Search

Abstract: Background: Consent to participate in research is an important component of the conduct of ethical clinical trials. Current consent practices are largely policy-driven. This study was conducted to assess comprehension of study information and satisfaction with the consent form between subjects randomized to concise or to standard informed consent forms as one approach to developing evidence-based consent practices. Methods: Participants (N=111) who enrolled into two Phase I investigational influenza vaccine protocols (VRC 306 and VRC 307) at the NIH Clinical Center were randomized to one of two IRB-approved consents; either a standard or concise form. Concise consents had an average of 63% fewer words. All other aspects of the consent process were the same. Questionnaires about the study and the consent process were completed at enrollment and at the last visit in both studies. Results: Subjects using concise consent forms scored as well as those using standard length consents in measures of comprehension (7 versus 7, p=0.79 and 20 versus 21, p=0.13), however, the trend was for the concise consent group to report feeling better informed. Both groups thought the length and detail of the consent form were appropriate. Conclusions: Randomization of study subjects to different length IRB-approved consent forms as one method for developing evidence-based consent practices, resulted in no differences in study comprehension or satisfaction with the consent form. A concise consent form may be used ethically in the context of a consent process conducted by well-trained staff with opportunities for discussion and education throughout the study. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Annual influenza vaccination reduces the risks of influenza when the vaccines are well matched to circulating strains, but development of an approach that induces broader and more durable immune responses would be beneficial. We conducted two companion Phase 1 studies, VRC 307 and VRC 309, over sequential seasons (2008–2009 and 2009–2010) in which only the influenza B strain component of the vaccines differed. Objectives were safety and immunogenicity of prime–boost vaccination schedules. A schedule of DNA vaccine encoding for seasonal influenza hemagglutinins (HA) prime followed by seasonal trivalent influenza inactivated vaccine (IIV3) boost (HA DNA–IIV3) was compared to placebo (PBS)–IIV3 or IIV3–IIV3. Cumulatively, 111 adults were randomized to HA DNA–IIV3 (n = 66), PBS–IIV3 (n = 25) or IIV3–IIV3 (n = 20). Safety was assessed by clinical observations, laboratory parameters and 7-day solicited reactogenicity. The seasonal HA DNA prime–IIV3 boost regimen was evaluated as safe and well tolerated. There were no serious adverse events. The local and systemic reactogenicity for HA DNA, IIV and placebo were reported predominantly as none or mild within the first 5 days post-vaccination. There was no significant difference in immunogenicity detected between the treatment groups as evaluated by hemagglutination inhibition (HAI) assay. The studies demonstrated the safety and immunogenicity of seasonal HA DNA–IIV3 regimen, but the 3–4 week prime–boost interval was suboptimal for improving influenza-specific immune responses. This is consistent with observations in avian H5 DNA vaccine prime–boost studies in which a long interval, but not a short interval, was associated with improved immunogenicity. Trial Registration: NCT00858611 for VRC 307 and NCT00995982 for VRC 309. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Background: Because the general population is largely naive to H5N1 influenza, antibodies generated to H5 allow analysis of novel influenza vaccines independent of background immunity from previous infection. We assessed the safety and immunogenicity of DNA encoding H5 as a priming vaccine to improve antibody responses to inactivated influenza vaccination. Methods: In VRC 306 and VRC 310, two sequentially enrolled phase 1, open-label, randomised clinical trials, healthy adults (age 18–60 years) were randomly assigned to receive intramuscular H5 DNA (4 mg) at day 0 or twice, at day 0 and week 4, followed by H5N1 monovalent inactivated vaccine (MIV; 90 μg) at 4 or 24 weeks, and compared with a two-dose regimen of H5N1 MIV with either a 4 or 24 week interval. Antibody responses were assessed by haemagglutination inhibition (HAI), ELISA, neutralisation (ID80), and immunoassays for stem-directed antibodies. T cell responses were assessed by intracellular cytokine staining. After enrolment, investigators and individuals were not masked to group assignment. VRC 306 and VRC 310 are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00776711 and NCT01086657, respectively. Findings: In VRC 306, 60 individuals were randomly assigned to the four groups (15 in each) and 59 received the vaccinations. In VRC 310, of the 21 individuals enrolled, 20 received the vaccinations (nine received a two-dose regimen of H5N1 MIV and 11 received H5 DNA at day 0 followed by H5N1 MIV at week 24). H5 DNA priming was safe and enhanced H5-specific antibody titres following an H5N1 MIV boost, especially when the interval between DNA prime and MIV boost was extended to 24 weeks. In the two studies, DNA priming with a 24-week MIV boost interval induced protective HAI titres in 21 (81%) of 26 of individuals, with an increase in geometric mean titre (GMT) of more than four times that of individuals given the MIV-MIV regimen at 4 or 24 weeks (GMT 103–206 vs GMT 27–33). Additionally, neutralising antibodies directed to the conserved stem region of H5 were induced by this prime-boost regimen in several individuals. No vaccine-related serious adverse events were recorded. Interpretation: DNA priming 24 weeks in advance of influenza vaccine boosting increased the magnitude of protective antibody responses (HAI) and in some cases induced haemagglutinin-stem-specific neutralising antibodies. A DNA-MIV vaccine regimen could enhance the efficacy of H5 or other influenza vaccines and shows that anti-stem antibodies can be elicited by vaccination in man. Funding: National Institutes of Health. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Background: The severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) virus is a member of the Coronaviridae (CoV) family that first appeared in the Guangdong Province of China in 2002 and was recognized as an emerging infectious disease in March 2003. Over 8000 cases and 900 deaths occurred during the epidemic. We report the safety and immunogenicity of a SARS DNA vaccine in a Phase I human study. Methods: A single-plasmid DNA vaccine encoding the Spike (S) glycoprotein was evaluated in 10 healthy adults. Nine subjects completed the 3 dose vaccination schedule and were evaluated for vaccine safety and immune responses. Immune response was assessed by intracellular cytokine staining (ICS), ELISpot, ELISA, and neutralization assays. Results: The vaccine was well tolerated. SARS-CoV-specific antibody was detected by ELISA in 8 of 10 subjects and neutralizing antibody was detected in all subjects who received 3 doses of vaccine. SARS-CoV-specific CD4+ T-cell responses were detected in all vaccinees, and CD8+ T-cell responses in ∼20% of individuals. Conclusions: The VRC SARS DNA vaccine was well tolerated and produced cellular immune responses and neutralizing antibody in healthy adults. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Needle-free delivery of a six-plasmid HIV-1 DNA vaccine encoding EnvA, EnvB, EnvC, and subtype B Gag, Pol, and Nef underwent open-label evaluation in 15 subjects; 14 completed the 0, 1, 2 month vaccination schedule. T cell responses to HIV-specific peptide pools were detected by intracellular cytokine staining of CD4+ [13/14 (93%)] and CD8+ [5/14 (36%)], and by ELISpot in 11/14 (79%). Ten of 14 (71%) had ELISA antibody responses to Env proteins. Compared to a four-plasmid product, Gag- and Nef-specific T cell responses were improved, while Env-specific responses were maintained. This candidate vaccine has now advanced to Phase II evaluation. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Modified vaccinia Ankara (MVA) was evaluated as an alternative to Dryvax® in vaccinia-naïve and vaccinia-immune adult volunteers. Subjects received intramuscular MVA or placebo followed by Dryvax® challenge at 3 months. Two or more doses of MVA prior to Dryvax® reduced severity of lesion formation, decreased magnitude and duration of viral shedding, and augmented post-Dryvax® vaccinia-specific CD8+ T cell responses and extracellular enveloped virus protein-specific antibody responses. MVA vaccination is safe and immunogenic and improves the safety and immunogenicity of subsequent Dryvax® vaccination supporting the potential for using MVA as a vaccine in the general population to improve immunity to orthopoxviruses. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]