A phase 1 randomized safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity study of Typhax: A novel protein capsular matrix vaccine candidate for the prevention of typhoid fever

Robert T Cartee, Ann Thanawastien, Thomas J Griffin Iv, John J Mekalanos, Stephan Bart, Kevin P Killeen, Robert T Cartee, Ann Thanawastien, Thomas J Griffin Iv, John J Mekalanos, Stephan Bart, Kevin P Killeen

Abstract

Background: Typhoid fever remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in developing countries especially in children ≤5 years old. Although the widely available unconjugated Vi polysaccharide vaccines are efficacious, they confer limited, short-term protection and are not approved for young children or infants. Vi conjugate vaccines, however, are now licensed in several typhoid endemic countries for use in children >6 months of age. As an alternative to conjugate vaccines, Matrivax has applied its novel 'virtual conjugation' Protein Capsular Matrix Vaccine (PCMV) technology to manufacture Typhax, which is composed of Vi polysaccharide entrapped in a cross-linked CRM197 matrix.

Methodology: A randomized, double-blinded, dose escalating Phase 1 study was performed to compare the safety and immunogenicity of three dose levels of aluminum phosphate adjuvanted Typhax (0.5, 2.5, or 10 μg of Vi antigen) to the FDA licensed vaccine, Typhim Vi, and placebo. Groups of 15 healthy adult subjects aged 18 to 55 years were randomized and received Typhax, Typhim Vi, or placebo at a ratio of 9:3:3. Typhax and placebo were administered in a two-dose regimen (Days 0 and 28) while Typhim Vi was administered as a single-dose on Day 0 with a placebo administered on Day 28. All doses were administered as a 0.5 mL intramuscular (IM) injection in a blinded fashion. The anti-Vi IgG antibody response was determined preimmunization (Day 0) and on Days 14, 28, 42, and 180 by ELISA. Seroconversion was defined as a titer 4-fold or greater above baseline.

Principal findings: All Typhax vaccine regimens were well tolerated and adverse events were low in number and primarily characterized as mild in intensity and similar in incidence across the treatment groups. Reactogenicity, primarily pain and tenderness at the injection site, was observed in both the Typhax and Typhim Vi treatment groups; a modest increase in incidence was observed with increasing Typhax doses. Following one dose of Typhax, seroconversion rates at day 28 were 12.5%, 77.8%, 66.7% at the 0.5, 2.5, and 10 μg dose levels, respectively, compared to 55.6% and 0% in the Typhim Vi and placebo groups, respectively. A second dose of Typhax on Day 28 did not elicit a significant increase in GMT or seroconversion at Day 42 or Day 180 at any dose level.

Conclusions: Collectively, the results from this randomized phase 1 clinical trial indicate that Typhax is safe, well tolerated, and immunogenic. After a single dose, Typhax at the 2.5 and 10 μg dose levels elicited comparable anti-Vi IgG titers and seroconversion rates as a single dose of Typhim Vi (25 μg dose). A second dose of Typhax at Day 28 did not elicit a booster response.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03926455.

Conflict of interest statement

I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: Robert Cartee, Ann Thanawastien, Tom Griffin and Kevin Killeen are all employees of Matrivax whereas John Mekalanos is a founder of Matrivax. Stephan Bart was an employee at Accelovance at the time of the Phase 1 trial and is currently affiliated with Trial Professionals Consulting Group Inc. Morningside Ventures was the Venture Capital Group that funded the Phase 1 clinical study.

Figures

Fig 1. Subject completion flow chart.
Fig 1. Subject completion flow chart.
Fig 2. Anti-Vi IgG titers of subjects…
Fig 2. Anti-Vi IgG titers of subjects immunized with Typhax, Typhim Vi or Placebo.
For Typhax groups, subjects were immunized on Day 0 and Day 28, whereas in the Typhim Vi group, subjects were immunized with Typhim Vi on Day 0 and a placebo on Day 28. Anti-Vi IgG titers were determined for each subject at Day 0, 14, 28, 42, and 180 and the individual titers represented by a symbol. The median titers of each group at each timepoint is shown by the box and the bars represent the 25th and 75th quartiles. Antibody titers for each vaccine group following the first immunization (Day 14 to Day 180) were compared over time using a paired ANOVA (Friedman’s test) with a Dunn’s multiple comparison post test. The line with an asterisk (*) indicates a significant difference in titers in the 10 μg dose group between the Day 14 and Day 180 in the post test (p value = 0.015).

References

    1. Stanaway JD, Reiner RC, Blacker BF, Goldberg EM, Khalil IA, Troeger CE, et al. The global burden of typhoid and paratyphoid fevers: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2019;19(4):369–81. 10.1016/S1473-3099(18)30685-6
    1. Kim J-H, Mogasale V, Im J, Ramani E, Marks F. Updated estimates of typhoid fever burden in sub-Saharan Africa. The Lancet Global Health. 2017;5(10):e969 10.1016/S2214-109X(17)30328-5
    1. Crump JA, Luby SP, Mintz ED. The global burden of typhoid fever. Bull World Health Organ. 2004;82(5):346–53.
    1. Sinha A, Sazawal S, Kumar R, Sood S, Reddaiah VP, Singh B, et al. Typhoid fever in children aged less than 5 years. The Lancet. 1999;354(9180):734–7.
    1. Saha S, Islam MS, Sajib MSI, Saha S, Uddin MJ, Hooda Y, et al. Epidemiology of Typhoid and Paratyphoid: Implications for Vaccine Policy. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2019;68(Supplement_2):S117–S23.
    1. Rowe B, Ward LR, Threlfall EJ. Multidrug-Resistant Salmonella typhi: A Worldwide Epidemic. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 1997;24(Supplement_1):S106–S9.
    1. Park SE, Pham DT, Boinett C, Wong VK, Pak GD, Panzner U, et al. The phylogeography and incidence of multi-drug resistant typhoid fever in sub-Saharan Africa. Nature Communications. 2018;9(1):5094 10.1038/s41467-018-07370-z
    1. Anwar E, Goldberg E, Fraser A, Acosta CJ, Paul M, Leibovici L. Vaccines for preventing typhoid fever. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2014(1).
    1. Fraser A, Paul M, Goldberg E, Acosta CJ, Leibovici L. Typhoid fever vaccines: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Vaccine. 2007;25(45):7848–57. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2007.08.027
    1. Milligan R, Paul M, Richardson M, Neuberger A. Vaccines for preventing typhoid fever. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2018(5).
    1. Robbins JD, Robbins JB. Reexamination of the Protective Role of the Capsular Polysaccharide (Vi antigen) of Salmonella typhi. The Journal of Infectious Diseases. 1984;150(3):436–49. 10.1093/infdis/150.3.436
    1. Mohan VK, Varanasi V, Singh A, Pasetti MF, Levine MM, Venkatesan R, et al. Safety and Immunogenicity of a Vi Polysaccharide–Tetanus Toxoid Conjugate Vaccine (Typbar-TCV) in Healthy Infants, Children, and Adults in Typhoid Endemic Areas: A Multicenter, 2-Cohort, Open-Label, Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Phase 3 Study. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2015;61(3):393–402. 10.1093/cid/civ295
    1. Chinnasami B, Mangayarkarasi V, Prema A, Sadasivam K, Davis M. Safety and Immunogenicity of Salmonella Typhi Vi conjugate vaccine (Peda Typh) in children up to five years. International Journal of Scientific Research Publications. 2013;3(2):1–5.
    1. Sahastrabuddhe S, Saluja T. Overview of the Typhoid Conjugate Vaccine Pipeline: Current Status and Future Plans. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2019;68(Supplement_1):S22–S6.
    1. Kossaczka Z, Lin FY, Ho VA, Thuy NT, Van Bay P, Thanh TC, et al. Safety and immunogenicity of Vi conjugate vaccines for typhoid fever in adults, teenagers, and 2- to 4-year-old children in Vietnam. Infect Immun. 1999;67(11):5806–10.
    1. Szu SC, Taylor DN, Trofa AC, Clements JD, Shiloach J, Sadoff JC, et al. Laboratory and preliminary clinical characterization of Vi capsular polysaccharide-protein conjugate vaccines. Infection and Immunity. 1994;62(10):4440–4.
    1. Thiem VD, Lin F-YC, Canh DG, Son NH, Anh DD, Mao ND, et al. The Vi Conjugate Typhoid Vaccine Is Safe, Elicits Protective Levels of IgG Anti-Vi, and Is Compatible with Routine Infant Vaccines. Clinical and Vaccine Immunology. 2011;18(5):730–5. 10.1128/CVI.00532-10
    1. Canh DG, Lin F-y, Thiem VD, Trach DD, Trong ND, Mao ND, et al. Effect of Dosage on Immunogenicity of a Vi Conjugate Vaccine Injected Twice into 2- to 5-Year-Old Vietnamese Children. Infection and Immunity. 2004;72(11):6586–8. 10.1128/IAI.72.11.6586-6588.2004
    1. Giannini G, Rappuoli R, Ratti G. The amino-acid sequence of two non-toxic mutants of diphtheria toxin: CRM45 and CRM197. Nucleic Acids Res. 1984;12(10):4063–9. 10.1093/nar/12.10.4063
    1. Pichichero ME. Protein carriers of conjugate vaccines: characteristics, development, and clinical trials. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2013;9(12):2505–23. 10.4161/hv.26109
    1. van Damme P, Kafeja F, Anemona A, Basile V, Hilbert AK, De Coster I, et al. Safety, Immunogenicity and Dose Ranging of a New Vi-CRM197 Conjugate Vaccine against Typhoid Fever: Randomized Clinical Testing in Healthy Adults. PLOS ONE. 2011;6(9):e25398 10.1371/journal.pone.0025398
    1. Capeding MR, Teshome S, Saluja T, Syed KA, Kim DR, Park JY, et al. Safety and immunogenicity of a Vi-DT typhoid conjugate vaccine: Phase I trial in Healthy Filipino adults and children. Vaccine. 2018;36(26):3794–801. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.05.038
    1. Thanawastien A, Cartee RT, Griffin TJt, Killeen KP, Mekalanos JJ. Conjugate-like immunogens produced as protein capsular matrix vaccines. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112(10):E1143–51. 10.1073/pnas.1425005112
    1. Griffin TJt, Thanawastien A, Cartee RT, Mekalanos JJ, Killeen KP. In vitro characterization and preclinical immunogenicity of Typhax, a typhoid fever protein capsular matrix vaccine candidate. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2019; 15(6):1310–6.
    1. Wood KL. The medical dictionary for drug regulatory affairs (MEDDRA) project. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety. 1994;3(1):7–13.
    1. Frey A, Di Canzio J, Zurakowski D. A statistically defined endpoint titer determination method for immunoassays. Journal of Immunological Methods. 1998;221(1):35–41.
    1. Micoli F, Rondini S, Pisoni I, Proietti D, Berti F, Costantino P, et al. Vi-CRM 197 as a new conjugate vaccine against Salmonella Typhi. Vaccine. 2011;29(4):712–20. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2010.11.022
    1. Jin C, Gibani MM, Moore M, Juel HB, Jones E, Meiring J, et al. Efficacy and immunogenicity of a Vi-tetanus toxoid conjugate vaccine in the prevention of typhoid fever using a controlled human infection model of Salmonella Typhi: a randomised controlled, phase 2b trial. The Lancet. 2017;390(10111):2472–80.
    1. Acharya IL, Lowe CU, Thapa R, Gurubacharya VL, Shrestha MB, Cadoz M, et al. Prevention of Typhoid Fever in Nepal with the VI Capsular Polysaccharide of Salmonella Typhi. New England Journal of Medicine. 1987;317(18):1101–4. 10.1056/NEJM198710293171801
    1. Keitel WA, Bond NL, Zahradnik JM, Cramton TA, Robbins JB. Clinical and serological responses following primary and booster immunization with Salmonella typhi Vi capsular polysaccharide vaccines. Vaccine. 1994;12(3):195–9. 10.1016/0264-410x(94)90194-5
    1. Micoli F, Costantino P, Adamo R. Potential targets for next generation antimicrobial glycoconjugate vaccines. FEMS Microbiology Reviews. 2018;42(3):388–423. 10.1093/femsre/fuy011
    1. Anderson P, Pichichero M, Insel R, Farsad P, Santosham M. Capsular Antigens Noncovalently or Covalently Associated with Protein as Vaccines to Haemophilus influenzae Type b: Comparison in Two-Year-Old Children. The Journal of Infectious Diseases. 1985;152(3):634–6. 10.1093/infdis/152.3.634

Source: PubMed

3
订阅