Back

Longitudinal phase 2 clinical trials of live, attenuated tularemia vaccine in otherwise healthy research laboratory workers operating in containment laboratories

Saunders, D. L.; Pierson, B. C.; Haller, J.; Norris, S. L.; Cardile, A. P.; Reisler, R. B.; Okwesili, A. C.; Boudreau, E.; Rusnak, J.; Danner, D. K.; Purcell, B. K.; Barth, J. F.; Tompkins, E. M.; Downs, I. L.; Liggett, D.; Pettit, P.; Pratt, T.; Goldberg, M.; Kortepeter, M. G.; Guerena, F. B.; Aldis, J. W.; Keshtkar, M.; Pittman, P. R.

2023-01-11 infectious diseases
10.1101/2023.01.09.23284371 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundTularemia is a bacterial disease caused by the intracellular bacterium Francisella tularensis (F. tularensis or Ft). It has been weaponized historically by multiple state actors due to its low infectious aerosol dose, high morbidity and high mortality rate of the pneumonic form. The US Army developed the attenuated Live Vaccine Strain (LVS) from stocks provided by the former Soviet Union in the 1950s. The vaccine has proven to be safe and immunogenic over the ensuing decades in numerous clinical trials and animal as well as human challenge studies. Despite the threat, there are no FDA-approved vaccines nor clinical stage candidates against tularemia. LVS remains unlicensed due to instability in culture and the potential for reversion to the wild-type pathogen. We report here two sequential LVS trials in at-risk laboratory personnel working on tularemia in bio-containment. MethodsVolunteers received a single dose of the Live Vaccine Strain (LVS) live, attenuated tularemia vaccine by scarification under 2 FDA-regulated non-randomized, single-arm protocols (IND 157). Positive immunization was based on local scarification site take reaction, and either a >1:20 tularemia antigen microagglutination (MA) titer (protocol FY03-24; 2004-8) or greater than 4-fold rise in MA titer (protocol FY07-15; 2009-2017). Those still negative by week 4 were offered a second dose. ResultsThe LVS vaccine was safe, well tolerated and highly immunogenic. Between the two studies, all recipients (100%) had positive take reactions, with 95.5% of those in study FY03-24 having a positive response following initial vaccination. All but 3 subjects (98%) in protocol FY03-24 had positive MA titer results defined as >1:20, most within 28-35 days. In protocol FY07-15, 95% of subjects had a 4-fold or greater rise in MA titer, the primary immunogenicity endpoint for that study. ConclusionsLVS vaccine administered to laboratory workers at risk for tularemia exposure over a 12 year period was safe and highly immunogenic. Findings were in line with more than 4 decades of prior similar results. Response rates remained robust despite the vaccine lots employed having been manufactured 2-3 decades prior to the present studies. In the absence of a commercial development effort, or another tularemia vaccine in clinical development, a vaccine protocol under investigational new drug (IND) application could be considered based on the large body of favorable data for this vaccine. The results as well as historical comparator data presented here should serve as a benchmark for future studies.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
134 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
17.2%
2
Vaccine
189 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
12.1%
3
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
378 papers in training set
Top 1%
6.7%
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 26%
6.7%
5
Vaccines
196 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
6.2%
6
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.6%
50% of probability mass above
7
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
120 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
3.5%
8
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.7%
9
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
182 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
10
Journal of Infection
71 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.9%
11
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.8%
12
Annals of Internal Medicine
27 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
13
New England Journal of Medicine
50 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.3%
14
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
15
Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.3%
16
Emerging Infectious Diseases
103 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
17
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 68%
1.1%
18
Clinical Microbiology and Infection
60 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.9%
19
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
20
Microbiology Spectrum
435 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
21
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.9%
22
Journal of Immunological Methods
24 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
23
The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
60 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
24
JCI Insight
241 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.8%
25
The Lancet Microbe
43 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
26
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
71 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
27
Bioengineering & Translational Medicine
21 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.7%
28
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.7%
29
Infectious Diseases and Therapy
18 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.7%
30
Journal of Infection and Chemotherapy
16 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.6%