208 participants received two MVA vaccinations. At peak visits, MVA vaccination induced a geometric mean titer of neutralizing antibodies of 153.5 at week 6, as compared with 79.3 at week 4 with ACAM2000 (a ratio of 1.94 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.56 to 2.40]). At day 14, the geometric mean titer of neutralizing antibodies induced by a single MVA vaccination (16.2) was equal to that induced by ACAM2000 (16.2), and the percentages of participants with seroconversion were similar (90.8% and 91.8%, respectively). The median lesion areas of the major cutaneous reaction were 0 mm2 in the MVA group and 76.0 mm2 in the ACAM2000-only group, resulting in an area attenuation ratio of 97.9% (95% CI, 96.6 to 98.3). There were fewer adverse events or adverse events of grade 3 or higher after both MVA vaccination periods in the MVA group than in the ACAM2000-only group (17 vs. 64 participants with adverse events of grade 3 or higher, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: No safety concerns associated with the MVA vaccine were identified. Immune responses and attenuation of the major cutaneous reaction suggest that this MVA vaccine protected against variola infection. (Funded by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority of the Department of Health and Human Services and Bavarian Nordic; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01913353.).
Authors: Natalie A Prow; Liang Liu; Mary K McCarthy; Kevin Walters; Raj Kalkeri; Jillian Geiger; Fusataka Koide; Tamara H Cooper; Preethi Eldi; Eri Nakayama; Kerrilyn R Diener; Paul M Howley; John D Hayball; Thomas E Morrison; Andreas Suhrbier Journal: NPJ Vaccines Date: 2020-06-02 Impact factor: 7.344
Authors: Ning Yang; Aitor Garcia; Cindy Meyer; Thomas Tuschl; Taha Merghoub; Jedd D Wolchok; Liang Deng Journal: NPJ Vaccines Date: 2022-10-19 Impact factor: 9.399
Authors: Natalie A Prow; Liang Liu; Mary K McCarthy; Kevin Walters; Raj Kalkeri; Jillian Geiger; Fusataka Koide; Tamara H Cooper; Preethi Eldi; Eri Nakayama; Kerrilyn R Diener; Paul M Howley; John D Hayball; Thomas E Morrison; Andreas Suhrbier Journal: NPJ Vaccines Date: 2020-06-02 Impact factor: 7.344
Authors: Emmanuel Margolin; Wendy A Burgers; Edward D Sturrock; Marc Mendelson; Rosamund Chapman; Nicola Douglass; Anna-Lise Williamson; Edward P Rybicki Journal: Nat Rev Microbiol Date: 2020-09-10 Impact factor: 60.633