Back to Search Start Over

Phase 1 Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Vaccine Trial to Evaluate the Safety and Immunogenicity of HIV Subtype C DNA and MF59-Adjuvanted Subtype C Envelope Protein.

Authors :
Hosseinipour MC
Innes C
Naidoo S
Mann P
Hutter J
Ramjee G
Sebe M
Maganga L
Herce ME
deCamp AC
Marshall K
Dintwe O
Andersen-Nissen E
Tomaras GD
Mkhize N
Morris L
Jensen R
Miner MD
Pantaleo G
Ding S
Van Der Meeren O
Barnett SW
McElrath MJ
Corey L
Kublin JG
Source :
Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America [Clin Infect Dis] 2021 Jan 23; Vol. 72 (1), pp. 50-60.
Publication Year :
2021

Abstract

Background: The Pox-Protein Public-Private Partnership is performing a suite of trials to evaluate the bivalent subtype C envelope protein (TV1.C and 1086.C glycoprotein 120) vaccine in the context of different adjuvants and priming agents for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) type 1 (HIV-1) prevention.<br />Methods: In the HIV Vaccine Trials Network 111 trial, we compared the safety and immunogenicity of DNA prime followed by DNA/protein boost with DNA/protein coadministration injected intramuscularly via either needle/syringe or a needle-free injection device (Biojector). One hundred thirty-two healthy, HIV-1-uninfected adults were enrolled from Zambia, South Africa, and Tanzania and were randomized to 1 of 6 arms: DNA prime, protein boost by needle/syringe; DNA and protein coadministration by needle/syringe; placebo by needle/syringe; DNA prime, protein boost with DNA given by Biojector; DNA and protein coadministration with DNA given by Biojector; and placebo by Biojector.<br />Results: All vaccinations were safe and well tolerated. DNA and protein coadministration was associated with increased HIV-1 V1/V2 antibody response rate, a known correlate of decreased HIV-1 infection risk. DNA administration by Biojector elicited significantly higher CD4+ T-cell response rates to HIV envelope protein than administration by needle/syringe in the prime/boost regimen (85.7% vs 55.6%; P = .02), but not in the coadministration regimen (43.3% vs 48.3%; P = .61).<br />Conclusions: Both the prime/boost and coadministration regimens are safe and may be promising for advancement into efficacy trials depending on whether cellular or humoral responses are desired.<br />Clinical Trials Registration: South African National Clinical Trials Registry (application 3947; Department of Health [DoH] no. DOH-27-0715-4917) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02997969).<br /> (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
1537-6591
Volume :
72
Issue :
1
Database :
MEDLINE
Journal :
Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
31900486
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciz1239