Vaccine trial

About: Vaccine trial is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 896 publications have been published within this topic receiving 28368 citations.

Vaccination with ALVAC and AIDSVAX to Prevent HIV-1 Infection in Thailand

Abstract: In the intention-to-treat analysis involving 16,402 subjects, there was a trend toward the prevention of HIV-1 infection among the vaccine recipients, with a vaccine efficacy of 26.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], −4.0 to 47.9; P = 0.08). In the perprotocol analysis involving 12,542 subjects, the vaccine efficacy was 26.2% (95% CI, −13.3 to 51.9; P = 0.16). In the modified intention-to-treat analysis involving 16,395 subjects (with the exclusion of 7 subjects who were found to have had HIV-1 infection at baseline), the vaccine efficacy was 31.2% (95% CI, 1.1 to 52.1; P = 0.04). Vaccination did not affect the degree of viremia or the CD4+ T-cell count in subjects in whom HIV-1 infection was subsequently diagnosed. Conclusions This ALVAC-HIV and AIDSVAX B/E vaccine regimen may reduce the risk of HIV infection in a community-based population with largely heterosexual risk. Vaccination did not affect the viral load or CD4+ count in subjects with HIV infection. Although the results show only a modest benefit, they offer insight for future research. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00223080.)

COVID-19 vaccine BNT162b1 elicits human antibody and T H 1 T cell responses.

Abstract: An effective vaccine is needed to halt the spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. Recently, we reported safety, tolerability and antibody response data from an ongoing placebo-controlled, observer-blinded phase I/II coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine trial with BNT162b1, a lipid nanoparticle-formulated nucleoside-modified mRNA that encodes the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein1. Here we present antibody and T cell responses after vaccination with BNT162b1 from a second, non-randomized open-label phase I/II trial in healthy adults, 18–55 years of age. Two doses of 1–50 μg of BNT162b1 elicited robust CD4+ and CD8+ T cell responses and strong antibody responses, with RBD-binding IgG concentrations clearly above those seen in serum from a cohort of individuals who had recovered from COVID-19. Geometric mean titres of SARS-CoV-2 serum-neutralizing antibodies on day 43 were 0.7-fold (1-μg dose) to 3.5-fold (50-μg dose) those of the recovered individuals. Immune sera broadly neutralized pseudoviruses with diverse SARS-CoV-2 spike variants. Most participants had T helper type 1 (TH1)-skewed T cell immune responses with RBD-specific CD8+ and CD4+ T cell expansion. Interferon-γ was produced by a large fraction of RBD-specific CD8+ and CD4+ T cells. The robust RBD-specific antibody, T cell and favourable cytokine responses induced by the BNT162b1 mRNA vaccine suggest that it has the potential to protect against COVID-19 through multiple beneficial mechanisms. In a phase I/II dose-escalation clinical trial, the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine BNT162b1 elicits specific T cell and antibody responses that suggest it has protective potential.

Immune correlates analysis of the mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccine efficacy clinical trial

Abstract: In the coronavirus efficacy (COVE) phase 3 clinical trial, vaccine recipients were assessed for neutralizing and binding antibodies as correlates of risk for COVID-19 disease and as correlates of protection. These immune markers were measured at the time of second vaccination and 4 weeks later, with values reported in standardized World Health Organization international units. All markers were inversely associated with COVID-19 risk and directly associated with vaccine efficacy. Vaccine recipients with postvaccination 50% neutralization titers 10, 100, and 1000 had estimated vaccine efficacies of 78% (95% confidence interval, 54 to 89%), 91% (87 to 94%), and 96% (94 to 98%), respectively. These results help define immune marker correlates of protection and may guide approval decisions for messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccines and other COVID-19 vaccines.

Biased efficacy estimates in phase-III dengue vaccine trials due to heterogeneous exposure and differential detectability of primary infections across trial arms.

Abstract: Vaccine efficacy (VE) estimates are crucial for assessing the suitability of dengue vaccine candidates for public health implementation, but efficacy trials are subject to a known bias to estimate VE toward the null if heterogeneous exposure is not accounted for in the analysis of trial data. In light of many well-characterized sources of heterogeneity in dengue virus (DENV) transmission, our goal was to estimate the potential magnitude of this bias in VE estimates for a hypothetical dengue vaccine. To ensure that we realistically modeled heterogeneous exposure, we simulated city-wide DENV transmission and vaccine trial protocols using an agent-based model calibrated with entomological and epidemiological data from long-term field studies in Iquitos, Peru. By simulating a vaccine with a true VE of 0.8 in 1,000 replicate trials each designed to attain 90% power, we found that conventional methods underestimated VE by as much as 21% due to heterogeneous exposure. Accounting for the number of exposures in the vaccine and placebo arms eliminated this bias completely, and the more realistic option of including a frailty term to model exposure as a random effect reduced this bias partially. We also discovered a distinct bias in VE estimates away from the null due to lower detectability of primary DENV infections among seronegative individuals in the vaccinated group. This difference in detectability resulted from our assumption that primary infections in vaccinees who are seronegative at baseline resemble secondary infections, which experience a shorter window of detectable viremia due to a quicker immune response. This resulted in an artefactual finding that VE estimates for the seronegative group were approximately 1% greater than for the seropositive group. Simulation models of vaccine trials that account for these factors can be used to anticipate the extent of bias in field trials and to aid in their interpretation.