Environmental Risk Assessment for rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP, a Genetically Modified Live Vaccine for Ebola Virus Disease

rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP is a live, attenuated, recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus (rVSV)-based vaccine for the prevention of Ebola virus disease caused by Zaire ebolavirus. As a replication-competent genetically modified organism, rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP underwent various environmental evaluations prior to approval, the most in-depth being the environmental risk assessment (ERA) required by the European Medicines Agency. This ERA, as well as the underlying methodology used to arrive at a sound conclusion about the environmental risks of rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP, are described in this review. Clinical data from vaccinated adults demonstrated only infrequent, low-level shedding and transient, low-level viremia, indicating a low person-to-person infection risk. Animal data suggest that it is highly unlikely that vaccinated individuals would infect animals with recombinant virus vaccine or that rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP would spread within animal populations. Preclinical studies in various hematophagous insect vectors showed that these species were unable to transmit rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP. Pathogenicity risk in humans and animals was found to be low, based on clinical and preclinical data. The overall risk for non-vaccinated individuals and the environment is thus negligible and can be minimized further through defined mitigation strategies. This ERA and the experience gained are relevant to developing other rVSV-based vaccines, including candidates under investigation for prevention of COVID-19

Lessons Learned from the Development and Roll-Out of the rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP <i>Zaire ebolavirus</i> Vaccine to Inform Marburg Virus and <i>Sudan ebolavirus</i> Vaccines

This review describes key aspects of the development of the rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP Ebola vaccine and key activities which are continuing to further expand our knowledge of the product. Extensive partnerships and innovative approaches were used to address the various challenges encountered during this process. The rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP Ebola vaccine was initially approved by the European Medicines Agency and prequalified by the World Health Organization in November 2019. It was approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration in December 2019 and approved in five African countries within 90 days of prequalification. The development resulted in the first stockpile of a registered Ebola vaccine that is available to support outbreak response. This also provides insights into how the example of rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP can inform the development of vaccines for Sudan ebolavirus, Marburg virus, and other emerging epidemic diseases in terms of the types of approaches and data needed to support product registration, availability, and the use of a filovirus vaccine

A phase I randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of a live-attenuated quadrivalent dengue vaccine in flavivirus-naïve and flavivirus-experienced healthy adults

Dengue (DENV) is a mosquito-borne virus with four serotypes causing substantial morbidity in tropical and subtropical areas worldwide. V181 is an investigational, live, attenuated, quadrivalent dengue vaccine. In this phase 1 double-blind, placebo-controlled study, the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of V181 in baseline flavivirus-naïve (BFN) and flavivirus-experienced (BFE) healthy adults were evaluated in two formulations: TV003 and TV005. TV005 contains a 10-fold higher DENV2 level than TV003. Two-hundred adults were randomized 2:2:1 to receive TV003, TV005, or placebo on Days 1 and 180. Immunogenicity against the 4 DENV serotypes was measured using a Virus Reduction Neutralization Test (VRNT60) after each vaccination and out to 1 year after the second dose. There were no discontinuations due to adverse events (AE) or serious vaccine-related AEs in the study. Most common AEs after TV003 or TV005 were headache, rash, fatigue, and myalgia. Tri- or tetravalent vaccine-viremia was detected in 63.9% and 25.6% of BFN TV003 and TV005 participants, respectively, post-dose 1 (PD1). Tri- or tetravalent dengue VRNT60 seropositivity was demonstrated in 92.6% of BFN TV003, 74.2% of BFN TV005, and 100% of BFE TV003 and TV005 participants PD1. Increases in VRNT60 GMTs were observed after the first vaccination with TV003 and TV005 in both flavivirus subgroups for all dengue serotypes, and minimal increases were measured PD2. GMTs in the TV003 and TV005 BFE and BFN groups remained above the respective baselines and placebo through 1-year PD2. These data support further development of V181 as a single-dose vaccine for the prevention of dengue disease

Clin Infect Dis

BACKGROUND: The rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP vaccine (ERVEBO®) is a single-dose, live-attenuated, recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus vaccine indicated for the prevention of Ebola virus disease (EVD) caused by Zaire ebolavirus in individuals 12 months of age and older. METHODS: The Partnership for Research on Ebola VACcination (PREVAC) is a multicenter, phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 3 vaccine strategies in healthy children (ages 1-17) and adults, with projected 5 years of follow-up (NCT02876328). Using validated assays (GP-ELISA and PRNT), we measured antibody responses after 1-dose rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP, 2-dose rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP (given on Day 0 and Day 56), or placebo. Further, we quantified vaccine virus shedding in a subset of children's saliva using RT-PCR. RESULTS: 819 children and 783 adults were randomized to receive rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP (1 or 2 doses) or placebo. A single dose of rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP increased antibody responses by Day 28 that were sustained through Month 12. A second dose of rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP given on Day 56 transiently boosted antibody concentrations. In vaccinated children, GP-ELISA titers were superior to placebo and non-inferior to vaccinated adults. Vaccine virus shedding was observed in 31.7% of children, peaking by Day 7, with no shedding observed after Day 28 post-dose 1 or any time post-dose 2. CONCLUSIONS: A single dose of rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP induced robust antibody responses in children that was non-inferior to the responses induced in vaccinated adults. Vaccine virus shedding in children was time-limited and only observed after the first dose. Overall, these data support the use of rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP for the prevention of EVD in at-risk children

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field