4.7 Article

Safety and Immunogenicity of a Live Attenuated Tetravalent Dengue Vaccine Candidate in Flavivirus-Naive Adults: A Randomized, Double-Blinded Phase 1 Clinical Trial

期刊

JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 212, 期 7, 页码 1032-1041

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jiv179

关键词

Dengue vaccine; live attenuated tetravalent; neutralizing antibody; viremia; clinical trial

资金

  1. Vaccine and Treatment Evaluation Units, NIAID, NIH [N01-AI25464]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Dengue viruses (DENVs) infect > 300 million people annually, causing 96 million cases of dengue disease and 22 000 deaths [ 1]. A safe vaccine that protects against DENV disease is a global health priority [ 2]. Methods. We enrolled 72 flavivirus-naive healthy adults in a phase 1 double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled dose-escalation trial (low and high dose) of a live attenuated recombinant tetravalent dengue vaccine candidate (TDV) given in 2 doses 90 days apart. Volunteers were followed for safety, vaccine component viremia, and development of neutralizing antibodies to the 4 DENV serotypes. Results. The majority of adverse events were mild, with no vaccine-related serious adverse events. Vaccinees reported injection site pain (52% vs 17%) and erythema (73% vs 25%) more frequently than placebo recipients. Low levels of TDV-serotype 2 (TDV-2), TDV-3, and TDV-4 viremia were observed after the first but not second administration of vaccine. Overall seroconversion rates and geometric mean neutralization titers after 2 doses were 84.2% and 54.1, respectively, for DENV serotype 1 (DENV-1); 92.1% and 292.8, respectively, for DENV-2; 86.8% and 32.3, respectively, for DENV-3; and 71.1% and 15.0, respectively, for DENV-4. More than 90.0% of high-dose recipients had trivalent or broader responses. Conclusions. TDV was generally well tolerated, induced trivalent or broader neutralizing antibodies to DENV in most flavivirus-naive vaccinees, and is undergoing further development.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据