Clinical and immunological response to typhoid vaccination with parenteral or oral vaccines in two groups of 30 recruits

Longitudinal rheumatoid factor autoantibody responses after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination or infection

Background

Rheumatoid factors (RFs) are autoantibodies that target the Fc region of IgG, and are found in patients with rheumatic diseases as well as in the healthy population. Many studies suggest that an immune trigger may (transiently) elicit RF responses. However, discrepancies between different studies make it difficult to determine if and to which degree RF reactivity can be triggered by vaccination or infection.

Objective

We quantitatively explored longitudinal RF responses after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and infection in a well-defined, large cohort using a dual ELISA method that differentiates between true RF reactivity and background IgM reactivity. In addition, we reviewed existing literature on RF responses after vaccination and infection.

Methods

151 healthy participants and 30 RA patients were included to measure IgM-RF reactivity before and after SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations by ELISA. Additionally, IgM-RF responses after a SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection were studied in 51 healthy participants.

Results

Published prevalence studies in subjects after infection report up to 85% IgM-RF seropositivity. However, seroconversion studies (both infection and vaccination) report much lower incidences of 2-33%, with a trend of lower percentages observed in larger studies. In the current study, SARS-CoV-2 vaccination triggered low-level IgM-RF responses in 5.5% (8/151) of cases, of which 1.5% (2/151) with a level above 10 AU/mL. Breakthrough infection was accompanied by development of an IgM-RF response in 2% (1/51) of cases.

Conclusion

Our study indicates that de novo RF induction following vaccination or infection is an uncommon event, which does not lead to RF epitope spreading.

Typhoid fever infection - Antibiotic resistance and vaccination strategies: A narrative review

Typhoid fever is a bacterial infection caused by the Gram-negative bacterium Salmonella enterica subspecies enterica serovar Typhi (S. Typhi), prevalent in many low- and middle-income countries. In high-income territories, typhoid fever is predominantly travel-related, consequent to travel in typhoid-endemic regions; however, data show that the level of typhoid vaccination in travellers is low. Successful management of typhoid fever using antibiotics is becoming increasingly difficult due to drug resistance; emerging resistance has spread geographically due to factors such as increasing travel connectivity, affecting those in endemic regions and travellers alike. This review provides an overview of: the epidemiology and diagnosis of typhoid fever; the emergence of drug-resistant typhoid strains in the endemic setting; drug resistance observed in travellers; vaccines currently available to prevent typhoid fever; vaccine recommendations for people living in typhoid-endemic regions; strategies for the introduction of typhoid vaccines and stakeholders in vaccination programmes; and travel recommendations for a selection of destinations with a medium or high incidence of typhoid fever.

Typhoid fever: Control & challenges in India

Enteric fever is a common but serious disease that affects mostly children and adolescents in the developing countries. Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi remains responsible for most of the disease episodes; however, S. Paratyphi A has also been reported as an emerging infectious agent of concern. The control measures for the disease must encompass early diagnosis, surveillance and vaccine to protect against the disease. Sanitation and hygiene play a major role in reducing the burden of enteric diseases as well. The current status of diagnostics, the surveillance practices in the recent past and the vaccine development efforts have been taken into account for suggesting effective prevention and control measures. However, the challenges in all these aspects persist and cause hindrance in the implementation of the available tools. Hence, an integrative approach and a comprehensive policy framework are required to be in place for the prevention, control and elimination of typhoid fevers.

Burden of typhoid fever and cholera: similarities and differences. Prevention strategies for European travelers to endemic/epidemic areas

The burden of diarrheal diseases is very high, accounting for 1.7 to 5 billion cases per year worldwide. Typhoid fever (TF) and cholera are potentially life-threatening infectious diseases, and are mainly transmitted through the consumption of food, drink or water that have been contaminated by the feces or urine of subjects excreting the pathogen. TF is mainly caused by Salmonella typhi, whereas cholera is caused by intestinal infection by the toxin-producing bacterium Vibrio cholerae. These diseases typically affect low- and middle-income countries where housing is overcrowded and water and sanitation are poor, or where conflicts or natural disasters have led to the collapse of the water, sanitation and healthcare systems. Mortality is higher in children under 5 years of age. Regarding their geographical distribution, TF has a high incidence in sub-Saharan Africa, India and south-east Asia, while cholera has a high incidence in a few African countries, particularly in the Horn of Africa and the Arabian Peninsula.

In the fight against these diseases, preventive measures are fundamental.

With modern air travel, transmissible diseases can spread across continents and oceans in a few days, constituting a threat to global public health. Nowadays, people travel for many reasons, such as tourism and business. Several surveys have shown that a high proportion of travelers lack adequate information on safety issues, such as timely vaccination and prophylactic medications. The main objective of this overview is to provide information to help European travelers to stay healthy while abroad, and thus also to reduce the potential importation of these diseases and their consequent implications for public health and society.

The preventive measures to be implemented in the case of travel to countries where these diseases are still endemic are well known: the adoption of safe practices and vaccinations. It is important to stress that an effective preventive strategy should be based both on vaccinations and on hygiene travel guidelines.

Furthermore, the emergence of multidrug-resistant strains is becoming a serious problem in the clinical treatment of these diseases. For this reason, vaccination is the main solution.

Vaccines for preventing typhoid fever

BACKGROUND

Typhoid fever and paratyphoid fever continue to be important causes of illness and death, particularly among children and adolescents in south-central and southeast Asia. Two typhoid vaccines are widely available, Ty21a (oral) and Vi polysaccharide (parenteral). Newer typhoid conjugate vaccines are at varying stages of development and use. The World Health Organization has recently recommended a Vi tetanus toxoid (Vi-TT) conjugate vaccine, Typbar-TCV, as the preferred vaccine for all ages.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of vaccines for preventing typhoid fever.

SEARCH METHODS

In February 2018, we searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and mRCT. We also searched the reference lists of all included trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing typhoid fever vaccines with other typhoid fever vaccines or with an inactive agent (placebo or vaccine for a different disease) in adults and children. Human challenge studies were not eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently applied inclusion criteria and extracted data, and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We computed vaccine efficacy per year of follow-up and cumulative three-year efficacy, stratifying for vaccine type and dose. The outcome addressed was typhoid fever, defined as isolation of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi in blood. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) and efficacy (1 - RR as a percentage) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

In total, 18 RCTs contributed to the quantitative analysis in this review: 13 evaluated efficacy (Ty21a: 5 trials; Vi polysaccharide: 6 trials; Vi-rEPA: 1 trial; Vi-TT: 1 trial), and 9 reported on adverse events. All trials but one took place in typhoid-endemic countries. There was no information on vaccination in adults aged over 55 years of age, pregnant women, or travellers. Only one trial included data on children under two years of age.Ty21a vaccine (oral vaccine, three doses)A three-dose schedule of Ty21a vaccine probably prevents around half of typhoid cases during the first three years after vaccination (cumulative efficacy 2.5 to 3 years: 50%, 95% CI 35% to 61%, 4 trials, 235,239 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). These data include patients aged 3 to 44 years.Compared with placebo, this vaccine probably does not cause more vomiting, diarrhoea, nausea or abdominal pain (2 trials, 2066 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), headache, or rash (1 trial, 1190 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); however, fever (2 trials, 2066 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) is probably more common following vaccination.Vi polysaccharide vaccine (injection, one dose)A single dose of Vi polysaccharide vaccine prevents around two-thirds of typhoid cases in the first year after vaccination (year 1: 69%, 95% CI 63% to 74%; 3 trials, 99,979 participants; high-certainty evidence). In year 2, trial results were more variable, with the vaccine probably preventing between 45% and 69% of typhoid cases (year 2: 59%, 95% CI 45% to 69%; 4 trials, 194,969 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). These data included participants aged 2 to 55 years of age.The three-year cumulative efficacy of the vaccine may be around 55% (95% CI 30% to 70%; 11,384 participants, 1 trial; low-certainty evidence). These data came from a single trial conducted in South Africa in the 1980s in participants aged 5 to 15 years.Compared with placebo, this vaccine probably did not increase the incidence of fever (3 trials, 132,261 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or erythema (3 trials, 132,261 participants; low-certainty evidence); however, swelling (3 trials, 1767 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and pain at the injection site (1 trial, 667 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) were more common in the vaccine group.Vi-rEPA vaccine (two doses)Administration of two doses of the Vi-rEPA vaccine probably prevents between 50% and 96% of typhoid cases during the first two years after vaccination (year 1: 94%, 95% CI 75% to 99%; year 2: 87%, 95% CI 56% to 96%, 1 trial, 12,008 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). These data came from a single trial with children two to five years of age conducted in Vietnam.Compared with placebo, both the first and the second dose of this vaccine increased the risk of fever (1 trial, 12,008 and 11,091 participants, low-certainty evidence) and the second dose increase the incidence of swelling at the injection site (one trial, 11,091 participants, moderate-certainty evidence).Vi-TT vaccine (two doses)We are uncertain of the efficacy of administration of two doses of Vi-TT (PedaTyph) in typhoid cases in children during the first year after vaccination (year 1: 94%, 95% CI -1% to 100%, 1 trial, 1625 participants; very low-certainty evidence). These data come from a single cluster-randomized trial in children aged six months to 12 years and conducted in India. For single dose Vi-TT (Typbar-TCV), we found no efficacy trials evaluating the vaccine with natural exposure.There were no reported serious adverse effects in RCTs of any of the vaccines studied.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The licensed Ty21a and Vi polysaccharide vaccines are efficacious in adults and children older than two years in endemic countries. The Vi-rEPA vaccine is just as efficacious, although data is only available for children. The new Vi-TT vaccine (PedaTyph) requires further evaluation to determine if it provides protection against typhoid fever. At the time of writing, there were only efficacy data from a human challenge setting in adults on the Vi-TT vaccine (Tybar), which clearly justify the ongoing field trials to evaluate vaccine efficacy.

Noninvasive vaccination against infectious diseases

The development of a successful vaccine, which should elicit a combination of humoral and cellular responses to control or prevent infections, is the first step in protecting against infectious diseases. A vaccine may protect against bacterial, fungal, parasitic, or viral infections in animal models, but to be effective in humans there are some issues that should be considered, such as the adjuvant, the route of vaccination, and the antigen-carrier system. While almost all licensed vaccines are injected such that inoculation is by far the most commonly used method, injection has several potential disadvantages, including pain, cross contamination, needlestick injury, under- or overdosing, and increased cost. It is also problematic for patients from rural areas of developing countries, who must travel to a hospital for vaccine administration. Noninvasive immunizations, including oral, intranasal, and transcutaneous administration of vaccines, can reduce or eliminate pain, reduce the cost of vaccinations, and increase their safety. Several preclinical and clinical studies as well as experience with licensed vaccines have demonstrated that noninvasive vaccine immunization activates cellular and humoral immunity, which protect against pathogen infections. Here we review the development of noninvasive immunization with vaccines based on live attenuated virus, recombinant adenovirus, inactivated virus, viral subunits, virus-like particles, DNA, RNA, and antigen expression in rice in preclinical and clinical studies. We predict that noninvasive vaccine administration will be more widely applied in the clinic in the near future.

Review of current typhoid fever vaccines, cross-protection against paratyphoid fever, and the European guidelines

INTRODUCTION

Typhoid and paratyphoid fever remain a global health problem, which - in non-endemic countries - are mainly seen in travelers, particularly in VFRs (visiting friends and relatives), with occasional local outbreaks occurring. A rise in anti-microbial resistance emphasizes the role of preventive measures, especially vaccinations against typhoid and paratyphoid fever for travelers visiting endemic countries. Areas covered: This state-of-the-art review recapitulates the epidemiology and mechanisms of disease of typhoid and paratyphoid fever, depicts the perspective of non-endemic countries and travelers (VFRs), and collectively presents current European recommendations for typhoid fever vaccination. We provide a brief overview of available (and developmental) vaccines in Europe, present current data on cross-protection to S. Paratyphi, and aim to provide a background for typhoid vaccine decision-making in travelers. Expert commentary: European recommendations are not harmonized. Experts must assess vaccination of travelers based on current country-specific recommendations. Travel health practitioners should be aware of the issues surrounding vaccination of travelers and be motivated to increase awareness of typhoid and paratyphoid fever risks.

Exploring Host-Commensal Interactions in the Respiratory Tract

Commensal microbes are currently in the limelight in biomedical research because they play an important role in health and disease. Humans harbor an enormous diversity of commensals in various parts of the body, including the gastrointestinal and respiratory tracts. Advancement in metagenomic and other omic approaches, and development of suitable animal models have provided an unprecedented appreciation into the diversity of commensals, and the intricacies of their intimate communication with the host immune system. Most studies have focused on the host–commensal interaction in the gut, while less is known on this relationship in other sites of the body, such as the respiratory tract. In this article, we review emerging data from human and animal studies on the host responses to respiratory commensals, immune cross-reactivity between commensals and pathogens, and use of commensals as a vaccine delivery system. A better understanding of the delicate interplay between commensals and host may aid in efforts to develop effective vaccines and therapeutics.

Mucosal Immune Responses to Escherichia coli and Salmonella Infections

The best-characterized mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT), and also the most relevant for this review, is the gastrointestinal-associated lymphoid tissue (GALT). The review reviews our understanding of the importance of mucosal immune responses in resisting infections caused by E. coli and Salmonella spp. It focuses on the major human E. coli infections and discusses whether antigen-specific mucosal immune responses are important for resistance against primary infection or reinfection by pathogenic E. coli. It analyzes human data on mucosal immunity against E. coli, a growing body of data of mucosal responses in food production animals and other natural hosts of E. coli, and more recent experimental studies in mice carrying defined deletions in genes encoding specific immunological effectors, to show that there may be considerable conservation of the effective host mucosal immune response against this pathogen. The species Salmonella enterica contains a number of serovars that include pathogens of both humans and animals; these bacteria are frequently host specific and may cause different diseases in different hosts. Ingestion of various Salmonella serovars, such as Typhimurium, results in localized infections of the small intestine leading to gastroenteritis in humans, whereas ingestion of serovar Typhi results in systemic infection and enteric fever. Serovar Typhi infects only humans, and the review discusses the mucosal immune responses against serovar Typhi, focusing on the responses in humans and in the mouse typhoid fever model.

Commensal Streptococcus mitis is a unique vector for oral mucosal vaccination

The development of vaccine approaches that induce mucosal and systemic immune responses is critical for the effective prevention of several infections. Here, we report on the use of the abundant human oral commensal bacterium Streptococcus mitis as a delivery vehicle for mucosal immunization. Using homologous recombination we generated a stable rS. mitis expressing a Mycobacterium tuberculosis protein (Ag85b). Oral administration of rS. mitis in gnotobiotic piglets resulted in efficient oral colonization and production of oral and systemic anti-Ag85b specific IgA and IgG antibodies. These results support that the commensal S. mitis is potentially a useful vector for mucosal vaccination.

Cross-reactive immune response induced by the Vi capsular polysaccharide typhoid vaccine against Salmonella Paratyphi strains

There are no vaccines in clinical use against paratyphoid fever, caused by Salmonella Paratyphi A and B or, rarely, C. Oral Salmonella Typhi Ty21a typhoid vaccine elicits a significant cross-reactive immune response against S. Paratyphi A and B, and some reports suggest cross-protective efficacy against the disease. These findings are ascribed to the O-12 antigen shared between the strains. The Vi capsular polysaccharide vaccine has been shown to elicit antibodies reactive with O-9,12. Twenty-five volunteers immunized with the parenteral Vi vaccine (Typherix(®) ) were explored for plasmablasts cross-reactive with paratyphoid strains; the responses were compared to those in 25 age- and gender-matched volunteers immunized with Ty21a (Vivotif(®) ). Before vaccination, 48/50 vaccinees had no plasmablasts reactive with the antigens. Seven days after vaccination, 15/25 and 22/25 Vi- and Ty21a-vaccinated volunteers had circulating plasmablasts producing antibodies cross-reactive with S. Paratyphi A, 18/25 and 23/25 with S. Paratyphi B and 16/25 and 9/25 with Paratyphi C, respectively. Compared to the Ty21a group, the Vi group showed significantly lower responses to S. Paratyphi A and B and higher to S. Paratyphi C. To conclude, the Vi vaccine elicited a cross-reactive plasmablast response to S. Paratyphi C (Vi antigen in common) and less marked responses to S. Paratyphi A and B than the Ty21a preparation. S. Paratyphi A and B both being Vi-negative, the result can be explained by trace amounts of bacterial cell wall O-12 antigen in the Vi preparation, despite purification. The clinical significance of this finding remains to be determined.

Vaccines for preventing typhoid fever

BACKGROUND

Typhoid fever and paratyphoid fever continue to be important causes of illness and death, particularly among children and adolescents in south-central and southeast Asia. Two typhoid vaccines are commercially available, Ty21a (oral) and Vi polysaccharide (parenteral), but neither is used routinely. Other vaccines, such as a new, modified, conjugated Vi vaccine called Vi-rEPA, are in development.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and adverse effects of vaccines used to prevent typhoid fever.

SEARCH METHODS

In June 2013, we searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and mRCT. We also searched relevant conference proceedings up to 2013 and scanned the reference lists of all included trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing typhoid fever vaccines with other typhoid fever vaccines or with an inactive agent (placebo or vaccine for a different disease).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently applied inclusion criteria and extracted data. We computed vaccine efficacy per year of follow-up and cumulative three-year efficacy, stratifying for vaccine type and dose. The outcome addressed was typhoid fever, defined as isolation of Salmonella typhi in blood. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) and efficacy (1-RR as a percentage) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

In total, 18 RCTs were included in this review; 12 evaluated efficacy (Ty21a: five trials; Vi polysaccharide: six trials; Vi-rEPA: one trial), and 11 reported on adverse events. Ty21a vaccine (oral vaccine, three doses) A three-dose schedule of Ty21a vaccine prevents around one-third to one-half of typhoid cases in the first two years after vaccination (Year 1: 35%, 95% CI 8% to 54%; Year 2: 58%, 95% CI 40% to 71%; one trial, 20,543 participants; moderate quality evidence; data taken from a single trial conducted in Indonesia in the 1980s). No benefit was detected in the third year after vaccination. Four additional cluster-RCTs have been conducted, but the study authors did not adjust for clustering.Compared with placebo, this vaccine was not associated with more participants with vomiting, diarrhoea, nausea or abdominal pain (four trials, 2066 participants; moderate quality evidence) headache, or rash (two trials, 1190 participants; moderate quality evidence); however, fever (four trials, 2066 participants; moderate quality evidence) was more common in the vaccine group. Vi polysaccharide vaccine (injection, one dose) A single dose of Vi polysaccharide vaccine prevents around two-thirds of typhoid cases in the first year after vaccination (Year 1: 69%, 95% CI 63% to 74%; three trials, 99,979 participants; high quality evidence). In Year 2, the trial results were more variable, with the vaccine preventing between 45% and 69% of typhoid cases (Year 2: 59%, 95% CI 45% to 69%; four trials, 194,969 participants; moderate quality evidence). The three-year cumulative efficacy of the vaccine is around 55% (95% CI 30% to 70%; 11,384 participants, one trial; moderate quality evidence). These data are taken from a single trial in South Africa in the 1980s.Compared with placebo, this vaccine was not associated with more participants with fever (four trials, 133,038 participants; moderate quality evidence) or erythema (three trials, 132,261 participants; low quality evidence); however, swelling (three trials, 1767 participants; moderate quality evidence) and pain at the injection site (one trial, 667 participants; moderate quality evidence) were more common in the vaccine group. Vi-rEPA vaccine (two doses) Administration of two doses of the Vi-rEPA vaccine prevents between 50% and 96% of typhoid cases during the first two years after vaccination (Year 1: 94%, 95% CI 75% to 99%; Year 2: 87%, 95% CI 56% to 96%; one trial, 12,008 participants; moderate quality evidence). These data are taken from a single trial with children 2 to 5 years of age conducted in Vietnam.Compared with placebo, the first and second doses of this vaccine were not associated with increased risk of adverse events. The first dose of this vaccine was not associated with fever (2 studies, 12,209 participants; low quality evidence), erythema (two trials, 12,209 participants; moderate quality evidence) or swelling at the injection site (two trials, 12,209 participants; moderate quality evidence). The second dose of this vaccine was not associated with fever (two trials, 11,286 participants; low quality evidence), erythema (two trials, 11,286 participants; moderate quality evidence) and swelling at the injection site (two trials, 11,286 participants; moderate quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The licensed Ty21a and Vi polysaccharide vaccines are efficacious. The new and unlicensed Vi-rEPA vaccine is as efficacious and may confer longer immunity.

Control of humoral immunity and auto-immunity by the CXCR4/CXCL12 axis in lupus patients following influenza vaccine

BACKGROUND

CXCR4 is a chemokine receptor with multiple effects on the immune system, upregulated in patients with SLE, and correlated with disease severity.

OBJECTIVE

This study has investigated whether the levels of CXCR4 expressed on leucocyte subsets in lupus patients are correlated with the efficacy and the safety of the influenza vaccine.

METHODS

Twenty-seven patients were vaccinated and vaccine immunogenicity and tolerance were evaluated. CXCR4 was assayed on leucocyte subsets and correlated with clinical and immunological signs of diseases activity.

RESULTS

A significant increase in the titres of antibodies to the three viral strains was observed along with trends towards an increased vaccine efficacy in patients with quiescent disease vs patients with active disease. Recent flu vaccine history and, to a lesser extent, immunosuppressive treatment may influence vaccine immunogenicity. Influenza immunization was not associated with clinical side-effects or clinical lupus flare but with an increase in rheumatoid factor levels. Our study also confirms the correlation of CXCR4 expression with biological autoimmunity as shown by the correlation between the percentage of CXCR4-positive T cells and the ANA titres at D0, and the reverse correlation between CXCR4 expression and vaccine immunogenicity as demonstrated by the higher percentage of CXCR4-positive T cells at D0 and D30 in non-responders vs responders.

CONCLUSION

Altogether, our study confirms the efficacy and the safety of flu vaccine in SLE patients, highlights the role of CXCR4 as a surrogate marker for autoimmunity in lupus and shows that CXCR4 expression on T cells is predictive of vaccine efficacy in SLE patients.

Live oral typhoid vaccine Salmonella Typhi Ty21a - a surrogate vaccine against non-typhoid salmonella?

BACKGROUND

Non-typhoid Salmonella (NTS) is a leading cause of food-borne illness with more than 90 million annual cases and an emerging antimicrobial resistance among the strains worldwide. Paradoxically, no vaccines are available against these pathogens. Numerous NTS strains share surface O-antigens with Salmonella enterica serotype Typhi. As intestinal antibodies against O-antigens have proven protective against NTS in animal experiments, it appears conceivable that the oral whole-cell typhoid vaccine, Salmonella Typhi Ty21a (Vivotif(®)), which effectively elicits intestinal antibodies against O-antigens, could exhibit cross-protective efficacy against NTS. We sought immunological evidence in support of cross-protective efficacy of Ty21a against NTS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

35 volunteers receiving Ty21a vaccine and five patients with enteric fever were investigated with ELISPOT for circulating plasmablasts secreting antibodies reactive with Salmonella Typhi and six different NTS serotypes. These plasmablasts were also analysed for homing receptor expressions.

RESULTS

In all vaccinees and patients, a strong gut-directed cross-reactive plasmablast response was found against serotypes sharing the two O-antigens with Salmonella Typhi (O-9,12) (in vaccinees, mean: 95%CI 268: 228-508 and 363: 234-493 plasmablasts/10(6)PBMC against Salmonella Typhi and Enteritidis). Responses against strains sharing one O-antigen (O-12) were weaker (222: 105-338 against Salmonella Typhimurium), while no significant reactivity was detected against strains without typhoidal O-antigens.

CONCLUSIONS

Intestinal antibodies against O-antigens protect against NTS in animal experiments. Ty21a was found to elicit intestinal immune responses cross-reactive with NTS strains sharing O-antigens with Ty21a. These include the most common NTS, Salmonella Enteritidis and Typhimurium. The data suggest that Ty21a may have cross-protective efficacy against numerous NTS strains.

Vaccines for preventing typhoid fever

BACKGROUND

Two typhoid vaccines are commercially available, Ty21a (oral) and Vi polysaccharide (parenteral), but neither is used routinely. Other vaccines, such as a new modified, conjugated Vi vaccine called Vi-rEPA, are in development.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate vaccines for preventing typhoid fever.

SEARCH STRATEGY

In December 2006, we searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 3), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and mRCT. We also searched relevant conference proceedings up to 2004 and scanned the reference lists of all included trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing typhoid fever vaccines with other typhoid fever vaccines or an inactive agent (placebo or vaccine for a different disease).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently applied inclusion criteria and extracted data. We computed vaccine efficacy per year of follow up and cumulative three-year efficacy, stratifying for vaccine type and dose. We calculated relative risks (RR) and efficacy (1-RR as a percentage) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

Of the 17 included RCTs, 10 evaluated efficacy (Ty21a: 5 trials; Vi polysaccharide: 4 trials, Vi-rEPA: 1 trial), and 11 reported on adverse events.Ty21a vaccine (3 doses). According to one trial (20,543 participants), this vaccine provided statistically significant protection in each of the first three years (one: 35%, 95% CI 8% to 54%; two: 58%, 95% CI 40% to 71%; three: 46%, 95% CI -6% to 72%), and the cumulative efficacy for 2.5 to 3 years was 48% (95% CI 34% to 58%). Four cluster-RCTs that did not adjust for clustering were not included in the meta-analyses. Compared with placebo, this vaccine was not associated with an increased rate of fever, vomiting, diarrhoea, nausea or abdominal pain, headache, or rash.Vi polysaccharide vaccine (1 dose). This vaccine provided protection in year one (68%, 95% CI 50% to 80%; 99,979 participants, 3 trials) and year two (60%, 95% CI 31% to 76%; 142,555 participants, 2 trials), but not in year three (11,384 participants, 1 trial). The three-year cumulative efficacy was 55% (95% CI 30% to 70%; 11,384 participants, 1 trial). Compared with placebo, there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of fever or erythema, but local swelling was more common with the vaccine.Vi-rEPA vaccine (2 doses). In one trial of 12,008 participants, this vaccine provided protection in year one (94%, 95% CI 75% to 99%) and year two (87%, 95% CI 56% to 96%). Cumulative efficacy at 46 months (3.8 years) was 89% (95% CI 76% to 97%). No swelling or erythema occurred in the vaccine or placebo group; fever was more frequent in the vaccine group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The licensed Ty21a and Vi polysaccharide vaccines are efficacious. The new and unlicensed Vi-rEPA vaccine is as efficacious and may confer longer immunity.

Vivotif--a 'magic shield' for protection against typhoid fever and delivery of heterologous antigens

The attenuated Salmonella typhi strain Ty21a is the main constituent of Vivotif, the only attenuated live oral vaccine against typhoid fever. In comparison with antibiotics, the 'magic bullets' which Paul Ehrlich was striving for to treat infectious diseases, this vaccine should be viewed as a 'magic shield', because rather than treating typhoid fever after the infection has started, immunisation with this vaccine strain prevents infection and disease by the induction of specific immune responses. Ty21a is also an attractive carrier for the delivery of heterologous antigens. Recently, we successfully used Ty21a for antigen delivery via the haemolysin secretion system of Escherichia coli, which allows efficient protein secretion from the carrier bacteria.

Rational design of Salmonella-based vaccination strategies

A permanently growing body of information is becoming available about the quality of protective immune responses induced by mucosal immunization. Attenuated live bacterial vaccines can be administered orally and induce long-lasting protective immunity in humans without causing major side effects. An attenuated Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi strain is registered as live oral vaccine against typhoid fever and has been in use for more than two decades. Recombinant attenuated Salmonella strains are also an attractive means of delivering heterologous antigens to the immune system, thereby, stimulating strong mucosal and systemic immune responses and consequently provide an efficient platform technology to design novel vaccination strategies. This includes the choice of heterologous protective antigens and their expression under the control of appropriate promoters within the carrier strain. The availability of well-characterized attenuated mutants of Salmonella concomitantly supports fine tuning of immune response triggered against heterologous antigens. Exploring different mucosal sites as a potential route of immunization has to be taken into account as an additional important way to modulate immune responses according to clinical requirements. This article focuses on the rational design of strategies to modulate appropriate immunological effector functions on the basis of selection of (i) attenuating mutations of the Salmonella strains, (ii) specific expression systems for the heterologous antigens, and (iii) route of mucosal administration.

Vaccines against typhoid fever

Because of high infectivity and significant disease burden, typhoid fever constitutes a major global health problem. Implementation of adequate food handling practices and establishment of safe water supplies are the cornerstone for the development of an effective prevention program. However, vaccination against typhoid fever remains an essential tool for the effective management of this disease. Currently, there are two well tolerated and effective licensed vaccines. One is based on defined subunit virulence (Vi) polysaccharide antigen and can be administered either intramuscularly or subcutaneously and the other is based on the use of live attenuated bacteria for oral administration. The advantages and disadvantages of the various approaches taken in the development of a vaccine against typhoid fever are discussed, along with the potential for future vaccine candidates.

Vaccines against Infections Caused by Salmonella, Shigella, and Pathogenic Escherichia coli

Infectious diseases represent one of the most common causes of death worldwide, with the enteropathogenic bacteria Salmonella and Shigella and pathogenic Escherichia coli being among the most detrimental. Currently, vaccination represents the preferred method of preventing such infections. For stimulating the adaptive immune response, immunizations are frequently based on formulations which include inactivated whole-cell vaccines, live attenuated vaccines, or subunit vaccines. These can be administered via a parenteral or mucosal route, the latter having the advantage that it most closely mimics the actual course of infection. In addition to the type of vaccine and method of application, important consideration needs to be paid to safety, efficacy, and cost, which are often major bottlenecks in the successful implementation of vaccines. In this chapter we take a limited look at the history surrounding vaccinations involving Salmonella, Shigella, and pathogenic E. coli. Salmonella infections, which can lead to typhoid fever, are becoming increasing difficult to treat with antibiotics due to multi-drug-resistant strains. At present, the parenteral Vi-based subunit vaccines and the live attenuated oral vaccine Ty21a have proven to be the vaccines of choice, with high levels of protective efficacy and limited side effects. Shigella infections are responsible for the diarrheal disease shigellosis. Various live and nonliving mucosal and parenteral vaccines have been tested, with the most promising candidates evolving around those that stimulate the production of O-antigen-specific antibodies. Pathogenic Escherichia coli infections can lead to severe diseases due to the bacterium's production of several specific toxins. Vaccines against this bacterium target its toxins, as well as surface-exposed antigens, all of which have been found to be effective as immunogens.

Vaccines against human enteric bacterial pathogens

The development of vaccines against enteric bacterial pathogens presents a challenge because of the large number of pathogens capable of causing disease and the requirement to induce immunity that is effective in the gut. A new generation of enteric vaccines based either on live or non-living antigens delivered orally or by injection are reaching the clinic in the early phases of evaluation. However, considerable technical barriers have to be overcome before these vaccines reach the general population.

Constitutive expression of the Vi polysaccharide capsular antigen in attenuated Salmonella enterica serovar typhi oral vaccine strain CVD 909

Live oral Ty21a and parenteral Vi polysaccharide vaccines provide significant protection against typhoid fever, albeit by distinct immune mechanisms. Vi stimulates serum immunoglobulin G Vi antibodies, whereas Ty21a, which does not express Vi, elicits humoral and cell-mediated immune responses other than Vi antibodies. Protection may be enhanced if serum Vi antibody as well as cell-mediated and humoral responses can be stimulated. Disappointingly, several new attenuated Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi oral vaccines (e.g., CVD 908-htrA and Ty800) that elicit serum O and H antibody and cell-mediated responses following a single dose do not stimulate serum Vi antibody. Vi expression is regulated in response to environmental signals such as osmolarity by controlling the transcription of tviA in the viaB locus. To investigate if Vi antibodies can be stimulated if Vi expression is rendered constitutive, we replaced P(tviA) in serovar Typhi vaccine CVD 908-htrA with the constitutive promoter P(tac), resulting in CVD 909. CVD 909 expresses Vi even under high-osmolarity conditions and is less invasive for Henle 407 cells. In mice immunized with a single intranasal dose, CVD 909 was more immunogenic than CVD 908-htrA in eliciting serum Vi antibodies (geometric mean titer of 160 versus 49, P = 0.0007), whereas O antibody responses were virtually identical (geometric mean titer of 87 versus 80). In mice challenged intraperitoneally with wild-type serovar Typhi 4 weeks after a single intranasal immunization, the mortality of those immunized with CVD 909 (3 of 8) was significantly lower than that of control mice (10 of 10, P = 0.043) or mice given CVD 908-htrA (9 of 10, P = 0.0065).

Phase I clinical trials of aroA aroD and aroA aroD htrA attenuated S. typhi vaccines; effect of formulation on safety and immunogenicity

PBCC211, an aroA aroD derivative of S. typhi strain CDC10-80, was tested in phase I trials as a single dose typhoid fever vaccine. Three different vaccine preparations, reconstituted lyophilized bacteria, freshly grown bacteria or lyophilized bacteria reconstituted from sachets, were orally administered to a total of 86 adult volunteers. An aroA aroD htrA strain, PBCC222, was also tested in 38 volunteers. Formulation impacted on the determination of a safe and immunogenic dose; reconstituted lyophilized cultures required higher doses than the broth cultures to stimulate seroconversion. In general, doses which seroconverted the majority of group members produced undesirable symptoms regardless of attenuation or formulation. The inability to separate the presence of symptoms from achieving significant immunogenicity in these aroA aroD or aroA aroD htrA strains precludes their use as single dose typhoid vaccines in the formulations tested. Multiple doses of these strains at a lower, safe level may be effective as vectors for foreign antigens.