Safety and immunogenicity of new cell-cultured smallpox vaccine compared with calf-lymph derived vaccine: a blind, single-centre, randomised controlled trial
Name:
Publisher version
View Source
Access full-text PDFOpen Access
View Source
Check access options
Check access options
Authors
Greenberg, Richard N.Kennedy, Jeffrey S.
Clanton, David J.
Plummer, Elizabeth A.
Hague, Lynda
Cruz, John
Ennis, Francis A.
Blackwelder, William C.
Hopkins, Robert J.
UMass Chan Affiliations
Center for Infectious Disease and Vaccine ResearchDepartment of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases and Immunology
Document Type
Journal ArticlePublication Date
2005-01-29Keywords
ImmunityImmunology and Infectious Disease
Immunology of Infectious Disease
Infectious Disease
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
BACKGROUND: US government organisations have identified the need for a new smallpox vaccine to replenish limited stocks of the approved, calf-lymph derived vaccine, the manufacture of which is no longer acceptable. We aimed to compare the safety and immunogenicity of the new cell-cultured smallpox vaccine (CCSV) to that of the calf-lymph derived vaccine (as a positive control) in 350 healthy, adult volunteers. METHODS: We did a randomised controlled study at the University of Kentucky Medical Center. We randomised 150 vaccinia-naive volunteers, aged 18-30 years, and 100 vaccinia-non-naive people, aged 32-65 years, to equivalent doses of either CCSV or test vaccine (2.5x10(5) plaque-forming units) by 15 puncture scarification in double-blind fashion. Immunogenicity was assessed by pock formation (take rate), humoral immune response by plaque-reduction neutralisation titres, and cellular immune response by vaccinia-specific, interferon-gamma T-cell quantification, cytotoxicity, and T-cell proliferation response. A further 100 vaccine-naive individuals, aged 18-30 years, received one of five doses of CCSV (undiluted, diluted 1 in 5, 1 in 10, 1 in 25, and 1 in 50) in single-blind fashion. Routine laboratory assessments, physical examinations, and recording of adverse events were done to assess vaccine safety. The primary endpoints were safety and reactogenicity (take rate) of CCSV. FINDINGS: 349 (99.7%) of 350 volunteers developed pock lesions; one vaccinia-naive individual who received a 1 in 25 dilution of CCSV did not. The rate of adverse events related to vaccine and the extent of humoral and cellular immune responses did not differ between the vaccine groups in vaccinia-naive or non-naive people. CCSV was immunogenic in vaccine-naive volunteers at a dose 50 times lower than that approved for Dryvax. INTERPRETATION: CCSV seems to be a safe and immunogenic alternative to calf-lymph derived vaccine for both vaccinia-naive and non-naive people.Source
Lancet. 2005 Jan 29-Feb 4;365(9457):398-409. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)17827-1 Link to article on publisher's siteDOI
10.1016/S0140-6736(05)17827-1Permanent Link to this Item
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/35052PubMed ID
15680454Related Resources
Link to Article in PubMedae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.1016/S0140-6736(05)17827-1