Phase I safety and immunogenicity testing of clinical lots of the synthetic Plasmodium falciparum vaccine SPf66 produced under good manufacturing procedure conditions in the United States

An approach to local immunotoxicity induced by adjuvanted vaccines

The occurrence of injection site reactions following immunization is the most frequently reported toxicity manifestation of vaccines; however, the different types of local reactions and the different mechanisms involved are still unclear. Here, the current advances in adjuvants and the role that adjuvants play in local reactions are reviewed. The role of adjuvants in the formation of the loco-regional complex (LRC), which consists of the injection site, draining lymphatic vessels and regional lymph nodes, is also discussed. Finally, strategies and recommendations for the rational design of adjuvanted vaccines are discussed, with a particular interest in the reduction of local inflammation.

WITHDRAWN: Vaccines for preventing malaria

BACKGROUND

Four types of malaria vaccine, SPf66 and MSP/RESA vaccines (against the asexual stages of the Plasmodium parasite) and CS-NANP and RTS,S vaccines (against the sporozoite stages), have been tested in randomized controlled trials in endemic areas.

OBJECTIVES

To assess malaria vaccines against Plasmodium falciparum, P. vivax, P. malariae and P ovale in preventing infection, disease and death.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register (April 2004), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2004), MEDLINE (1966 to April 2004), EMBASE (1980 to April 2004), Science Citation Index (1981 to April 2004), and reference lists of articles. We also contacted organizations and researchers in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials comparing vaccines against Plasmodium falciparum, P. vivax, P. malariae or P. ovale with placebo or routine antimalarial control measures in people of any age receiving a challenge malaria infection.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighteen efficacy trials involving 10,971 participants were included. There were ten trials of SPf66 vaccine, four trials of CS-NANP vaccines, two trials of RTS,S vaccine, and two of MSP/RESA vaccine. Results with SPf66 in reducing new malaria infections (P. falciparum) were heterogeneous: it was not effective in four African trials (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.14), but in five trials outside Africa the number of first attacks was reduced (Peto OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.88). Trials to date have not indicated any serious adverse events with SPf66 vaccine. In three trials of CS-NANP vaccines, there was no evidence for protection by these vaccines against P. falciparum malaria (Peto OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.93). In a small trial in non-immune adults in the USA, RTS,S gave strong protection against experimental infection with P. falciparum. In a trial in an endemic area of the Gambia in semi-immune people, there was a reduction in clinical malaria episodes in the second year of follow up, corresponding to a vaccine efficacy of 66% (CI 14% to 85%). In a trial in Papua New Guinea, MSP/RESA had no protective effect against episodes of clinical malaria. There was evidence of an effect on parasite density, but this differed according to whether the participants had been pretreated with sulfadoxine/pyrimethamine or not. The prevalence of infections with the parasite subtype of MSP2 in the vaccine was reduced compared with the other subtype (Peto OR 0.35, CI 0.23 to 0.53).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence for protection by SPf66 vaccines against P. falciparum in Africa. There is a modest reduction in attacks of P. falciparum malaria following vaccination with SPf66 in other regions. Further research with SPf66 vaccines in South America or with new formulations of SPf66 may be justified. There was not enough evidence to evaluate the use of CS-NANP vaccines. The RTS,S vaccine showed promising result, as did the MSP/RESA vaccine, but it should include the other main allelic form of MSP2. The MSP/RESA trial demonstrated that chemotherapy during a vaccine trial may reduce vaccine efficacy, and trials should consider very carefully whether this practice is justified.

Vaccines for preventing malaria (SPf66)

BACKGROUND

A malaria vaccine is badly needed. SPf66 was one of the earliest vaccines developed. It is a synthetic peptide vaccine containing antigens from the blood stages of malaria linked together with an antigen from the sporozoite stage, and is targeted mainly against the blood (asexual) stages.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of SPf66 malaria vaccines against Plasmodium falciparum, P. vivax, P. malariae, and P. ovale in preventing infection, disease, and death.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register (September 2005), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2005, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1966 to September 2005), EMBASE (1980 to September 2005), LILACS (1982 to September 2005), Science Citation Index (1981 to September 2005), and reference lists of articles. We also contacted organizations and researchers in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing SPf66 vaccine with placebo or routine antimalarial control measures in people of any age receiving an artificial challenge or natural exposure to malaria infection (any species).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two people independently assessed trial quality and extracted data, including adverse events. Results were expressed as relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

Ten efficacy trials of SPf66 involving 9698 participants were included. Results with SPf66 in reducing new episodes of P. falciparum malaria were heterogeneous: it was not effective in four African trials (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.07; 2371 participants) or in one Asian trial (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.25; 1221 participants). In four trials in South America the number of first attacks with P. falciparum was reduced by 28% (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.82; 3807 participants). It did not reduce episodes of P. vivax malaria or admission to hospital with severe malaria. Trials have not indicated any serious adverse events with SPf66 vaccine.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence for protection by SPf66 vaccines against P. falciparum in Africa. There is a modest reduction in attacks of P. falciparum malaria following vaccination with SPf66 in South America. There is no justification for further trials of SPf66 in its current formulation. Further research with SPf66 vaccines in South America or with new formulations of SPf66 may be justified.

A malaria vaccine that elicits in humans antibodies able to kill Plasmodium falciparum

BACKGROUND

Plasmodium falciparum merozoite surface protein 3 is a malaria vaccine candidate that was identified, characterised, and developed based on a unique immuno-clinical approach. The vaccine construct was derived from regions fully conserved among various strains and containing B cell epitopes targeted by human antibodies (from malaria-immune adults) that are able to mediate a monocyte-dependent parasite killing effect. The corresponding long synthetic peptide was administered to 36 volunteers, with either alum or Montanide ISA720 as adjuvant.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Both formulations induced cellular and humoral immune responses. With alum, the responses lasted up to 12 mo. The vaccine-induced antibodies were predominantly of cytophilic classes, i.e., able to cooperate with effector cells. In vitro, the antibodies induced an inhibition of the P. falciparum erythrocytic growth in a monocyte-dependent manner, which was in most instances as high as or greater than that induced by natural antibodies from immune African adults. In vivo transfer of the volunteers' sera into P. falciparum-infected humanized SCID mice profoundly reduced or abrogated parasitaemia. These inhibitory effects were related to the antibody reactivity with the parasite native protein, which was seen in 60% of the volunteers, and remained in samples taken 12 mo postimmunisation.

CONCLUSION

This is the first malaria vaccine clinical trial to clearly demonstrate antiparasitic activity by vaccine-induced antibodies by both in vitro and in vivo methods. The results, showing the induction of long-lasting antibodies directed to a fully conserved polypeptide, also challenge current concepts about malaria vaccines, such as unavoidable polymorphism, low antigenicity, and poor induction of immune memory.

Vaccines for preventing malaria

BACKGROUND

Four types of malaria vaccine, SPf66 and MSP/RESA vaccines (against the asexual stages of the Plasmodium parasite) and CS-NANP and RTS,S vaccines (against the sporozoite stages), have been tested in randomized controlled trials in endemic areas.

OBJECTIVES

To assess malaria vaccines against Plasmodium falciparum, P. vivax, P. malariae and P ovale in preventing infection, disease and death.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group trials register (July 2002), the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2002), MEDLINE (1966 to July 2002), EMBASE (1980 to May 2002), Science Citation Index (1981 to July 2002), and reference lists of articles. We also contacted organizations and researchers in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials comparing vaccines against Plasmodium falciparum, P. vivax, P. malariae or P. ovale with placebo or routine antimalarial control measures in people of any age receiving a challenge malaria infection.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighteen efficacy trials involving 10,971 participants were included. There were ten trials of SPf66 vaccine, four trials of CS-NANP vaccines, two trials of RTS,S vaccine, and two of MSP/RESA vaccine. Results with SPf66 in reducing new malaria infections (P. falciparum) were heterogeneous: it was not effective in four African trials (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.14), but in five trials outside Africa the number of first attacks was reduced (Peto OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.88). Trials to date have not indicated any serious adverse events with SPf66 vaccine. In three trials of CS-NANP vaccines, there was no evidence for protection by these vaccines against P. falciparum malaria (Peto OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.93). In a small trial in non-immune adults in the USA, RTS,S gave strong protection against experimental infection with P. falciparum. In a trial in an endemic area of the Gambia in semi-immune people, there was a reduction in clinical malaria episodes in the second year of follow up, corresponding to a vaccine efficacy of 66% (CI 14% to 85%). In a trial in Papua New Guinea, MSP/RESA had no protective effect against episodes of clinical malaria. There was evidence of an effect on parasite density, but this differed according to whether the participants had been pretreated with sulfadoxine/pyrimethamine or not. The prevalence of infections with the parasite subtype of MSP2 in the vaccine was reduced compared with the other subtype (Peto OR 0.35, CI 0.23 to 0.53).

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence for protection by SPf66 vaccines against P. falciparum in Africa. There is a modest reduction in attacks of P. falciparum malaria following vaccination with SPf66 in other regions. Further research with SPf66 vaccines in South America or with new formulations of SPf66 may be justified. There was not enough evidence to evaluate the use of CS-NANP vaccines. The RTS,S vaccine showed promising result, as did the MSP/RESA vaccine, but it should include the other main allelic form of MSP2. The MSP/RESA trial demonstrated that chemotherapy during a vaccine trial may reduce vaccine efficacy, and trials should consider very carefully whether this practice is justified.

Immediate-type hypersensitivity and other clinical reactions in volunteers immunized with a synthetic multi-antigen peptide vaccine (PfCS-MAP1NYU) against Plasmodium falciparum sporozoites

We tested the clinical reactions to a synthetic, Plasmodium falciparum, circumsporozoite multiple antigen peptide (MAP) vaccine in 39 volunteers immunized two to three times over 2-8 months using a dose escalation design. Immediate pain at the injection site was associated with the adjuvant QS-21 (P<0.001), and delayed local inflammatory reactions were associated with high-titered circulating IgG anti-MAP antibody (P=0.03). Because two volunteers developed acute, systemic urticaria after the third immunization associated with development of serum IgE MAP antibody, we employed immediate-type hypersensitivity skin tests (ITH-STs) using intradermal injections of diluted MAP vaccine to identify persons sensitized to the vaccine. ITH-STs were negative in seven volunteers tested 27 days after the first vaccination, but six of these individuals developed positive wheal and flare reactions when tested 14 or 83 days after the second vaccination; IgE MAP antibody was detected in only one of them. Another cohort of 16 volunteers, including the 2 allergic individuals, were ITH-ST negative when first tested late after their second or third vaccination at 6-7 months. Five of five non-immunized persons were also ITH-ST negative. ITH-STs may help identify individuals sensitized to malaria peptides and at potential risk of developing systemic allergic reactions after re-vaccination.

The development and use of vaccine adjuvants

Interest in vaccine adjuvants is intense and growing, because many of the new subunit vaccine candidates lack sufficient immunogenicity to be clinically useful. In this review, I have emphasized modern vaccine adjuvants injected parenterally, or administered orally, intranasally, or transcutaneously with licensed or experimental vaccines in humans. Every adjuvant has a complex and often multi-factorial immunological mechanism, usually poorly understood in vivo. Many determinants of adjuvanticity exist, and each adjuvanted vaccine is unique. Adjuvant safety is critical and can enhance, retard, or stop development of an adjuvanted vaccine. The choice of an adjuvant often depends upon expensive experimental trial and error, upon cost, and upon commercial availability. Extensive regulatory and administrative support is required to conduct clinical trials of adjuvanted vaccines. Finally, comparative adjuvant trials where one antigen is formulated with different adjuvants and administered by a common protocol to animals and humans can accelerate vaccine development.

Safety, tolerability and immunogenicity of new formulations of the Plasmodium falciparum malaria peptide vaccine SPf66 combined with the immunological adjuvant QS-21

SPf66 is a synthetic malaria peptide vaccine, which has been widely tested in combination with aluminium hydroxide (alum) as the adjuvant. Since this formulation is weakly immunogenic, we sought to improve its immunogenicity by using the saponin adjuvant QS-21. SPf66/QS-21 vaccines were evaluated for safety, tolerability and immunogenicity in healthy adults. The vaccines were found to be safe in 87/89 (97.8%) volunteers studied. However, two individuals developed severe vaccine allergy following the third dose of 1/3 SPf66/QS-21 formulations tested. Vaccine formulations containing QS-21 induced a 45- to over 200-fold increase in anti-SPf66 IgG titres over the alum formulation after the second and third doses, respectively. Anti-SPf66 antibody from some subjects reacted against asexual blood stage parasites, as demonstrated by immunofluorescence and immunoblotting. Antibody responses generated by the QS-21 formulations were of longer duration compared to those evoked by the alum formulation. While SPf66/alum has been found to induce only CD4+ T cell response, the QS-21 formulations exhibited the potential to also elicit SPf66-specific CD8+ responses. These observations demonstrate that the use of QS-21 can substantially enhance the immunogenicity of peptide vaccines, such as SPf66.

SPf66 malaria vaccine is safe and immunogenic in malaria naive adults in Thailand

In preparation for an efficacy trial of malaria vaccine SPf66 in Thailand, a series of overlapping Phase I trials were conducted of US-manufactured SPf66. Here, two clinical lots were evaluated for safety and immunogenicity in a combined open-label trial. Eleven healthy, malaria naive, 18-44 year-old Thai men and women received three doses by subcutaneous injection in alternate arms at 0, 1 and 6 months. Safety was assessed by monitoring local and systemic reactogenicity and laboratory parameters. Common side effects were mild erythema, induration and tenderness at the site of injection which resolved within 24-48 h. At third immunization, two volunteers developed acute bilateral reactions with induration, erythema and pruritus limited to the sites of the second and third immunizations. Eight of 11 volunteers sero-converted by ELISA, six of whom would be classified as high responders by Colombian standards. Eight of 11 volunteers developed a lymphoproliferative response to the SPf66 antigen. Side effects were more common and antibody and lymphoproliferative responses greatest, among the four female volunteers. This initial study of SPf66 malaria vaccine in Asia constitutes an essential link between the initial Phase I study in the US and subsequent field studies in a semi-immune population in a malaria endemic area of Thailand. This study further establishes comparability of US-manufactured SPf66 with that of Colombian provenance and substantiates the validity of the subsequent negative efficacy results of SPf66 in a field trial in Thailand.

Randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial of SPf66 malaria vaccine in children in northwestern Thailand. Shoklo SPf66 Malaria Vaccine Trial Group

BACKGROUND

Previous efficacy trials of SPf66 malaria vaccine have produced conflicting results in different populations. We report a randomised double-blind trial of the SPf66 vaccine conducted in Karen children aged 2-15 living in a malarious region of northwestern Thailand. Recombinant hepatitis B vaccine was used as a comparator.

METHODS

The study had a power of 90% to detect an efficacy of 30%, defined as a reduction in the incidence of first cases of symptomatic falciparum malaria after three doses of vaccine. 1221 children received three immunisations and were eligible for the primary efficacy analysis. Intense active and passive case detection continued over 15 months of follow-up.

FINDINGS

The SPf66 vaccine was well tolerated, although 26 children had mild or moderately severe local or systemic allergic reactions, compared with none in the comparator group. The vaccine was immunogenic; after three doses, 73% of recipients had seroconverted. There were no deaths due to malaria during the study. During the 15-month period of evaluation there were 379 first cases of symptomatic falciparum malaria (195 in the SPf66 recipients, 184 in the comparator group); an SPf66 efficacy of -9% (95% CI -33 to 14, p = 0.41). No significant differences between the two study groups in parasite density or any other measure of malaria-related morbidity were detected.

INTERPRETATION

These findings are consistent with a recent study showing lack of efficacy of SPf66 among Gambian infants and differ from earlier positive reports from South America and evidence of borderline efficacy from Tanzania. We conclude that SPf66 does not protect against clinical falciparum malaria and that further efficacy trials are not warranted.