4.5 Article

A phase 1 study of a group B meningococcal native outer membrane vesicle vaccine made from a strain with deleted lpxL2 and synX and stable expression of opcA

期刊

VACCINE
卷 28, 期 43, 页码 6970-6976

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2010.08.048

关键词

Neisseria; NOMV; lpxL2; Lipooligosaccharide; OpcA

资金

  1. Military Infectious Disease Research Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This phase 1 clinical trial assessed the safety and immunogenicity of a native outer membrane vesicle (NOMV) vaccine prepared from a IpxL2(-)synX(-)mutant of strain 44/76 with opcA expression stabilized. Thirty-four volunteers were assigned to one of the three dose groups (25 mcg, 25 mcg with aluminum hydroxide adjuvant, and 50 mcg) to receive three intramuscular injections at 0, 6 and 24 weeks. Specific local and systemic adverse events (AEs) were solicited by diary and at visits on days 1, 2, 7 and 14 after each vaccination and at the end of the study at 30 weeks. Blood chemistries, complete blood count, and coagulation studies were measured on each vaccination day and again two days later. Blood for antibody measurements and bactericidal assays were drawn 0, 14, and 42 days after each vaccination. The proportion of volunteers who developed a fourfold or greater increase in serum bactericidal activity (SBA) to the wild-type parent of the vaccine strain with high opcA expression at 6 weeks after the third dose was 12/26 (0.46, 95% confidence interval 0.27-0.65). Antibody levels to OpcA were significantly higher in vaccine responders than in non-responders (p = 0.008), and there was a trend for higher antibody levels to the lipooligosaccharide (LOS) (p = 0.059). Bactericidal depletion assays on sera from volunteers with high-titer responses also indicate a major contribution of anti-OpcA and anti-LOS antibodies to the bactericidal response. These results suggest that genetically modified NOMV vaccines can induce protection against group B meningococcus. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据