TY - JOUR
T1 - DNA priming for seasonal influenza vaccine
T2 - A phase 1b double-blind randomized clinical trial
AU - VRC 70 study team
AU - Ledgerwood, Julie E.
AU - Bellamy, Abbie R.
AU - Belshe, Robert
AU - Bernstein, David I.
AU - Edupuganti, Srilatha
AU - Patel, Shital M.
AU - Renehan, Phyllis
AU - Zajdowicz, Thad
AU - Schwartz, Richard
AU - Koup, Richard
AU - Bailer, Robert T.
AU - Yamshchikov, Galina V.
AU - Enama, Mary E.
AU - Sarwar, Uzma
AU - Larkin, Brenda
AU - Graham, Barney S.
AU - Tajonera, Celsa
AU - El Sahly, Hana
AU - Rangel, Connie
AU - Nino, Diane
AU - Mbawuike, Innocent
AU - Blevins, Tamar
AU - DiPiazza, Sabrina M.
AU - Duane, Carol
AU - Kohler, Kathleen
AU - Mitchell, Michelle
AU - Wilder, Kiana
AU - Beck, Allison
AU - Daugherty, Alexis
AU - Mulligan, Mark
AU - Whitaker, Jennifer
AU - Rouphael, Nadine
AU - McCartney, Sarah
AU - Kroeger, Michelle
AU - LePage, Jesse
AU - Price, Kristie
AU - Gordon, Ingelise
AU - Kaltovich, Florence
N1 - Funding Information:
This clinical study was conducted with funding and support by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Intramural Research program, using resources provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), and contract #HHSN272201000049I awarded to the EMMES Corporation (AB, TZ, PR, RB, RTB, DB, SE, SP). AB, TZ, PR are salaried employees of the EMMES Corporation. This does not alter the authors' adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2015, Public Library of Science. All rights reserved.
PY - 2015/5/7
Y1 - 2015/5/7
N2 - Background: The efficacy of current influenza vaccines is limited in vulnerable populations. DNA vaccines can be produced rapidly, and may offer a potential strategy to improve vaccine immunogenicity, indicated by studies with H5 influenza DNA vaccine prime followed by inactivated vaccine boost. Methods: Four sites enrolled healthy adults, randomized to receive 2011/12 seasonal influenza DNA vaccine prime (n=65) or phosphate buffered saline (PBS) (n=66) administered intramuscularly with Biojector. All subjects received the 2012/13 seasonal inactivated influenza vaccine, trivalent (IIV3) 36 weeks after the priming injection. Vaccine safety and tolerability was the primary objective and measurement of antibody response by hemagglutination inhibition (HAI) was the secondary objective. Results: The DNA vaccine prime-IIV3 boost regimen was safe and well tolerated. Significant differences in HAI responses between the DNA vaccine prime and the PBS prime groups were not detected in this study. Conclusion: While DNA priming significantly improved the response to a conventional monovalent H5 vaccine in a previous study, it was not effective in adults using seasonal influenza strains, possibly due to pre-existing immunity to the prime, unmatched prime and boost antigens, or the lengthy 36 week boost interval. Careful optimization of the DNA prime-IIV3 boost regimen as related to antigen matching, interval between vaccinations, and pre-existing immune responses to influenza is likely to be needed in further evaluations of this vaccine strategy. In particular, testing this concept in younger age groups with less prior exposure to seasonal influenza strains may be informative. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01498718.
AB - Background: The efficacy of current influenza vaccines is limited in vulnerable populations. DNA vaccines can be produced rapidly, and may offer a potential strategy to improve vaccine immunogenicity, indicated by studies with H5 influenza DNA vaccine prime followed by inactivated vaccine boost. Methods: Four sites enrolled healthy adults, randomized to receive 2011/12 seasonal influenza DNA vaccine prime (n=65) or phosphate buffered saline (PBS) (n=66) administered intramuscularly with Biojector. All subjects received the 2012/13 seasonal inactivated influenza vaccine, trivalent (IIV3) 36 weeks after the priming injection. Vaccine safety and tolerability was the primary objective and measurement of antibody response by hemagglutination inhibition (HAI) was the secondary objective. Results: The DNA vaccine prime-IIV3 boost regimen was safe and well tolerated. Significant differences in HAI responses between the DNA vaccine prime and the PBS prime groups were not detected in this study. Conclusion: While DNA priming significantly improved the response to a conventional monovalent H5 vaccine in a previous study, it was not effective in adults using seasonal influenza strains, possibly due to pre-existing immunity to the prime, unmatched prime and boost antigens, or the lengthy 36 week boost interval. Careful optimization of the DNA prime-IIV3 boost regimen as related to antigen matching, interval between vaccinations, and pre-existing immune responses to influenza is likely to be needed in further evaluations of this vaccine strategy. In particular, testing this concept in younger age groups with less prior exposure to seasonal influenza strains may be informative. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01498718.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84929089747&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84929089747&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0125914
DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0125914
M3 - Article
C2 - 25950433
AN - SCOPUS:84929089747
SN - 1932-6203
VL - 10
JO - PLoS One
JF - PLoS One
IS - 5
M1 - e0125914
ER -