A phase I randomized, double-blind, controlled trial of 2009 influenza A (H1N1) inactivated monovalent vaccines with different adjuvant systems

Methods We conducted a phase I, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-arm (10) parallel study involving healthy adults to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of influenza A (H1N1) 2009 non-adjuvanted and adjuvanted candidate vaccines. Subjects received two intramuscular injections of one of the candidate vaccines administered 21 days apart. Antibody responses were measured by means of hemagglutination-inhibition assay before and 21 days after each vaccination. The three co-primary immunogenicity end points were the proportion of seroprotection >70%, seroconversion >40%, and the factor increase in the geometric mean titer >2.5. Results A total of 266 participants were enrolled into the study. No deaths or serious adverse events were reported. The most commonly solicited local and systemic adverse events were injection-site pain and headache, respectively. Only three subjects (1.1%) reported severe injection-site pain. Four 2009 influenza A (H1N1) inactivated monovalent candidate vaccines that met the three requirements to evaluate influenza protection, after a single dose, were identified: 15 μg of hemagglutinin antigen without adjuvant; 7.5 μg of hemagglutinin antigen with aluminum hydroxide, MPL and squalene; 3.75 μg of hemagglutinin antigen with aluminum hydroxide and MPL; and 3.75 μg of hemagglutinin antigen with aluminum hydroxide and squalene. Conclusions Adjuvant systems can be safely used in influenza vaccines, including the adjuvant monophosphoryl lipid A (MPL) derived from Bordetella pertussis with squalene and aluminum hydroxide, MPL with aluminum hydroxide, and squalene and aluminum hydroxide.

Immunogenicity and Reactogenicity of 2009 Influenza A (H1N1) Inactivated Monovalent Non-Adjuvanted Vaccine in Elderly and Immunocompromised Patients

Background Immunosuppressed individuals present serious morbidity and mortality from influenza, therefore it is important to understand the safety and immunogenicity of influenza vaccination among them. Methods This multicenter cohort study evaluated the immunogenicity and reactogenicity of an inactivated, monovalent, non-adjuvanted pandemic (H1N1) 2009 vaccine among the elderly, HIV-infected, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), cancer, kidney transplant, and juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) patients. Participants were included during routine clinical visits, and vaccinated according to conventional influenza vaccination schedules. Antibody response was measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition assay, before and 21 days after vaccination. Results 319 patients with cancer, 260 with RA, 256 HIV-infected, 149 elderly individuals, 85 kidney transplant recipients, and 83 with JIA were included. The proportions of seroprotection, seroconversion, and the geometric mean titer ratios postvaccination were, respectively: 37.6%, 31.8%, and 3.2 among kidney transplant recipients, 61.5%, 53.1%, and 7.5 among RA patients, 63.1%, 55.7%, and 5.7 among the elderly, 59.0%, 54.7%, and 5.9 among HIV-infected patients, 52.4%, 49.2%, and 5.3 among cancer patients, 85.5%, 78.3%, and 16.5 among JIA patients. The vaccine was well tolerated, with no reported severe adverse events. Conclusions The vaccine was safe among all groups, with an acceptable immunogenicity among the elderly and JIA patients, however new vaccination strategies should be explored to improve the immune response of immunocompromised adult patients. (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01218685)

Exome analysis of HIV patients submitted to dendritic cells therapeutic vaccine reveals an association of CNOT1 gene with response to the treatment

INTRODUCTION: With the aim of searching genetic factors associated with the response to an immune treatment based on autologous monocyte-derived dendritic cells pulsed with autologous inactivated HIV, we performed exome analysis by screening more than 240,000 putative functional exonic variants in 18 HIV-positive Brazilian patients that underwent the immune treatment. METHODS: Exome analysis has been performed using the ILLUMINA Infinium HumanExome BeadChip. zCall algorithm allowed us to recall rare variants. Quality control and SNP-centred analysis were done with GenABEL R package. An in-house implementation of the Wang method permitted gene-centred analysis. RESULTS: CCR4-NOT transcription complex, subunit 1 (CNOT1) gene (16q21), showed the strongest association with the modification of the response to the therapeutic vaccine (p=0.00075). CNOT1 SNP rs7188697 A/G was significantly associated with DC treatment response. The presence of a G allele indicated poor response to the therapeutic vaccine (p=0.0031; OR=33.00; CI=1.74-624.66), and the SNP behaved in a dominant model (A/A vs. A/G+G/G p=0.0009; OR=107.66; 95% CI=3.85-3013.31), being the A/G genotype present only in weak/transient responders, conferring susceptibility to poor response to the immune treatment. DISCUSSION: CNOT1 is known to be involved in the control of mRNA deadenylation and mRNA decay. Moreover, CNOT1 has been recently described as being involved in the regulation of inflammatory processes mediated by tristetraprolin (TTP). The TTP-CCR4-NOT complex (CNOT1 in the CCR4-NOT complex is the binding site for TTP) has been reported as interfering with HIV replication, through post-transcriptional control. Therefore, we can hypothesize that genetic variation occurring in the CNOT1 gene could impair the TTP-CCR4-NOT complex, thus interfering with HIV replication and/or host immune response. CONCLUSIONS: Being aware that our findings are exclusive to the 18 patients studied with a need for replication, and that the genetic variant of CNOT1 gene, localized at intron 3, has no known functional effect, we propose a novel potential candidate locus for the modulation of the response to the immune treatment, and open a discussion on the necessity to consider the host genome as another potential variant to be evaluated when designing an immune therapy study