Comparison of alternative buffers for use with a new live oral cholera vaccine, Peru-15, in outpatient volunteers

D A Sack, J Shimko, R B Sack, J G Gomes, K MacLeod, D O'Sullivan, D Spriggs, D A Sack, J Shimko, R B Sack, J G Gomes, K MacLeod, D O'Sullivan, D Spriggs

Abstract

During development of Peru-15, a new live oral vaccine for cholera, the role of buffer needed to be evaluated. Generally, oral bacterial vaccines are acid labile and need to be administered by using a formulation which protects them from gastric acid. We compared three different buffers for use with Peru-15, including a standard bicarbonate-ascorbic acid buffer, Alka-Seltzer, and a new electrolyte-rice buffer, CeraVacx. Saline served as the control. Thirty-nine healthy adult volunteers received Peru-15 (10(8) CFU) with one of the three buffers or saline in a double-masked study. The volunteers were monitored for symptoms for 7 days after the dose, serum was tested for antibody responses by vibriocidal antibody and immunoglobulin G antitoxin enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays, and stool samples were tested for excretion of the vaccine strain. Side effects were minimal in all groups. All 30 volunteers who took Peru-15 with a buffer showed significant rises in vibriocidal antibody titer. The magnitude of the rises was higher in the CeraVacx group than in the other two buffer groups. Four of nine volunteers who took the vaccine with saline also showed increased titers, but they were lower than those in any of the three buffer groups. Excretion of the vaccine strain was similar in the buffer groups, but excretion was not associated with the magnitude of the vibriocidal responses. Excretion of Peru-15 was not detected in the saline group. We conclude that buffer does amplify the serological response to Peru-15 and that CeraVacx may provide benefits not provided by other buffers.

References

    1. J Infect Dis. 1986 Jul;154(1):175-8
    1. J Infect Dis. 1996 Jun;173(6):1408-14
    1. Lancet. 1988 Aug 27;2(8609):467-70
    1. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1988 Sep;7(9):645-50
    1. Lancet. 1978 Oct 21;2(8095):856-9
    1. Lancet. 1978 Oct 21;2(8095):859-62
    1. J Infect Dis. 1989 Apr;159(4):766-9
    1. Vaccine. 1989 Jun;7(3):196-8
    1. Vaccine. 1990 Apr;8(2):153-8
    1. Vaccine. 1990 Dec;8(6):577-80
    1. Drugs. 1991 Apr;41(4):566-73
    1. J Infect Dis. 1991 Aug;164(2):407-11
    1. Lancet. 1991 Oct 26;338(8774):1055-9
    1. Vaccine. 1992;10(3):167-74
    1. Eur J Immunol. 1992 Sep;22(9):2277-81
    1. Scand J Immunol. 1993 Apr;37(4):452-8
    1. J Infect Dis. 1993 Jun;167(6):1446-9
    1. Immunopharmacol Immunotoxicol. 1993 Mar-Jun;15(2-3):251-72
    1. Vaccine. 1993 Sep;11(12):1179-84
    1. Immunology. 1993 Oct;80(2):197-203
    1. Vaccine. 1993 Oct;11(13):1316-20
    1. Infect Immun. 1994 Nov;62(11):4781-8
    1. Dev Biol Stand. 1994;82:215-27
    1. Lancet. 1994 Nov 5;344(8932):1273-6
    1. Infect Immun. 1995 May;63(5):1617-23
    1. Vaccine. 1995 Jan;13(1):22-8
    1. Vaccine. 1995 Apr;13(5):495-502
    1. Infect Immun. 1995 Sep;63(9):3731-5
    1. J Infect Dis. 1995 Oct;172(4):1126-9
    1. Bull Pan Am Health Organ. 1995 Dec;29(4):312-21
    1. Lancet. 1986 Jul 19;2(8499):124-7

Source: PubMed

3
Sottoscrivi