A phase I double blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study of the safety and immunogenicity of an adjuvanted HIV-1 Gag-Pol-Nef fusion protein and adenovirus 35 Gag-RT-Int-Nef vaccine in healthy HIV-uninfected African adults
Omosa-Manyonyi G.,University of Nairobi |
Mpendo J.,Uganda Virus Research Institute IAVI |
Ruzagira E.,Medical Research Council MRC Uganda Virus Research Institute UVRI |
Ruzagira E.,Research Unit on AIDS |
And 24 more authors.
PLoS ONE | Year: 2015
Background: Sequential prime-boost or co-administration of HIV vaccine candidates based on an adjuvanted clade B p24, RT, Nef, p17 fusion protein (F4/AS01) plus a non-replicating adenovirus 35 expressing clade A Gag, RT, Int and Nef (Ad35-GRIN) may lead to a unique immune profile, inducing both strong T-cell and antibody responses. Methods: In a phase 1, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 146 healthy adult volunteers were randomized to one of four regimens: heterologous prime-boost with two doses of F4/AS01E or F4/AS01B followed by Ad35-GRIN; Ad35-GRIN followed by two doses of F4/AS01B; or three co-administrations of Ad35-GRIN and F4/AS01B. T cell and antibody responses were measured. Results: The vaccines were generally well-tolerated, and did not cause serious adverse events. The response rate, by IFN-γ ELISPOT, was greater when Ad35-GRIN was the priming vaccine and in the co-administration groups. F4/AS01 induced CD4+ T-cells expressing primarily CD40L and IL2 +/- TNF-α, while Ad35-GRIN induced predominantly CD8+ T-cells expressing IFN-γ +/- IL2 or TNF-α. Viral inhibition was induced after Ad35-GRIN vaccination, regardless of the regimen. Strong F4-specific antibody responses were induced. Immune responses persisted at least a year after the last vaccination. The complementary response profiles, characteristic of each vaccine, were both expressed after co-administration. Conclusion: Co-administration of an adjuvanted protein and an adenovirus vector showed an acceptable safety and reactogenicity profile and resulted in strong, multifunctional and complementary HIV-specific immune responses. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01264445. © 2015 Omosa-Manyonyi et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Source
Parkes-Ratanshi R.,Medical Research Council MRC Uganda Virus Research Institute UVRI |
Parkes-Ratanshi R.,Imperial College London |
Wakeham K.,Medical Research Council MRC Uganda Virus Research Institute UVRI |
Levin J.,Medical Research Council MRC Uganda Virus Research Institute UVRI |
And 9 more authors.
The Lancet Infectious Diseases | Year: 2011
Background: Cryptococcal disease remains an important cause of morbidity and mortality in HIV-infected individuals in sub-Saharan Africa, despite the introduction of antiretroviral therapy. We studied fluconazole as primary prophylaxis against cryptococcal disease in patients awaiting or starting antiretroviral therapy in Uganda. Methods: In this prospective, double-blind randomised controlled trial, we enrolled HIV-positive adults with CD4 counts less than 200 cells per μL, cryptococcal antigen (CrAg)-negative, naive for antiretroviral therapy, and coming from five local AIDS organisations in Masaka district, Uganda. Enrolment took place between Sept 14, 2004, and Feb 1, 2008. Participants were randomly allocated to placebo or 200 mg fluconazole three times per week (1:1) in blocks of 40. Randomisation was done with ralloc procedure in Stata. Participants were reviewed after 4 weeks and referred for antiretroviral therapy, then seen every 8 weeks. Participants discontinued trial treatment when CD4 counts reached 200 cells per μL (median 197 days). Primary endpoints were invasive cryptococcal disease and all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints were time to first episode and incidence of oesophageal candidosis, time to first episode and incidence of oropharyngeal or vaginal candidosis, and time to first hospital admission or death. The primary safety endpoint was cessation of trial drug because of transaminase concentrations higher than five times the upper limit of normal (ULN), or other major adverse events. Analyses were done by intention to treat and included all participants enrolled in the trial. Participants and researchers were masked to group assignment. This trial is registered with controlled-trials.com, number ISRCTN 76481529. Results: Of 1519 individuals enrolled, 760 participants received fluconazole and 759 received placebo. 19 developed cryptococcal disease, one in the fluconazole group and 18 in the placebo group (p=0·0001); adjusted HR (aHR) 18·7 (95% CI 2·5-140·7). One case of cryptococcal disease could be prevented by treating 44·6 patients with baseline CD4 counts lower than 200 cells per μL. Fluconazole was effective against cryptococcal disease both before (aHR=11·0 [1·4-85·3]) and after start of antiretroviral therapy (no cases in fluconazole vs seven cases on placebo). Seven participants died from cryptococcal disease, none in the fluconazole group. All-cause mortality (n=189) did not differ between the two groups (p=0·46). Fluconazole reduced the time to first episode of oesophageal, and oropharyngeal and vaginal candidosis, as well as the incidence of all candidosis (p<0·0001), but had no effect on hospital admission or death. The frequency of elevated transaminases (>5×ULN) was similar between groups (aHR=0·94 [0·65-1·35]). Conclusions: Fluconazole was safe and effective as primary prophylaxis against cryptococcal disease, both before and during early antiretroviral treatment. Cryptococcal infection was less common than anticipated because of the rapid commencement of antiretroviral therapy and exclusion of those with positive CrAg. In patients with negative CrAg on screening, fluconazole prophylaxis can prevent cryptococcal disease while waiting for and in the early weeks of antiretroviral therapy, particularly in those with CD4 counts of less than 100 cells per μL. Funding: Medical Research Council, UK, and Rockefeller Foundation. © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. Source