Safety and immunogenicity study of Multiclade HIV-1 adenoviral vector vaccine alone or as boost following a multiclade HIV-1 DNA vaccine in Africa

Walter Jaoko, Etienne Karita, Kayitesi Kayitenkore, Gloria Omosa-Manyonyi, Susan Allen, Soe Than, Elizabeth M Adams, Barney S Graham, Richard A Koup, Robert T Bailer, Carol Smith, Len Dally, Bashir Farah, Omu Anzala, Claude M Muvunyi, Jean Bizimana, Tony Tarragona-Fiol, Philip J Bergin, Peter Hayes, Martin Ho, Kelley Loughran, Wendy Komaroff, Gwynneth Stevens, Helen Thomson, Mark J Boaz, Josephine H Cox, Claudia Schmidt, Jill Gilmour, Gary J Nabel, Patricia Fast, Job Bwayo, Walter Jaoko, Etienne Karita, Kayitesi Kayitenkore, Gloria Omosa-Manyonyi, Susan Allen, Soe Than, Elizabeth M Adams, Barney S Graham, Richard A Koup, Robert T Bailer, Carol Smith, Len Dally, Bashir Farah, Omu Anzala, Claude M Muvunyi, Jean Bizimana, Tony Tarragona-Fiol, Philip J Bergin, Peter Hayes, Martin Ho, Kelley Loughran, Wendy Komaroff, Gwynneth Stevens, Helen Thomson, Mark J Boaz, Josephine H Cox, Claudia Schmidt, Jill Gilmour, Gary J Nabel, Patricia Fast, Job Bwayo

Abstract

Background: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled Phase I study of a recombinant replication-defective adenovirus type 5 (rAd5) vector expressing HIV-1 Gag and Pol from subtype B and Env from subtypes A, B and C, given alone or as boost following a DNA plasmid vaccine expressing the same HIV-1 proteins plus Nef, in 114 healthy HIV-uninfected African adults.

Methodology/principal findings: Volunteers were randomized to 4 groups receiving the rAd5 vaccine intramuscularly at dosage levels of 1×10(10) or 1×10(11) particle units (PU) either alone or as boost following 3 injections of the DNA vaccine given at 4 mg/dose intramuscularly by needle-free injection using Biojector® 2000. Safety and immunogenicity were evaluated for 12 months. Both vaccines were well-tolerated. Overall, 62% and 86% of vaccine recipients in the rAd5 alone and DNA prime - rAd5 boost groups, respectively, responded to the HIV-1 proteins by an interferon-gamma (IFN-γ) ELISPOT. The frequency of immune responses was independent of rAd5 dosage levels. The highest frequency of responses after rAd5 alone was detected at 6 weeks; after DNA prime - rAd5 boost, at 6 months (end of study). At baseline, neutralizing antibodies against Ad5 were present in 81% of volunteers; the distribution was similar across the 4 groups. Pre-existing immunity to Ad5 did not appear to have a significant impact on reactogenicity or immune response rates to HIV antigens by IFN-γ ELISPOT. Binding antibodies against Env were detected in up to 100% recipients of DNA prime - rAd5 boost. One volunteer acquired HIV infection after the study ended, two years after receipt of rAd5 alone.

Conclusions/significance: The HIV-1 rAd5 vaccine, either alone or as a boost following HIV-1 DNA vaccine, was well-tolerated and immunogenic in African adults. DNA priming increased the frequency and magnitude of cellular and humoral immune responses, but there was no effect of rAd5 dosage on immunogenicity endpoints.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00124007.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: IAVI is a non-profit organization. None of the co-authors affiliated with IAVI reports any competing interest, that might interfere with the objective assessment of this manuscript or with the ability to adhere to all PloS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. Gary J. Nabel is named on patent applications for the DNA and adenovirus vector components of this vaccine concept (patents # E-173-2004/0-US-01, E-355-2003/0-US-01, and E-267-2004/0). This does not alter the author's ability to adhere to all PloS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. None of the co-authors employed by government agencies declares any competing interest that might interfere with the objective assessment of this manuscript or with the ability to adhere to all PloS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. Affiliations of Carol Smith, Len Dally, Martin Ho, Kelley Loughran, Mark Boaz and Soe Than do not alter the authors' ability to adhere to all the PLoS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. Drs. Than and Boaz report no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1. CONSORT Flow Diagram.
Figure 1. CONSORT Flow Diagram.
Number of individuals assessed for eligibility, enrolled and randomized to study vaccine(s) and respective placebo, followed-up and analyzed.
Figure 2. Solicited Local and Systemic Events.
Figure 2. Solicited Local and Systemic Events.
Figure 2a; Local reactogenicity and systemic signs and symptoms collected over 3 days post vaccination. Maximum severity of local reactions was significantly greater after rAd5 than after placebo (p = 0.006 and p

Figure 3. Impact of DNA prime on…

Figure 3. Impact of DNA prime on ELISPOT responses.

Comparison of percent ELISPOT responders after…

Figure 3. Impact of DNA prime on ELISPOT responses.
Comparison of percent ELISPOT responders after rAd5 alone (Groups A and B) versus DNA prime - rAd5 boost over time (Groups C and D). Vertical lines represent 95% Confidence Intervals.

Figure 4. Impact of DNA prime on…

Figure 4. Impact of DNA prime on ELISPOT magnitude.

Values plotted are the mean background-subtracted…

Figure 4. Impact of DNA prime on ELISPOT magnitude.
Values plotted are the mean background-subtracted ELISPOT counts (Spot Forming Cells, SFC) over all positive peptide responses per volunteer at that visit. Shaded bars are subjects with any positive response at 4 weeks post 3rd DNA, white boxes are those with no positive responses at this time point.

Figure 5. Magnitude of ELISPOT and %…

Figure 5. Magnitude of ELISPOT and % response rate.

The magnitude of the response was…

Figure 5. Magnitude of ELISPOT and % response rate.
The magnitude of the response was measured by SFC per million peripheral blood mononuclear cells (SFC/m PBMC). The x-axis row one shows the peptide pool, row two the % response rate and row three the vaccine group. Black dots indicate positive responses, defined by background-subtracted values greater than the cutoff, more than 3 times mean background SFC count, and a coefficient of variation of not more than 70% amongst replicate wells. The rAd5 response rates correspond to both dose groups combined. The box plots summarize positive responses only (i.e., median, 1st and 3rd quartiles, minimum/maximum). The cut-offs for EnvA, EnvB, Gag, Nef, PolB1 and PolB2, as determined by the level of non-specific responses from at least 180 samples from unvaccinated individuals, are 40, 51, 54, 68, 51 and 38 respectively. The Pol response is the maximum of PolB1 and PolB2 and positive if either one is positive.

Figure 6. Induction of CD8 T cell-mediated…

Figure 6. Induction of CD8 T cell-mediated inhibition of HIV-1-IIIB replication following vaccination with a…

Figure 6. Induction of CD8 T cell-mediated inhibition of HIV-1-IIIB replication following vaccination with a DNA prime - rAd5 boost or rAd5 alone regimen.
Viral inhibition was assessed in placebo recipients and prior to any vaccination (•); following DNA alone (▪); DNA prime - rAd5 boost at 6 and 12 weeks (▴and ▵respectively) and after rAd5 alone at 6 and between 36 to 48 weeks (♦ and ⋄ respectively). The 1.13 log10 inhibition value above which inhibition is considered HIV-1 specific is indicated by the hashed line. Medians for all groups are indicated (—).

Figure 7. HIV antibody titers.

Distribution of…

Figure 7. HIV antibody titers.

Distribution of HIV-specific antibody titers at 1 month post rAd5…

Figure 7. HIV antibody titers.
Distribution of HIV-specific antibody titers at 1 month post rAd5 alone (Groups A and B) and rAd5 boost (Groups C and D) in vaccine recipients, by protein and treatment group. The Y-axis shows the antibody titer on a log scale with box plots showing the median, 1st and 3rd quartiles.
All figures (7)
Figure 3. Impact of DNA prime on…
Figure 3. Impact of DNA prime on ELISPOT responses.
Comparison of percent ELISPOT responders after rAd5 alone (Groups A and B) versus DNA prime - rAd5 boost over time (Groups C and D). Vertical lines represent 95% Confidence Intervals.
Figure 4. Impact of DNA prime on…
Figure 4. Impact of DNA prime on ELISPOT magnitude.
Values plotted are the mean background-subtracted ELISPOT counts (Spot Forming Cells, SFC) over all positive peptide responses per volunteer at that visit. Shaded bars are subjects with any positive response at 4 weeks post 3rd DNA, white boxes are those with no positive responses at this time point.
Figure 5. Magnitude of ELISPOT and %…
Figure 5. Magnitude of ELISPOT and % response rate.
The magnitude of the response was measured by SFC per million peripheral blood mononuclear cells (SFC/m PBMC). The x-axis row one shows the peptide pool, row two the % response rate and row three the vaccine group. Black dots indicate positive responses, defined by background-subtracted values greater than the cutoff, more than 3 times mean background SFC count, and a coefficient of variation of not more than 70% amongst replicate wells. The rAd5 response rates correspond to both dose groups combined. The box plots summarize positive responses only (i.e., median, 1st and 3rd quartiles, minimum/maximum). The cut-offs for EnvA, EnvB, Gag, Nef, PolB1 and PolB2, as determined by the level of non-specific responses from at least 180 samples from unvaccinated individuals, are 40, 51, 54, 68, 51 and 38 respectively. The Pol response is the maximum of PolB1 and PolB2 and positive if either one is positive.
Figure 6. Induction of CD8 T cell-mediated…
Figure 6. Induction of CD8 T cell-mediated inhibition of HIV-1-IIIB replication following vaccination with a DNA prime - rAd5 boost or rAd5 alone regimen.
Viral inhibition was assessed in placebo recipients and prior to any vaccination (•); following DNA alone (▪); DNA prime - rAd5 boost at 6 and 12 weeks (▴and ▵respectively) and after rAd5 alone at 6 and between 36 to 48 weeks (♦ and ⋄ respectively). The 1.13 log10 inhibition value above which inhibition is considered HIV-1 specific is indicated by the hashed line. Medians for all groups are indicated (—).
Figure 7. HIV antibody titers.
Figure 7. HIV antibody titers.
Distribution of HIV-specific antibody titers at 1 month post rAd5 alone (Groups A and B) and rAd5 boost (Groups C and D) in vaccine recipients, by protein and treatment group. The Y-axis shows the antibody titer on a log scale with box plots showing the median, 1st and 3rd quartiles.

References

    1. Rerks-Ngarm S, Pitisuttithum P, Nitayaphan S, Kaewkungwal J, Chiu J, et al. Vaccination with ALVAC and AIDSVAX to prevent HIV-1 infection in Thailand. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:2209–2220.
    1. Catanzaro AT, Koup RA, Roederer M, Bailer RT, Enama ME, et al. Phase 1 safety and immunogenicity evaluation of a multiclade HIV-1 candidate vaccine delivered by a replication-defective recombinant adenovirus vector. J Infect Dis. 2006;194:1638–1649.
    1. Catanzaro AT, Roederer M, Koup RA, Bailer RT, Enama ME, et al. Phase I clinical evaluation of a six-plasmid multiclade HIV-1 DNA candidate vaccine. Vaccine. 2007;25:4085–4092.
    1. Eller MA, Eller LA, Opollo MS, Ouma BJ, Oballah PO, et al. Induction of HIV-specific functional immune responses by a multiclade HIV-1 DNA vaccine candidate in healthy Ugandans. Vaccine. 2007;25:7737–7742.
    1. Graham B, Koup R, Roederer M, Bailer R, Enama M, et al. Phase I Safety and Immunogenicity Evaluation of a Multiclade HIV-1 Candidate DNA Vaccine. J Infect Dis. 2006;194:1650–1660.
    1. Koup RA, Roederer M, Lamoreaux L, Fischer J, Novik L, et al. Priming immunization with DNA augments immunogenicity of recombinant adenoviral vectors for both HIV-1 specific antibody and T-cell responses. PLoS ONE. 2010;5:e9015.
    1. Tavel JA, Martin JE, Kelly GG, Enama ME, Shen JM, et al. Safety and immunogenicity of a Gag-Pol candidate HIV-1 DNA vaccine administered by a needle-free device in HIV-1-seronegative subjects. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2007;44:601–605.
    1. Kibuuka H, Kimutai R, Maboko L, Sawe F, Schunk MS, et al. A Phase I/II Study of a Multiclade HIV-1 DNA Plasmid Prime and Recombinant Adenovirus-type 5 Boost Vaccine in HIV Uninfected East Africans (RV 172). J Infect Dis. 2010;201:600–7.
    1. Buchbinder SP, Mehrotra DV, Duerr A, Fitzgerald DW, Mogg R, et al. Efficacy assessment of a cell-mediated immunity HIV-1 vaccine (the Step Study): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, test-of-concept trial. Lancet. 2008;372:1881–1893.
    1. McElrath MJ, De Rosa SC, Moodie Z, Dubey S, Kierstead L, et al. HIV-1 vaccine-induced immunity in the test-of-concept Step Study: a case-cohort analysis. Lancet. 2008;372:1894–1905.
    1. Stiles T, Grant V, Mawbey T. Ipswich (UK): British Association of Research Quality Assurance; 2003. Good Clinical Laboratory Practice (GCLP). A quality system for laboratories that undertake the analysis of samples from clinical trials. pp. 1–17. ISBN 1-904610-00-5.
    1. Sprangers MC, Lakhai W, Koudstaal W, Verhoeven M, Koel BF, et al. Quantifying Adenovirus-Neutralizing Antibodies by Luciferase Transgene Detection: Addressing Preexisting Immunity to Vaccine and Gene Therapy Vectors. J Clin Microbiol. 2003;41:5046–5052.
    1. Vogels R, Zuijdgeest D, van Rijnsoever R, Hartkoorn E, Damen I, et al. Replication-deficient human adenovirus type 35 vectors for gene transfer and vaccination: efficient human cell infection and bypass of preexisting adenovirus immunity. J Virol. 2003;77:8263–8271.
    1. Richman DD, Wrin T, Little SJ, Petropoulos CJ. Rapid evolution of the neutralizing antibody response to HIV type 1 infection. PNAS. 2003;100:4144–9.
    1. Boaz MJ, Hayes P, Tarragona T, Seamons L, Cooper A, et al. Measuring T-cell immunity in HIV vaccine clinical trials: PBMC and ELISPOT assay proficiency concordance in laboratories from 3 continents. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2008;16:147–155.
    1. Goonetilleke N, Moore S, Dally L, Winstone N, Cebere I, et al. Induction of Multifunctional Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 (HIV-1)-Specific T Cells Capable of Proliferation in Healthy Subjects by Using a Prime-Boost Regimen of DNA- and Modified Vaccinia Virus Ankara-Vectored Vaccines Expressing HIV-1 Gag Coupled to CD8+ T-Cell Epitopes. J Virol. 2006;80:4717–4728.
    1. Peters BS, Jaoko W, Vardas E, Panayotakopoulos G, Fast P, et al. Studies of a prophylactic HIV-1 vaccine candidate based on modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) with and without DNA priming: Effects of dosage and route on safety and immunogenicity. Vaccine. 2007;25:2120–2127.
    1. Currier J, Kuta E, Turk E, Earhart L, Loomis-Price L, et al. A panel of MHC class I restricted viral peptides for use as a quality control for vaccine trial ELISPOT assays. J Immunol Methods. 2002;260:157–172.
    1. Mwau M, McMichael A, Hanke T. Design and validation of an enzyme-linked immunospot assay for use in clinical trials of candidate HIV vaccines. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2002;18:611–618.
    1. Fauce SR, Yang OO, Effros RB. Autologous CD4/CD8 co-culture assay: A physiologically-relevant composite measure of CD8(+) T lymphocyte function in HIV-infected persons. J Immunol Methods. 2007;327:75–81.
    1. Spentzou A, Bergin P, Dilbinder G, Cheeseman H, Ashraf A, et al. Viral Inhibition Assay: A CD8 T-cell neutralization assay for use in clinical trials of Human Immunodeficiency Virus-1 vaccine candidates. J Infect Dis. 2010;201:720–729.
    1. Cox KS, Clair JH, Prokop MT, Sykes KJ, Dubey SA, et al. DNAgag/Ad5gag and Ad5gag/Ad5gag Vaccines Induce Distinct T cell Response Profiles. Journal of Virology: J Virol. 2008;82:8161–71.
    1. Chen H, Piechocka-Trocha A, Miura T, Brockman MA, Julg BD, et al. Differential neutralization of HIV replication in autologous CD4 T cells by HIV-specific CTL. J Virol. 2009;83:3138–3149.
    1. Julg B, Williams KL, Reddy S, Bishop K, Qi Y, Carrington M, Goulder PJ, Ndung'u T, Walker BD. Enhanced anti-HIV functional activity associated with Gag-specific CD8 T-cell responses. 2010 March 24, 2010:JVI.02031-09.
    1. Khurana S, Needham J, Mathieson B, Rodriguez-Chavez IR, Catanzaro AT, et al. Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) vaccine trials: a novel assay for differential diagnosis of HIV infections in the face of vaccine-generated antibodies. J Virol. 2006;80:2092–2099.
    1. Karita E, Kayitenkore K, Bayingana R, Sebahungu F, Bizimana J, et al. Use of HIV rapid tests for assessment of persistence of vaccine-induced antibodies among HIV vaccine recipients. Retrovirology. 2009;6(Suppl 3):97.
    1. Sumida SM, Truitt DM, Lemckert AA, Vogels R, Custers JH, et al. Neutralizing antibodies to adenovirus serotype 5 vaccine vectors are directed primarily against the adenovirus hexon protein. 2005;174(11):7179–85. Immunol. 2005 Jun 1;
    1. Mast TC, Kierstead L, Gupta SB, Nikas AA, Kallas EG, et al. International epidemiology of human pre-existing adenovirus (Ad) type-5, type-6, type-26 and type-36 neutralizing antibodies: correlates of high Ad5 titers and implications for potential HIV vaccine trials. Vaccine. 2009;28:950–957.
    1. D'Souza MP, Frahm N. Adenovirus 5 serotype vector-specific immunity and HIV-1 infection: a tale of T cells and antibodies. Aids 2010 Mar 27. 8203;24(6):803–9. PMCD:20168203.
    1. Abbink P, Lemckert AAC, Ewald BA, Lynch DM, Denholtz M, et al. Comparative Seroprevalence and Immunogenicity of Six Rare Serotype Recombinant Adenovirus Vaccine Vectors from Subgroups B and D. J Virol. 2007;81:4654–4663.
    1. Letvin N. Moving Forward in HIV Vaccine Development. Science. 2009;326:1196–1198.

Source: PubMed

3
Tilaa