Search

BackgroundImmunization with radiation-attenuated sporozoites (RAS) by mosquito bite provides >90% sterile protection against Plasmodium falciparum (Pf) malaria in humans. RAS invade hepatocytes but do not replicate. CD8+ T cells recognizing parasite-derived peptides on the surface of infected hepatocytes are likely the primary protective mechanism. We conducted a randomized clinical trial of RAS immunization to assess safety, to achieve 50% vaccine efficacy (VE) against controlled human malaria infection (CHMI), and to generate reagents from protected and non-protected subjects for future identification of protective immune mechanisms and antigens.MethodsTwo cohorts (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2) of healthy, malaria-naïve, non-pregnant adults age 18-50 received five monthly immunizations with infected (true-immunized, n = 21) or non-infected (mock-immunized, n = 5) mosquito bites and underwent homologous CHMI at 3 weeks. Immunization parameters were selected for 50% protection based on prior clinical data. Leukapheresis was done to collect plasma and peripheral blood mononuclear cells.ResultsAdverse event rates were similar in true- and mock-immunized subjects. Two true- and two mock-immunized subjects developed large local reactions likely caused by mosquito salivary gland antigens. In Cohort 1, 11 subjects received 810-1235 infected bites; 6/11 (55%) were protected against CHMI vs. 0/3 mock-immunized and 0/6 infectivity controls (VE 55%). In Cohort 2, 10 subjects received 839-1131 infected bites with a higher first dose and a reduced fifth dose; 9/10 (90%) were protected vs. 0/2 mock-immunized and 0/6 controls (VE 90%). Three/3 (100%) protected subjects administered three booster immunizations were protected against repeat CHMI vs. 0/6 controls (VE 100%). Cohort 2 uniquely showed a significant rise in IFN-γ responses after the third and fifth immunizations and higher antibody responses to CSP.ConclusionsPfRAS were generally safe and well tolerated. Cohort 2 had a higher first dose, reduced final dose, higher antibody responses to CSP and significant rise of IFN-γ responses after the third and fifth immunizations. Whether any of these factors contributed to increased protection in Cohort 2 requires further investigation. A cryobank of sera and cells from protected and non-protected individuals was generated for future immunological studies and antigen discovery.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01994525.

BACKGROUND: A radiation-attenuated Plasmodium falciparum (Pf) sporozoite (SPZ) malaria vaccine, PfSPZ Vaccine, protected 6 of 6 subjects (100%) against homologous Pf (same strain as in the vaccine) controlled human malaria infection (CHMI) 3 weeks after 5 doses administered intravenously. The next step was to assess protective efficacy against heterologous Pf (different from Pf in the vaccine), after fewer doses, and at 24 weeks. METHODS: The trial assessed tolerability, safety, immunogenicity, and protective efficacy of direct venous inoculation (DVI) of 3 or 5 doses of PfSPZ Vaccine in non-immune subjects. RESULTS: Three weeks after final immunization, 5 doses of 2.7 × 105 PfSPZ protected 12 of 13 recipients (92.3% [95% CI: 48.0, 99.8]) against homologous CHMI and 4 of 5 (80.0% [10.4, 99.5]) against heterologous CHMI; 3 doses of 4.5 × 105 PfSPZ protected 13 of 15 (86.7% [35.9, 98.3]) against homologous CHMI. Twenty-four weeks after final immunization, the 5-dose regimen protected 7 of 10 (70.0% [17.3, 93.3]) against homologous and 1 of 10 (10.0% [-35.8, 45.6]) against heterologous CHMI; the 3-dose regimen protected 8 of 14 (57.1% [21.5, 76.6]) against homologous CHMI. All 22 controls developed Pf parasitemia. PfSPZ Vaccine was well tolerated, safe, and easy to administer. No antibody or T cell responses correlated with protection. CONCLUSIONS: We have demonstrated for the first time to our knowledge that PfSPZ Vaccine can protect against a 3-week heterologous CHMI in a limited group of malaria-naive adult subjects. A 3-dose regimen protected against both 3-week and 24-week homologous CHMI (87% and 57%, respectively) in this population. These results provide a foundation for developing an optimized immunization regimen for preventing malaria. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02215707. FUNDING: Support was provided through the US Army Medical Research and Development Command, Military Infectious Diseases Research Program, and the Naval Medical Research Center's Advanced Medical Development Program.

Introduction Malaria, tuberculosis (TB) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) are diseases with devastating effects on global public health, especially in the developing world. Clinical trials of candidate vaccines for these diseases are being conducted at an accelerating rate, and require accurate and consistent methods for safety data collection and reporting. We performed a systematic review of publications describing the safety results from clinical trials of malaria, TB and HIV vaccines, to ascertain the nature and consistency of safety data collection and reporting. Methods The target for the review was pre-licensure trials for malaria, TB and HIV vaccines published in English from 2000 to 2009. Search strategies were customized for each of the databases utilized (MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Reviews and Effects). Data extracted included age of trial participants, vaccine platform, route and method of vaccine administration, duration of participant follow-up, reporting of laboratory abnormalities, and the type, case definitions, severity, reporting methods and internal reporting consistency of adverse events. Results Of 2278 publications screened, 124 were eligible for inclusion (malaria: 66, TB: 9, HIV: 49). Safety data reporting was found to be highly variable among publications and often incomplete: overall, 269 overlapping terms were used to describe specific adverse events. 17% of publications did not mention fever. Descriptions of severity or degree of relatedness to immunization of adverse events were frequently omitted. 26% (32/124) of publications failed to report data on serious adverse events. Conclusions The review demonstrated lack of standardized safety data reporting in trials for vaccines against malaria, TB and HIV. Standardization of safety data collection and reporting should be encouraged to improve data quality and comparability. Limitations The search strategy missed studies published in languages other than English and excluded studies reporting on vaccine trials for diseases besides malaria, TB and HIV.

Background: In a prior study, a DNA prime / adenovirus boost vaccine (DNA/Ad) expressing P. falciparum circumsporozoite protein (CSP) and apical membrane antigen-1 (AMA1) (NMRC-M3V-D/Ad-PfCA Vaccine) induced 27% protection against controlled human malaria infection (CHMI). To investigate the contribution of DNA priming, we tested the efficacy of adenovirus vaccine alone (NMRC-M3V-Ad-PfCA ) in a Phase 1 clinical trial. Methodology/Principal Findings: The regimen was a single intramuscular injection with two non-replicating human serotype 5 adenovectors encoding CSP and AMA1, respectively. One x 1010 particle units of each construct were combined prior to administration. The regimen was safe and well-tolerated. Four weeks later, 18 study subjects received P. falciparum CHMI administered by mosquito bite. None were fully protected although one showed delayed onset of parasitemia. Antibody responses were low, with geometric mean CSP ELISA titer of 381 (range < 50–1626) and AMA1 ELISA of 4.95 µg/mL (range 0.2–38). Summed ex vivo IFN-γ ELISpot responses to overlapping peptides were robust, with geometric mean spot forming cells/million peripheral blood mononuclear cells [sfc/m] for CSP of 273 (range 38–2550) and for AMA1 of 1303 (range 435–4594). CD4+ and CD8+ T cell IFN-γ responses to CSP were positive by flow cytometry in 25% and 56% of the research subjects, respectively, and to AMA1 in 94% and 100%, respectively. Significance: In contrast to DNA/Ad, Ad alone did not protect against CHMI despite inducing broad, cell-mediated immunity, indicating that DNA priming is required for protection by the adenovirus-vectored vaccine. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00392015.