Search

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is the cause of one of the most lethal pandemics in human history, although in recent years access to highly effective anti-retroviral therapy has provided new hope worldwide. Transmission of HIV by sexual contact, childbirth and injection drug use has been reduced, but 2 million are newly infected each year, and much of the transmission is from people who do not know their status. In addition to known methods, a preventive vaccine is needed to end the pandemic. The extraordinary mutability and genetic diversity of HIV is an enormous challenge, but vaccines are being designed for broad coverage. Computer-aided design of mosaic immunogens, incorporating many epitopes from the entire genome or from conserved regions aim to induce CD8+ T cells to kill virus-infected cells or inhibit virus replication, while trimeric envelope proteins or synthetic mimics aim to induce broadly reactive neutralizing antibodies similar to those cloned from some infected patients. Induction of more potent and durable responses may require new adjuvants or replicating chimeric vectors chimeras that bear HIV genes. Passive or genetic delivery of broadly neutralizing antibodies may provide broad protection and/or lead to insights for vaccine designers. Proof-of-concept trials in non-human primates and in one human efficacy trial have provided scientific clues for a vaccine that could provide broad and durable protection against HIV. The use of vaccines to destroy HIV reservoirs as part of therapy or cure is now also being explored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many of the vaccines under development for COVID-19 involve the use of viral vectors. The Brighton Collaboration Benefit-Risk Assessment of Vaccines by Technology (BRAVATO, formerly the Viral Vector Vaccine Safety Working Group, V3SWG) working group has prepared a standardized template to describe the key considerations for the benefit-risk assessment of viral vector vaccines. This will facilitate key stakeholders to anticipate potential safety issues and interpret or assess safety data. This would also help improve communication and public acceptance of licensed viral vector vaccines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Several live-attenuated viral vaccine candidates are among the COVID-19 vaccines in development. The Brighton Collaboration Viral Vector Vaccines Safety Working Group (V3SWG) has prepared a standardized template to describe the key considerations for the benefit-risk assessment of live-attenuated viral vaccines. This will help key stakeholders assess potential safety issues and understand the benefit-risk of such vaccines. The standardized and structured assessment provided by the template would also help to contribute to improved communication and support public acceptance of licensed live-attenuated viral vaccines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Inactivated viral vaccines have long been used in humans for diseases of global health threat and are now among the vaccines for COVID-19 under development. The Brighton Collaboration Viral Vector Vaccines Safety Working Group (V3SWG) has prepared a standardized template to describe the key considerations for the benefit-risk assessment of inactivated viral vaccines. This will help key stakeholders to assess potential safety issues and understand the benefit-risk of the vaccine platform. The standardized and structured assessment provided by the template would also help to contribute to improved communication and support public acceptance of licensed inactivated viral vaccines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Several protein vaccine candidates are among the COVID-19 vaccines in development. The Brighton Collaboration Viral Vector Vaccines Safety Working Group (V3SWG) has prepared a standardized template to describe the key considerations for the benefit-risk assessment of protein vaccines. This will help key stakeholders to assess potential safety issues and understand the benefit-risk of such a vaccine platform. The structured and standardized assessment provided by the template would also help contribute to improved public acceptance and communication of licensed protein vaccines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nucleic acid (DNA and RNA) vaccines are among the most advanced vaccines for COVID-19 under development. The Brighton Collaboration Viral Vector Vaccines Safety Working Group (V3SWG) has prepared a standardized template to describe the key considerations for the benefit-risk assessment of nucleic acid vaccines. This will facilitate the assessment by key stakeholders of potential safety issues and understanding of overall benefit-risk. The structured assessment provided by the template can also help improve communication and public acceptance of licensed nucleic acid vaccines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Clinical trial participants may differ from the source population due to the demands of trial participation and self-selection, inadvertent selection of a lower-risk group, or both. We investigated the HIV risk status of volunteers in a Simulated Vaccine Efficacy Trial (SiVET) nested within a prospective observational cohort of fisher folks in South Western Uganda. Methods Volunteers aged 18–49 years, at high risk for HIV from fishing communities in Masaka district were recruited into an observational cohort and followed quarterly. High risk was defined as a self-report, of at least one of the following in the past three months; sexually transmitted infections, unprotected sex with >1 partner or a new sexual partner, use of recreational drugs, weekly alcohol use, and/or frequent travel. Volunteers who had at least three months of follow-up in the observational cohort were consecutively enrolled in SiVET, administered Hepatitis B vaccine at months (0, 1, 6) and followed-up three days post vaccinations to mimic a vaccine trial schedule. HIV incidence over the next 12 months was compared between SiVET and the observational cohort studies. Results Between January 2012 and February 2013, 575 individuals were enrolled in the observational cohort, of whom 282 were enrolled in SiVET between July 2012 and February 2013. Despite similar pattern of reported risk behaviour in both studies, HIV incidence was higher in observational cohort, 11.4 cases/100 PYO [95% CI: 7.4–17.7] compared to 3.8 [95% CI: 2.0–7.0] in SiVET ( p < 0.01). SiVET volunteers tended to be men, having some education and longer-term residents, all factors that are also associated with lower HIV risk. Conclusion We observed a lower HIV incidence in SiVET than in the observational cohort. The two populations differed significantly in demographics but not in reported risk. HIV incidence estimates from observational cohorts must be used with caution to estimate the trial study size. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Safe and effective vaccines against Ebola could prevent or control outbreaks. The safe use of replication-competent vaccines requires a careful dose-selection process. We report the first safety and immunogenicity results in volunteers receiving 3 × 10(5) plaque-forming units (pfu) of the recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus-based candidate vaccine expressing the Zaire Ebola virus glycoprotein (rVSV-ZEBOV; low-dose vaccinees) compared with 59 volunteers who had received 1 ×10(7) pfu (n=35) or 5 × 10(7) pfu (n=16) of rVSV-ZEBOV (high-dose vaccinees) or placebo (n=8) before a safety-driven study hold.Methods: The Geneva rVSV-ZEBOV study, an investigator-initiated phase 1/2, dose-finding, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial conducted at the University Hospitals of Geneva, Switzerland, enrolled non-pregnant, immunocompetent, and otherwise healthy adults aged 18-65 years. Participants from the low-dose group with no plans to deploy to Ebola-aff5cted regions (non-deployable) were randomised 9:1 in a double-blind fashion using randomly permuted blocks of varying sizes to a single injection of 3 × 10(5) pfu or placebo, whereas deployable participants received single-injection 3 × 10(5) pfu open-label. Primary safety and immunogenicity outcomes were the incidence of adverse events within 14 days of vaccination and day-28 antibody titres, respectively, analysed by intention to treat. After viral oligoarthritis was observed in 11 of the first 51 vaccinees (22%) receiving 10(7) or 5 × 10(7) pfu, 56 participants were given a lower dose (3 × 10(5) pfu, n=51) or placebo (n=5) to assess the effect of dose reduction on safety and immunogenicity. This trial is ongoing with a follow-up period of 12 months; all reported results are from interim databases. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02287480.Findings: Between Jan 5 and Jan 26, 2015, 43 non-deployable participants received low-dose rVSV-ZEBOV (3 × 10(5) pfu) or placebo in a double-blind fashion, whereas 13 deployable participants received 3 × 10(5) pfu open-label. Altogether, in the low-dose group, 51 participants received rVSV-ZEBOV and five received placebo. No serious adverse events occurred. At 3 × 10(5) pfu, early-onset reactogenicity remained frequent (45 [88%] of 51 compared with 50 [98%] of 51 high dose and two [15%] of 13 placebo recipients), but mild. Objective fever was present in one (2%) of 51 low-dose versus 13 (25%) of 51 high-dose vaccinees receiving at least 1 ×10(7) pfu (p<0·0001). Subjective fever (p<0·0001), myalgia (p=0·036), and chills (p=0·026) were significantly reduced and their time of onset delayed, reflecting significantly lower viraemia (p<0·0001) and blood monocyte-activation patterns (p=0·0233). Although seropositivity rates remained similarly high (48 [94%] of 51), day-28 EBOV-glycoprotein-binding and neutralising antibody titres were lower in low-dose versus high-dose vaccinees (geometric mean titres 344·5 [95% CI 229·7-516·4] vs 1064·2 [757·6-1495·1]; p<0·0001; and 35·1 [24·7-50·7] vs 127·0 [86·0-187·6]; p<0·0001, respectively). Furthermore, oligoarthritis again occurred on day 10 (median; IQR 9-14) in 13 (25%) of 51 low-dose vaccinees, with maculopapular, vesicular dermatitis, or both in seven (54%) of 13; arthritis was associated with increasing age in low-dose but not high-dose vaccinees. Two vaccinees presented with purpura of the lower legs; histological findings indicated cutaneous vasculitis. The presence of rVSV in synovial fluid and skin lesions confirmed causality.Interpretation: Reducing the dose of rVSV-ZEBOV improved its early tolerability but lowered antibody responses and did not prevent vaccine-induced arthritis, dermatitis, or vasculitis. Like its efficacy, the safety of rVSV-ZEBOV requires further definition in the target populations of Africa.Funding: Wellcome Trust through WHO. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: DNA- and modified virus Ankara (MVA)-vectored candidate vaccines expressing human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) clade A-derived p24/p17 gag fused to a string of HLA class I epitopes, called HIVA, were tested in phase I trials in healthy, HIV-1/2-uninfected adults in Oxford, United Kingdom. Eighteen volunteers were vaccinated with pTHr.HIVA DNA (IAVI-001) alone, 8 volunteers received MVA.HIVA (IAVI-003) alone and 9 volunteers from study IAVI-001 were boosted with MVA.HIVA 9–14 months after DNA priming (IAVI-005). Immunogenicity results observed in these trials was published previously [Mwau M, Cebere I, Sutton J, Chikoti P, Winstone N, Wee EG-T, et al. An HIV-1 clade A vaccine in clinical trials: stimulation of HIV-specific T cell responses by DNA and recombinant modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) vaccines in humans. J Gen Virol 2004;85:911–9]. Here, we report on the safety of the two vaccines and the vaccine regimes. Overall, both candidate vaccines were safe and well tolerated. There were no reported vaccine-related adverse events over the 6-month period of the study and up to 2 years after the last vaccination. There were no moderate or severe local symptoms recorded after the pTHr.HIVA DNA intramuscular administration. Almost all participants experienced local reactogenicity events such as redness and induration after MVA.HIVA intradermal injection. Thus, the results from these initial small phase I trials administering the pTHr.HIVA DNA and MVA.HIVA vaccines either alone or in a prime-boost regime to healthy HIV-1/2-negative adults indicated that the vaccines were safe and warranted further testing of this approach in larger phase I/II studies. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]