Evaluation of anthrax vaccine safety in 18 to 20 year olds: A first step towards age de-escalation studies in adolescents

Ethics of age de-escalation in pediatric vaccine trials: Attending to the case of COVID-19

In the development of new vaccines, many trials use age de-escalation: after establishing safety and efficacy in adult populations, progressively younger cohorts are enrolled and studied. Age de-escalation promotes many values. The responsibility to protect children from potential risks of experimental vaccines is significant, not only given increased risks of adverse effects but also because parents and medical professionals have a moral responsibility to protect children from harms associated with novel, uncertain interventions. Further, given that young children cannot provide informed consent, acceptable risks for research requiring proxy consent are lower than for adults making decisions for themselves. Although age de-escalation approaches are widely used in vaccine trials, including notably in the recent development of pediatric COVID-19 vaccines, ethicists have not addressed the benefits and risks of these approaches. Their benefits are largely assumed and unstated, while their potential risks are usually overlooked. There are no official ethics guidelines for the use of age de-escalation in clinical research. In this paper, we provide a systematic account of key moral factors to consider when employing age de-escalation. Analyzing pediatric COVID-19 vaccine development as our key case study, we clarify the benefits, risks, and trade-offs involved in age de-escalation approaches and call for the development of evidence-based best practice guidelines to identify when age de-escalation is likely to be an ethical strategy in vaccine development.

Current State of Anthrax Vaccines and Key R&D Gaps Moving Forward

A licensed anthrax vaccine has been available for pre-exposure prophylaxis in the United States since 1970, and it was approved for use as a post-exposure prophylaxis, in combination with antibiotic treatment, in 2015. A variety of other vaccines are available in other nations, approved under various regulatory frameworks. However, investments in anthrax vaccines continue due to the severity of the threat posed by this bacterium, as both a naturally occurring pathogen and the potential for use as a bioweapon. In this review, we will capture the current landscape of anthrax vaccine development, focusing on those lead candidates in clinical development. Although approved products are available, a robust pipeline of candidate vaccines are still in development to try to address some of the key research gaps in the anthrax vaccine field. We will then highlight some of the most pressing needs in terms of anthrax vaccine research.

Use of Anthrax Vaccine in the United States: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, 2019

This report updates the 2009 recommendations from the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) regarding use of anthrax vaccine in the United States (Wright JG, Quinn CP, Shadomy S, Messonnier N. Use of anthrax vaccine in the United States: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP)], 2009. MMWR Recomm Rep 2010;59[No. RR-6]). The report 1) summarizes data on estimated efficacy in humans using a correlates of protection model and safety data published since the last ACIP review, 2) provides updated guidance for use of anthrax vaccine adsorbed (AVA) for preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and in conjunction with antimicrobials for postexposure prophylaxis (PEP), 3) provides updated guidance regarding PrEP vaccination of emergency and other responders, 4) summarizes the available data on an investigational anthrax vaccine (AV7909), and 5) discusses the use of anthrax antitoxins for PEP.

Changes from previous guidance in this report include the following: 1) a booster dose of AVA for PrEP can be given every 3 years instead of annually to persons not at high risk for exposure to Bacillus anthracis who have previously received the initial AVA 3-dose priming and 2-dose booster series and want to maintain protection; 2) during a large-scale emergency response, AVA for PEP can be administered using an intramuscular route if the subcutaneous route of administration poses significant materiel, personnel, or clinical challenges that might delay or preclude vaccination; 3) recommendations on dose-sparing AVA PEP regimens if the anthrax vaccine supply is insufficient to vaccinate all potentially exposed persons; and 4) clarification on the duration of antimicrobial therapy when used in conjunction with vaccine for PEP.

These updated recommendations can be used by health care providers and guide emergency preparedness officials and planners who are developing plans to provide anthrax vaccine, including preparations for a wide-area aerosol release of B. anthracis spores. The recommendations also provide guidance on dose-sparing options, if needed, to extend the supply of vaccine to increase the number of persons receiving PEP in a mass casualty event.

Recent developments in the understanding and use of anthrax vaccine adsorbed: achieving more with less

Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed (AVA, BioThrax™) is the only Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved vaccine for the prevention of anthrax in humans. Recent improvements in pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) use of AVA include intramuscular (IM) administration and simplification of the priming series to three doses over 6 months. Administration IM markedly reduced the frequency, severity and duration of injection site reactions. Refinement of animal models for inhalation anthrax, identification of immune correlates of protection and cross-species modeling have created opportunities for reductions in the PrEP booster schedule and were pivotal in FDA approval of a post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) indication. Clinical and nonclinical studies of accelerated PEP schedules and divided doses may provide prospects for shortening the PEP antimicrobial treatment period. These data may assist in determining feasibility of expanded coverage in a large-scale emergency when vaccine demand may exceed availability. Enhancements to the AVA formulation may broaden the vaccine's PEP application.