Search

Vaccine immunogenicity is affected by a variety of factors. Melatonin has been reported to affect immune responses to vaccines and infection. This was a randomized open-label trial - in which adults scheduled to receive the influenza vaccine were randomized to 5 mg melatonin or control to evaluate the effect of post-vaccination melatonin on humoral (hemagglutination-inhibition assays, HAI) and cellular (FluoroSpot) vaccine-specific cytokine responses 14-21 days post-vaccination. A total of 108 participants (melatonin treatment group: 53; control group: 55) completed the study. The groups were similar in baseline characteristics, including sleep as measured by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index. Seroconversion rates or geometric mean fold rises (GMFR) in HAI titers did not vary by treatment group. There were also no statistically significant differences between pre- and post-vaccination levels of interferon gamma (IFN-γ) or granzyme B (GzB) by treatment; however, there was a significantly higher fold rise in the double secretor (IFN-γ + GzB) peripheral blood mononuclear cells for influenza vaccine in subjects taking daily melatonin (GMFR 1.7; 95% CI 1.3, 2.3) compared to those who did not (GMFR 0.9; 95% CI 0.7, 1.1) ( p  < .001). Daily melatonin for 14 days post-influenza vaccination significantly increased the cellular co-expression of IFN-γ + GzB; however, there were no other differences in the cellular or humoral responses. Future studies of the potential utility of melatonin for enhancing vaccine response with larger sample sizes may help elucidate candidate mechanisms for these limited effects, including any interactions with the circadian system.

Introduction: Natural killer (NK) cells can both amplify and regulate immune responses to vaccination. Studies in humans and animals have observed NK cell activation within days after mRNA vaccination. In this study, we sought to determine if baseline NK cell frequencies, phenotype, or function correlate with antibody responses or inflammatory side effects induced by the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (BNT162b2)., Methods: We analyzed serum and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) from 188 participants in the Prospective Assessment of SARS-CoV-2 Seroconversion study, an observational study evaluating immune responses in healthcare workers. Baseline serum samples and PBMCs were collected from all participants prior to any SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination. Spike-specific IgG antibodies were quantified at one and six months post-vaccination by microsphere-based multiplex immunoassay. NK cell frequencies and phenotypes were assessed on pre-vaccination PBMCs from all participants by multi-color flow cytometry, and on a subset of participants at time points after the 1 st and 2 nd doses of BNT162b2. Inflammatory side effects were assessed by structured symptom questionnaires, and baseline NK cell functionality was quantified by an in vitro killing assay on participants that reported high or low post-vaccination symptom scores., Results: Key observations include: 1) circulating NK cells exhibit evidence of activation in the week following vaccination, 2) individuals with high symptom scores after 1 st vaccination had higher pre-vaccination NK cytotoxicity indices, 3) high pre-vaccination NK cell numbers were associated with lower spike-specific IgG levels six months after two BNT162b2 doses, and 4) expression of the inhibitory marker NKG2A on immature NK cells was associated with higher antibody responses 1 and 6 months post-vaccination., Discussion: These results suggest that NK cell activation by BNT162b2 vaccination may contribute to vaccine-induced inflammatory symptoms and reduce durability of vaccine-induced antibody responses., Competing Interests: SP, TB, and DT report that the Uniformed Services University USU Infectious Disease Clinical Research Program IDCRP, a US Department of Defense institution, and the Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine, Inc. HJF were funded under a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement to conduct an unrelated phase III COVID-19 monoclonal antibody immunoprophylaxis trial sponsored by AstraZeneca. The HJF, in support of the USU IDCRP, was funded by the Department of Defense Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Defense to augment the conduct of an unrelated phase III vaccine trial sponsored by AstraZeneca. Both trials were part of the US Government COVID-19 response. Neither is related to the work presented here. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Graydon, Conner, Dunham, Olsen, Goguet, Coggins, Rekedal, Samuels, Jackson-Thompson, Moser, Lindrose, Hollis-Perry, Wang, Maiolatesi, Alcorta, Reyes, Wong, Ramsey, Davies, Parmelee, Ortega, Sanchez, Moller, Inglefield, Tribble, Burgess, O’Connell, Malloy, Pollett, Broder, Laing, Anderson and Mitre.)

Background: A DNA-prime/human adenovirus serotype 5 (HuAd5) boost vaccine encoding Plasmodium falciparum (Pf) circumsporozoite protein (PfCSP) and Pf apical membrane antigen-1 (PfAMA1), elicited protection in 4/15 (27%) of subjects against controlled human malaria infection (CHMI) that was statistically associated with CD8+ T cell responses. Subjects with high level pre-existing immunity to HuAd5 were not protected, suggesting an adverse effect on vaccine efficacy (VE). We replaced HuAd5 with chimpanzee adenovirus 63 (ChAd63), and repeated the study, assessing both the two-antigen (CSP, AMA1 = CA) vaccine, and a novel three-antigen (CSP, AMA1, ME-TRAP = CAT) vaccine that included a third pre-erythrocytic stage antigen [malaria multiple epitopes (ME) fused to the Pf thrombospondin-related adhesive protein (TRAP)] to potentially enhance protection., Methodology: This was an open label, randomized Phase 1 trial, assessing safety, tolerability, and VE against CHMI in healthy, malaria naïve adults. Forty subjects (20 each group) were to receive three monthly CA or CAT DNA priming immunizations, followed by corresponding ChAd63 boost four months later. Four weeks after the boost, immunized subjects and 12 infectivity controls underwent CHMI by mosquito bite using the Pf3D7 strain. VE was assessed by determining the differences in time to parasitemia as detected by thick blood smears up to 28-days post CHMI and utilizing the log rank test, and by calculating the risk ratio of each treatment group and subtracting from 1, with significance calculated by the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method., Results: In both groups, systemic adverse events (AEs) were significantly higher after the ChAd63 boost than DNA immunizations. Eleven of 12 infectivity controls developed parasitemia (mean 11.7 days). In the CA group, 15 of 16 (93.8%) immunized subjects developed parasitemia (mean 12.0 days). In the CAT group, 11 of 16 (63.8%) immunized subjects developed parasitemia (mean 13.0 days), indicating significant protection by log rank test compared to infectivity controls (p = 0.0406) and the CA group (p = 0.0229). VE (1 minus the risk ratio) in the CAT group was 25% compared to -2% in the CA group. The CA and CAT vaccines induced robust humoral (ELISA antibodies against CSP, AMA1 and TRAP, and IFA responses against sporozoites and Pf3D7 blood stages), and cellular responses (IFN-γ FluoroSpot responses to CSP, AMA1 and TRAP) that were not associated with protection., Conclusions: This study demonstrated that the ChAd63 CAT vaccine exhibited significant protective efficacy, and confirmed protection was afforded by adding a third antigen (T) to a two-antigen (CA) formulation to achieve increased VE. Although the ChAd63-CAT vaccine was associated with increased frequencies of systemic AEs compared to the CA vaccine and, historically, compared to the HuAd5 vectored malaria vaccine encoding CSP and AMA1, they were transient and associated with increased vector dosing., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Background: Immunization 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., Methods: Two 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., Results: Adverse 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., Conclusions: PfRAS 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 Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01994525., Competing Interests: The authors have read the journal's policy and have the following competing interests: TLR is a full time salaried employee of Sanaria Inc. This affiliation does not alter our adherence to PLOS One Policies on sharing data and materials. There are no patents, products in development or marketed products associated with this research to declare.

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 10 (10) 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.

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., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Gene-based vaccination using prime/boost regimens protects animals and humans against malaria, inducing cell-mediated responses that in animal models target liver stage malaria parasites. We tested a DNA prime/adenovirus boost malaria vaccine in a Phase 1 clinical trial with controlled human malaria infection., Methodology/principal Findings: The vaccine regimen was three monthly doses of two DNA plasmids (DNA) followed four months later by a single boost with two non-replicating human serotype 5 adenovirus vectors (Ad). The constructs encoded genes expressing P. falciparum circumsporozoite protein (CSP) and apical membrane antigen-1 (AMA1). The regimen was safe and well-tolerated, with mostly mild adverse events that occurred at the site of injection. Only one AE (diarrhea), possibly related to immunization, was severe (Grade 3), preventing daily activities. Four weeks after the Ad boost, 15 study subjects were challenged with P. falciparum sporozoites by mosquito bite, and four (27%) were sterilely protected. Antibody responses by ELISA rose after Ad boost but were low (CSP geometric mean titer 210, range 44-817; AMA1 geometric mean micrograms/milliliter 11.9, range 1.5-102) and were not associated with protection. Ex vivo IFN-γ ELISpot responses after Ad boost were modest (CSP geometric mean spot forming cells/million peripheral blood mononuclear cells 86, range 13-408; AMA1 348, range 88-1270) and were highest in three protected subjects. ELISpot responses to AMA1 were significantly associated with protection (p = 0.019). Flow cytometry identified predominant IFN-γ mono-secreting CD8+ T cell responses in three protected subjects. No subjects with high pre-existing anti-Ad5 neutralizing antibodies were protected but the association was not statistically significant., Significance: The DNA/Ad regimen provided the highest sterile immunity achieved against malaria following immunization with a gene-based subunit vaccine (27%). Protection was associated with cell-mediated immunity to AMA1, with CSP probably contributing. Substituting a low seroprevalence vector for Ad5 and supplementing CSP/AMA1 with additional antigens may improve protection., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.govNCT00870987.

Background: A protective malaria vaccine will likely need to elicit both cell-mediated and antibody responses. As adenovirus vaccine vectors induce both these responses in humans, a Phase 1/2a clinical trial was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of an adenovirus serotype 5-vectored malaria vaccine against sporozoite challenge., Methodology/principal Findings: NMRC-MV-Ad-PfC is an adenovirus vector encoding the Plasmodium falciparum 3D7 circumsporozoite protein (CSP). It is one component of a two-component vaccine NMRC-M3V-Ad-PfCA consisting of one adenovector encoding CSP and one encoding apical membrane antigen-1 (AMA1) that was evaluated for safety and immunogenicity in an earlier study (see companion paper, Sedegah et al). Fourteen Ad5 seropositive or negative adults received two doses of NMRC-MV-Ad-PfC sixteen weeks apart, at 1 x 1010 particle units per dose. The vaccine was safe and well tolerated. All volunteers developed positive ELISpot responses by 28 days after the first immunization (geometric mean 272 spot forming cells/million[sfc/m]) that declined during the following 16 weeks and increased after the second dose to levels that in most cases were less than the initial peak (geometric mean 119 sfc/m). CD8+ predominated over CD4+ responses, as in the first clinical trial. Antibody responses were poor and like ELISpot responses increased after the second immunization but did not exceed the initial peak. Pre-existing neutralizing antibodies (NAb) to Ad5 did not affect the immunogenicity of the first dose, but the fold increase in NAb induced by the first dose was significantly associated with poorer antibody responses after the second dose, while ELISpot responses remained unaffected. When challenged by the bite of P. falciparum-infected mosquitoes, two of 11 volunteers showed a delay in the time to patency compared to infectivity controls, but no volunteers were sterilely protected., Significance: The NMRC-MV-Ad-PfC vaccine expressing CSP was safe and well tolerated given as two doses, but did not provide sterile protection., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00392015.