Darton Thomas C, Jones Claire, Blohmke Christoph J, Waddington Claire S, Zhou Liqing, Peters Anna, Haworth Kathryn, Sie Rebecca, Green Christopher A, Jeppesen Catherine A, Moore Maria, Thompson Ben A V, John Tessa, Kingsley Robert A, Yu Ly-Mee, Voysey Merryn, Hindle Zoe, Lockhart Stephen, Sztein Marcelo B, Dougan Gordon, Angus Brian, Levine Myron M, Pollard Andrew J
Oxford Vaccine Group, Department of Paediatrics, and the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016 Aug 17;10(8):e0004926. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004926. eCollection 2016 Aug.
Typhoid persists as a major cause of global morbidity. While several licensed vaccines to prevent typhoid are available, they are of only moderate efficacy and unsuitable for use in children less than two years of age. Development of new efficacious vaccines is complicated by the human host-restriction of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi (S. Typhi) and lack of clear correlates of protection. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the protective efficacy of a single dose of the oral vaccine candidate, M01ZH09, in susceptible volunteers by direct typhoid challenge.
We performed a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in healthy adult participants at a single centre in Oxford (UK). Participants were allocated to receive one dose of double-blinded M01ZH09 or placebo or 3-doses of open-label Ty21a. Twenty-eight days after vaccination, participants were challenged with 104CFU S. Typhi Quailes strain. The efficacy of M01ZH09 compared with placebo (primary outcome) was assessed as the percentage of participants reaching pre-defined endpoints constituting typhoid diagnosis (fever and/or bacteraemia) during the 14 days after challenge. Ninety-nine participants were randomised to receive M01ZH09 (n = 33), placebo (n = 33) or 3-doses of Ty21a (n = 33). After challenge, typhoid was diagnosed in 18/31 (58.1% [95% CI 39.1 to 75.5]) M01ZH09, 20/30 (66.7% [47.2 to 87.2]) placebo, and 13/30 (43.3% [25.5 to 62.6]) Ty21a vaccine recipients. Vaccine efficacy (VE) for one dose of M01ZH09 was 13% [95% CI -29 to 41] and 35% [-5 to 60] for 3-doses of Ty21a. Retrospective multivariable analyses demonstrated that pre-existing anti-Vi antibody significantly reduced susceptibility to infection after challenge; a 1 log increase in anti-Vi IgG resulting in a 71% decrease in the hazard ratio of typhoid diagnosis ([95% CI 30 to 88%], p = 0.006) during the 14 day challenge period. Limitations to the study included the requirement to limit the challenge period prior to treatment to 2 weeks, the intensity of the study procedures and the high challenge dose used resulting in a stringent model.
Despite successfully demonstrating the use of a human challenge study to directly evaluate vaccine efficacy, a single-dose M01ZH09 failed to demonstrate significant protection after challenge with virulent Salmonella Typhi in this model. Anti-Vi antibody detected prior to vaccination played a major role in outcome after challenge.
ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01405521) and EudraCT (number 2011-000381-35).
伤寒仍然是全球发病的主要原因。虽然有几种预防伤寒的许可疫苗,但它们的疗效一般,且不适用于两岁以下儿童。新型有效疫苗的研发因伤寒杆菌(伤寒沙门氏菌)对人类宿主的限制以及缺乏明确的保护相关性而变得复杂。在本研究中,我们旨在通过直接伤寒攻击来评估单剂量口服候选疫苗M01ZH09对易感志愿者的保护效果。
我们在英国牛津的一个中心对健康成年参与者进行了一项随机、双盲、安慰剂对照试验。参与者被分配接受一剂双盲M01ZH09或安慰剂或三剂开放标签的Ty21a疫苗。接种疫苗28天后,参与者接受104CFU伤寒杆菌夸雷斯菌株的攻击。将M01ZH09与安慰剂比较的疗效(主要结果)评估为在攻击后14天内达到构成伤寒诊断(发热和/或菌血症)的预定义终点的参与者百分比。99名参与者被随机分配接受M01ZH09(n = 33)、安慰剂(n = 33)或三剂Ty21a(n = 33)。攻击后,M01ZH09组18/31(58.1%[95%CI 39.1至75.5])、安慰剂组20/30(66.7%[47.2至87.2])、Ty21a疫苗组13/30(43.3%[25.5至62.6])的参与者被诊断为伤寒。一剂M01ZH09的疫苗效力(VE)为13%[95%CI -29至41],三剂Ty21a的疫苗效力为35%[-5至60]。回顾性多变量分析表明,预先存在的抗Vi抗体显著降低了攻击后感染的易感性;抗Vi IgG增加1个对数导致在14天攻击期内伤寒诊断的风险比降低71%([95%CI 30至88%],p = 0.006)。该研究的局限性包括在治疗前将攻击期限制为2周的要求、研究程序的强度以及所使用的高攻击剂量导致模型较为严格。
尽管成功证明了使用人体攻击研究直接评估疫苗效力,但在该模型中,单剂量M01ZH09在受到强毒伤寒杆菌攻击后未能显示出显著的保护作用。接种疫苗前检测到的抗Vi抗体在攻击后的结果中起主要作用。
ClinicalTrials.gov(NCT01405521)和EudraCT(编号2011-000381-35)。