Authors
Sarah Mische, Robert Orenstein, Erik R Dubberke, Sahil Khanna, Gail Hecht, Herbert Dupont, Christine Lee, Ken Blount
Publication date
2018/11
Journal
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
Volume
5
Issue
Suppl 1
Pages
S562
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Description
Background. Oral vaccines delivered as tablets offer several advantages over traditional injection-based vaccines including ease of distribution and administration as well as temperature-stable formulation options. Oral vaccination is also advantageous because it directly induces a strong mucosal response, which is thought to be critical for preventing future infections. Here we present results from a phase II clinical challenge study comparing efficacy of an oral recombinant adenovirus-based vaccine expressing hemagluttinin (HA) from A/California 04/09 to that of a commercial injectable quadrivalent (QIV) influenza vaccine.
Methods. In this 2016–2017 clinical trial (NCT02918006), subjects were immunized with either oral vaccine, QIV, or placebo and then challenged 90 days post-immunization with wildtype influenza A H1 virus to measure vaccine efficacy and durability. Protection was assessed by measuring changes in HAI titres, microneutralization, and IgA/IgG ASC assays. Additionally, exploratory flow cytometry evaluated quantitative and qualitative aspects of immunogenicity including markers of activation and mucosal homing on B cells. Analysis was performed on days 0 and 7 post-immunization and 0 and 6 days post-viral challenge. Plasmablasts sorted from PBMCs were then isolated for genomic DNA and sequenced for heavy chain receptor sequencing using NGS analysis. Results. Of the subjects immunized with Vaxart’s oral tablet vaccine, 48% were protected. QIV, by comparison, protected 38% of immunized individuals. Only 37% of Vaxart subjects developed influenza infection compared with 44% of QIV subjects and 71% of …
Total citations