3.8 Article

Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Phase I/IIa Evaluation of the Safety and Immunogenicity of Fowlpox Virus Expressing HIV gag-pol and Interferon-γ in HIV-1 Infected Subjects

Journal

HUMAN VACCINES
Volume 1, Issue 6, Pages 232-238

Publisher

LANDES BIOSCIENCE
DOI: 10.4161/hv.1.6.2342

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Australian Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing
  2. Virax Development Pty Ltd.

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled double-blind trial to examine the safety and immunogenicity of a candidate HIV therapeutic vaccine based upon a recombinant fowl pox virus capable of coexpressing the human cytokine interferon-gamma and/or genes from HIV-1. Thirty-five eligible subjects were randomized (12 placebo, 11 fowlpox + HIV genes, 12 fowl pox + HIV genes + interferon gamma). All but one subject (placebo group) received three immunizations (by intramuscular injection on day 0, week 4 and week 12) and all completed 52 weeks of follow-up. All subjects continued to take combination antiretroviral therapy for the duration of study. There were no significant toxicity or safety concerns and the distribution of adverse events and their severity was consistent across each randomly assigned vaccine group. Comparison of placebo recipients with the combined recipients of the two vaccine constructs, in terms of anti-HIV gag ELISpot or lymphoproliferative responses, tended to favour the placebo group, but were not significantly different (difference in time-weighted mean change from baseline = 56 Spot forming units (sfu)/10(6) PBMC; p = 0.062 and 4.4 SI; p = 0.337). There were no significant changes in CTL responses by standard Cr-51 release assay. Anti-FPV antibodies were detected by week 14 in 0 placebo and 20 (87%) vaccine recipients. Although safe, neither vaccine construct appeared to possess detectable T-cell mediated anti-HIV immunogenic properties in HIV infected individuals, as measured by standard T cell assays.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available