Priming Immunization with DNA Augments Immunogenicity of Recombinant Adenoviral Vectors for Both HIV-1 Specific Antibody and T-Cell Responses

Induction of HIV-1-specific T-cell responses relevant to diverse subtypes is a major goal of HIV vaccine development. Prime-boost regimens using heterologous gene-based vaccine vectors have induced potent, polyfunctional T cell responses in preclinical studies.The first opportunity to evaluate the immunogenicity of DNA priming followed by recombinant adenovirus serotype 5 (rAd5) boosting was as open-label rollover trials in subjects who had been enrolled in prior studies of HIV-1 specific DNA vaccines. All subjects underwent apheresis before and after rAd5 boosting to characterize in depth the T cell and antibody response induced by the heterologous DNA/rAd5 prime-boost combination.rAd5 boosting was well-tolerated with no serious adverse events. Compared to DNA or rAd5 vaccine alone, sequential DNA/rAd5 administration induced 7-fold higher magnitude Env-biased HIV-1-specific CD8(+) T-cell responses and 100-fold greater antibody titers measured by ELISA. There was no significant neutralizing antibody activity against primary isolates. Vaccine-elicited CD4(+) and CD8(+) T-cells expressed multiple functions and were predominantly long-term (CD127(+)) central or effector memory T cells and that persisted in blood for >6 months. Epitopes mapped in Gag and Env demonstrated partial cross-clade recognition.Heterologous prime-boost using vector-based gene delivery of vaccine antigens is a potent immunization strategy for inducing both antibody and T-cell responses.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00102089, NCT00108654

Homologous boosting with adenoviral serotype 5 HIV vaccine (rAd5) vector can boost antibody responses despite preexisting vector-specific immunity in a randomized phase I clinical trial.

Needle-free delivery improves the immunogenicity of DNA vaccines but is also associated with more local reactogenicity. Here we report the first comparison of Biojector and needle administration of a candidate rAd5 HIV vaccine.Thirty-one adults, 18-55 years, 20 naive and 11 prior rAd5 vaccine recipients were randomized to receive single rAd5 vaccine via needle or Biojector IM injection at 1010 PU in a Phase I open label clinical trial. Solicited reactogenicity was collected for 5 days; clinical safety and immunogenicity follow-up was continued for 24 weeks.Overall, injections by either method were well tolerated. There were no serious adverse events. Frequency of any local reactogenicity was 16/16 (100%) for Biojector compared to 11/15 (73%) for needle injections. There was no difference in HIV Env-specific antibody response between Biojector and needle delivery. Env-specific antibody responses were more than 10-fold higher in subjects receiving a booster dose of rAd5 vaccine than after a single dose delivered by either method regardless of interval between prime and boost.Biojector delivery did not improve antibody responses to the rAd5 vaccine compared to needle administration. Homologous boosting with rAd5 gene-based vectors can boost insert-specific antibody responses despite pre-existing vector-specific immunity.Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00709605 NCT00709605

Safety and Immunogenicity of a rAd35-EnvA Prototype HIV-1 Vaccine in Combination with rAd5-EnvA in Healthy Adults (VRC 012).

BACKGROUND:VRC 012 was a Phase I study of a prototype recombinant adenoviral-vector serotype-35 (rAd35) HIV vaccine, the precursor to two recently published clinical trials, HVTN 077 and 083. On the basis of prior evaluation of multiclade rAd5 HIV vaccines, Envelope A (EnvA) was selected as the standard antigen for a series of prototype HIV vaccines to compare various vaccine platforms. In addition, prior studies of rAd5-vectored vaccines suggested pre-existing human immunity may be a confounding factor in vaccine efficacy. rAd35 is less seroprevalent across human populations and was chosen for testing alone and in combination with a rAd5-EnvA vaccine in the present two-part phase I study. METHODS:First, five subjects each received a single injection of 109, 1010, or 1011 particle units (PU) of rAd35-EnvA in an open-label, dose-escalation study. Next, 20 Ad5/Ad35-seronegative subjects were randomized to blinded, heterologous prime-boost schedules combining rAd5-EnvA and rAd35-EnvA with a three month interval. rAd35-EnvA was given at 1010 or 1011 PU to ten subjects each; all rAd5-EnvA injections were 1010 PU. EnvA-specific immunogenicity was assessed four weeks post-injection. Solicited reactogenicity and clinical safety were followed after each injection. RESULTS:Vaccinations were well tolerated at all dosages. Antibody responses measured by ELISA were detected at 4 weeks in 30% and 50% of subjects after single doses of 1010 or 1011 PU rAd35, respectively, and in 89% after a single rAd5-EnvA 1010 PU injection. EnvA-specific IFN-γ ELISpot responses were detected at four weeks in 0%, 70%, and 50% of subjects after the respective rAd35-EnvA dosages compared to 89% of subjects after rAd5. T cell responses were higher after a single rAd5-EnvA 1010 PU injection than after a single rAd35-EnvA 1010 PU injection, and humoral responses were low after a single dose of either vector. Of those completing the vaccine schedule, 100% of rAd5-EnvA recipients and 90% of rAd35-EnvA recipients had both T cell and humoral responses after boosting with the heterologous vector. ELISpot response magnitude was similar in both regimens and comparable to a single dose of rAd5. A trend toward more robust CD8 T cell responses using rAd5-EnvA prime and rAd35-EnvA boost was observed. Humoral response magnitude was also similar after either heterologous regimen, but was several fold higher than after a single dose of rAd5. Adverse events (AEs) related to study vaccines were in general mild and limited to one episode of hematuria, Grade two. Activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) AEs were consistent with an in vitro effect on the laboratory assay for aPTT due to a transient induction of anti-phospholipid antibody, a phenomenon that has been reported in other adenoviral vector vaccine trials. CONCLUSIONS:Limitations of the rAd vaccine vectors, including the complex interactions among pre-existing adenoviral immunity and vaccine-induced immune responses, have prompted investigators to include less seroprevalent vectors such as rAd35-EnvA in prime-boost regimens. The rAd35-EnvA vaccine described here was well tolerated and immunogenic. While it effectively primed and boosted antibody responses when given in a reciprocal prime-boost regimen with rAd5-EnvA using a three-month interval, it did not significantly improve the frequency or magnitude of T cell responses above a single dose of rAd5. The humoral and cellular immunogenicity data reported here may inform future vaccine and study design. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00479999

A DNA Vaccine for Ebola Virus Is Safe and Immunogenic in a Phase I Clinical Trial

Ebola viruses represent a class of filoviruses that causes severe hemorrhagic fever with high mortality. Recognized first in 1976 in the Democratic Republic of Congo, outbreaks continue to occur in equatorial Africa. A safe and effective Ebola virus vaccine is needed because of its continued emergence and its potential for use for biodefense. We report the safety and immunogenicity of an Ebola virus vaccine in its first phase I human study. A three-plasmid DNA vaccine encoding the envelope glycoproteins (GP) from the Zaire and Sudan/Gulu species as well as the nucleoprotein was evaluated in a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, dose escalation study. Healthy adults, ages 18 to 44 years, were randomized to receive three injections of vaccine at 2 mg (n = 5), 4 mg (n = 8), or 8 mg (n = 8) or placebo (n = 6). Immunogenicity was assessed by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), immunoprecipitation-Western blotting, intracellular cytokine staining (ICS), and enzyme-linked immunospot assay. The vaccine was well-tolerated, with no significant adverse events or coagulation abnormalities. Specific antibody responses to at least one of the three antigens encoded by the vaccine as assessed by ELISA and CD4(+) T-cell GP-specific responses as assessed by ICS were detected in 20/20 vaccinees. CD8(+) T-cell GP-specific responses were detected by ICS assay in 6/20 vaccinees. This Ebola virus DNA vaccine was safe and immunogenic in humans. Further assessment of the DNA platform alone and in combination with replication-defective adenoviral vector vaccines, in concert with challenge and immune data from nonhuman primates, will facilitate evaluation and potential licensure of an Ebola virus vaccine under the Animal Rule

DNA Vaccine Delivered by a Needle-Free Injection Device Improves Potency of Priming for Antibody and CD8+ T-Cell Responses after rAd5 Boost in a Randomized Clinical Trial

<div><p>Background</p><p>DNA vaccine immunogenicity has been limited by inefficient delivery. Needle-free delivery of DNA using a CO₂-powered Biojector® device was compared to delivery by needle and syringe and evaluated for safety and immunogenicity.</p><p>Methods</p><p>Forty adults, 18–50 years, were randomly assigned to intramuscular (IM) vaccinations with DNA vaccine, VRC-HIVDNA016-00-VP, (weeks 0, 4, 8) by Biojector® 2000™ or needle and syringe (N/S) and boosted IM at week 24 with VRC-HIVADV014-00-VP (rAd5) with N/S at 10¹⁰ or 10¹¹ particle units (PU). Equal numbers per assigned schedule had low (≤500) or high (>500) reciprocal titers of preexisting Ad5 neutralizing antibody.</p><p>Results</p><p>120 DNA and 39 rAd5 injections were given; 36 subjects completed follow-up research sample collections. IFN-γ ELISpot response rates were 17/19 (89%) for Biojector® and 13/17 (76%) for N/S delivery at Week 28 (4 weeks post rAd5 boost). The magnitude of ELISpot response was about 3-fold higher in Biojector® compared to N/S groups. Similar effects on response rates and magnitude were observed for CD8+, but not CD4+ T-cell responses by ICS. Env-specific antibody responses were about 10-fold higher in Biojector-primed subjects.</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>DNA vaccination by Biojector® was well-tolerated and compared to needle injection, primed for greater IFN-γ ELISpot, CD8+ T-cell, and antibody responses after rAd5 boosting.</p><p>Trial Registration</p><p>ClinicalTrials.gov <a href="http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00109629" target="_blank">NCT00109629</a></p></div

Safety and immunogenicity of investigational seasonal influenza hemagglutinin DNA vaccine followed by trivalent inactivated vaccine administered intradermally or intramuscularly in healthy adults: An open-label randomized phase 1 clinical trial.

BackgroundSeasonal influenza results in significant morbidity and mortality worldwide, but the currently licensed inactivated vaccines generally have low vaccine efficacies and could be improved. In this phase 1 clinical trial, we compared seasonal influenza vaccine regimens with different priming strategies, prime-boost intervals, and administration routes to determine the impact of these variables on the resulting antibody response.MethodsBetween August 17, 2012 and January 25, 2013, four sites enrolled healthy adults 18-70 years of age. Subjects were randomized to receive one of the following vaccination regimens: trivalent hemagglutinin (HA) DNA prime followed by trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV3) boost with a 3.5 month interval (DNA-IIV3), IIV3 prime followed by IIV3 boost with a 10 month interval (IIV3-IIV3), or concurrent DNA and IIV3 prime followed by IIV3 boost with a 10 month interval (DNA/IIV3-IIV3). Each regimen was additionally stratified by an IIV3 administration route of either intramuscular (IM) or intradermal (ID). DNA vaccines were administered by a needle-free jet injector (Biojector). Study objectives included evaluating the safety and tolerability of each regimen and measuring the antibody response by hemagglutination inhibition (HAI).ResultsThree hundred and sixteen subjects enrolled. Local reactogenicity was mild to moderate in severity, with higher frequencies recorded following DNA vaccine administered by Biojector compared to IIV3 by either route (p ConclusionsAll vaccination regimens were found to be safe and tolerable. While there were no overall differences between regimens, the DNA-IIV3 group by ID route, and the IIV3-IIV3 group by IM route, showed higher responses compared to the other same-route regimens